בראשית

The Descent or Ascent of Man?

The story of the Garden of Eden is one of the most cryptic and enigmatic in the Torah which has led to wide ranging interpretations over its symbolism and meaning.

A common view is that man's spiritual status was tainted by the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. This takes its most forceful expression in the Christian doctrine of the Original Sin in which humanity exists in a state of sin ever since.[1] In its milder form, whereby the emphasis is on the tendency to sin rather than automatic guilt, various counterparts can be found in Jewish mystical thought.[2] On the rational end of the spectrum, Rambam understood the sin as resulting in a weakening of the intellect giving rise to a world of moral ambiguity governed by social norms.[3] Ibn Ezra on the other hand, saw it more specifically as awakening the sexual desire.[4]

The underlying basis of these approaches is that eating of the Tree of Knowledge was prohibited by God and therefore may be assumed to have resulted in some form of spiritual impairment. There is no doubt that the story presents the archetype sin between man and God, and this element cannot be ignored.[5] Nevertheless, there appears to be an inevitability in the story which ought to modify, or at least supplement, our perception of the 'sin' and its consequences.

Did God anticipate that man would eat from the Tree of Knowledge?

To address this question, it is necessary to look back at the description of man in Chapter 1. Day 6 of creation already has man and woman created together with the instruction (or blessing) to be fruitful and multiply. This is surprising as the creation of woman and the process of childbirth described in Chapter 2 are reported as consequential developments; the need for man to have a companion in the case of the former, and replacement for immortality, in the latter. Much ink has been spilt on dealing with the inconsistencies between Chapters 1 and 2 and that is not the topic of this post. For our purposes I mention this point simply to highlight the fact that the developments in Chapter 2 are hardly unexpected and the regression from Chapter 1 creates an atmosphere of inevitability.

More significantly though, is the internal evidence within Chapter 2 that man was not destined to stay in the Garden:

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר ה' אלוקים עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה׃ (בראשית ב:ה)

The implied purpose of man in Chapter 2 is to work the land without which there could be no vegetation. Sure enough, following the above verse we find that man was created:

וַיִּיצֶר ה' אלוקים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ (בראשית ב:ז)

Yet much to our surprise, Adam is not left to cultivate the land. Instead, he is transferred to the Garden of Eden where everything is ready grown and fully developed. God himself has planted the garden, by virtue of which it will become known as ’God’s garden’.[6] Adam's task is now merely to maintain the pristine condition of the garden: 

וַיִּטַּע ה' אלוקים גַּן־בְעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת־הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר׃ וַיִּקַּח ה' אלוקים אֶת־הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן־עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ׃ )בראשית ב:ח(

This narrow plane of existence clearly diverges from man's broader purpose as implied in the earlier verse. When Adam is eventually banished from the Garden he returns to his original mandate:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אלוקים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע וְעַתָּה פֶּן־יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים וְאָכַל וָחַי לְעֹלָם׃ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ ה' אלוקים מִגַּן־עֵדֶן לַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח מִשָּׁם׃ (בראשית ג:כב)

The words אשר לקח משם can be read in two possible ways. Either it is geographical in the sense that Adam is returned to the original place he was taken from (thus undoing God's act of 'taking' him when he was transferred to the Garden – see verse 2:8 above). Alternatively, it is descriptive of man's essence; God returns him to the location of the matter he was made (lit. taken) from (see verse 3:19). Under either interpretation, the implication is that man's natural habitat is on Earth as we know it rather than a celestial garden.[7]

If the return to the raw undeveloped world is an inevitable consequence, the natural conclusion is that the purpose of the story is to address why man is led through a life of struggle on Earth and not placed in the blissful Garden from the outset. It informs us why Eden – though it may be an ultimate destination – is not the departure point in life.

The image of God derived from the Tree of Knowledge

As mentioned, many classic commentators consider the Tree of Knowledge to have lowered the status of man from his borderline angelic standing. However, the inevitability of the outcome suggests a more positive reading in which it is specifically via the Tree of Knowledge that man discovers his uniqueness.

Consider the status of man before the sin. The lifeforce (נשמת חיים) breathed into man in Chapter 2 is what turns him into a 'נפש חיה'. In Chapter 1 this is precisely the term used to describe the animal kingdom:

וַיֹּאמֶר אלוקים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ (בראשית א:כד)

The distinguishing feature of man, so strikingly referred to in Chapter 1 as the צלם אלוקים, is glaringly absent in the description of man at the start of Chapter 2. The breath of life he receives merely puts him on par with the animals. It is therefore unsurprising that in seeking a soulmate the animals are considered in contention at first and the snake is portrayed as conversing and competing with Eve. The lack of shame at being naked produces another commonality as only an animal, or small child, lacking in self-awareness, would possess no such shame: 

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃ (בראשית ב:כה)

It is against this backdrop that we need to reconsider the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge. The form of knowledge represented by the tree is described in a neutral manner as comprising the 'knowledge of good and bad'. Where the phrase is used elsewhere in the Torah it refers to a child who cannot conceptually distinguish between good and bad:

וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע הֵמָּה יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנָּה וְהֵם יִירָשׁוּהָּ׃ (דברים א:לט)

The ability to evaluate actions as either good or bad is predicated on a sophisticated self-awareness enabling one to contemplate one's own actions from the outside and engage in self-evaluation. Someone who lacks a sense of self has no means of perceiving their actions as either good or bad as they do not observe themselves separate to the environment.[8] They may have desires and feelings, but their responses are governed by instincts. The consequence is that such a person or thing lacks personal autonomy in the true sense as they do not identify their independent self. Conversely, only God as a result of His transcendence (not being contained within any other environment) can be regarded as perfectly autonomous.[9]

When the verse imputes God as saying that eating from the tree will make man 'like one of us', the meaning is that man will obtain that Godly quality of autonomy. Indeed, after eating from the tree they immediately sense their nakedness and are ashamed, a seemingly insignificant discovery, but highly symbolic of their newly acquired sense of self:

וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת׃ (בראשית ג:ז)

As an objective observer of one's own thoughts one can potentially make the necessary inferences to identify other autonomous agents and attribute one's own mental states (goals, intentions, beliefs, desires, feelings etc) to them. It facilitates the recognition of the 'other' and cognition of one's relationships with them.[10] Taking this one step further, self-awareness, and particularly self-reflection, becomes the gateway to God-awareness.   

This perspective corresponds well with the view of R. Yehudah who associates the Tree with the development of language and identity in a child:

אִילָן שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: גֶּפֶן הָיָה, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמֵּבִיא יְלָלָה עַל הָאָדָם אֶלָּא יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן הַיַּיִן וַיִּשְׁכָּר״. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: תְּאֵנָה הָיְתָה, שֶׁבַּדָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בּוֹ נִתַּקְּנוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חִטָּה הָיְתָה, שֶׁאֵין הַתִּינוֹק יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת ״אַבָּא״ וְ״אִמָּא״ עַד שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם טַעַם דָּגָן. (ברכות מ.)

For Adam and Eve, who had no biological parents, recognition of parent corresponds to recognition of God. Indeed, it is only after eating from the Tree that we see an awareness of God on the part of man (albeit in immature form) as they try to hide from God. Prior to this point there is no explicit dialogue.[11]   

What emerges from this is that eating from the Tree of Knowledge corresponds with the acquisition of the image of God. What was originally presented as the crowning glory of man in Chapter 1, is recast as a forbidden product of the Tree of Knowledge in Chapters 2 and 3.

This dual perspective presents the double-edged sword of being made in God's image. The climax of the six days of creation is the creation of a micro-creator who can imitate God's creative power on earth. In the creation story, the seventh day is when God steps back and hands over the reins to man. By exercising this power, he can become a partner with God and continue God's work. On the other hand, as an autonomous agent, man also competes with God. On the extreme, this can manifest in active denial of God,[12] but on a subtler level, the very notion of the self, creates inherent tension with God's unity. In order to create man in the image of God, He had to create philosophical space to enable his existence. In more practical terms, self-awareness facilitates the very notion of sin as, without knowledge of the self, concepts of good and bad are meaningless. For this reason, the acquisition of man's autonomy is allegorised in Chapter 2 as a story of sin as it is the source of sin itself.

Physical change vs self-discovery

Notwithstanding the symbolism of the Tree of Knowledge as described above, it does not seem to be the physical effect of the fruit alone through which man obtains his distinction. Rather, the innate but subconscious human need for self-autonomy is already reflected in the physical desire to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and is the very basis of man's attraction to it.

This means that the change of man's perspective after eating of the Tree is as much a consequence of a process of self-discovery from the act of sin itself, as it is the result of a physical change derived from the quality of the fruit. The rebellion within the story symbolises the discovery, and simultaneously the assertion, of the self. It is akin to a child that seeks to do something against their parent's wishes simply for the sake of asserting their independence. In the real world, the child's desire for self-autonomy will be expressed in an external object or event – they will want a certain thing which the parent will not provide, or to do something which the parent will not permit. In Genesis Chapters 2 and 3, however, the Torah exposes the raw spirit of humanity and therefore the object of desire represented by the Tree, is autonomy itself. 

To refine the earlier point, man is not identical to beast in Chapters 2 and 3 but is at the start of a journey of self-discovery as every child makes in life.[13] The Torah speaks the story of the elevation of man over animal through the model of a child maturing into an adult. At the onset of humanity, man undergoes a journey to discover his essence and uniqueness as he gradually steps out of his shell of naivety. By the end of the story he has become a fully conscious being and distinguished himself entirely from the animal kingdom.[14] He is now ready to leave God's garden to develop his own garden.

Knowledge of life

Based on the above it is understandable why the various consequences which Adam and Eve are informed about, are the key facts of life which a child is initially unaware of (but gradually acquires knowledge of): hard work required to produce food/provide sustenance; process and pain of childbirth; and, knowledge of one's own mortality.

הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּךְ׃ (בראשית ג:טז)

בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ כִּי־עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל־עָפָר תָּשׁוּב׃ (בראשית ג:יט)

Knowledge of these categories is indicative of a deep self-awareness as they cover the scope and boundaries of human life and potential. Cultivating land to produce vegetation and giving birth are the closest natural equivalents to God's own acts of creation, and death is the ultimate reminder of where the God-likeness ends. Man can create life but he himself is ultimately finite. Internalisation of these fundamentals is the pinnacle of self-awareness.

Quite remarkably, agriculture and food preparation, the central themes in our passage, are almost uniquely human traits.[15] The contrast with the snake which eats of the 'dust of the earth' is one of sophistication - raw versus prepared food. However, it is the cognition of these distinctions by Adam and Eve which are perhaps more important than the distinctions themselves. This cognitive aspect is reflective of the self-knowledge represented by the Tree of Knowledge. It is the creativity as well as the conscious enjoyment which the snake is deprived of.

In summary, the Tree of Knowledge represents the self-awareness which facilitates moral choice and God-consciousness. Simultaneously, this creates a need for self-realisation which is achieved through secondary acts of creation. Prohibiting access to the Tree of Knowledge is to separate man from his essence and therefore the 'sin' is inevitable. Without it, life is meaningless, even if one is immortal.

Continuing the symbolism of the Garden of Eden, the paradox of life is that man prefers to plant his own garden rather than live in God's garden. This causes man to suffer and is the source of sin, but it is also the reflection of the Divine image within him.

 

---

[1] 'The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and works to faith and calling upon God' - Art. X, Free Will of the Thirty-nine Articles. 

The Torah commentary of R. Joseph Hertz (p.196) is at pains to emphasise Judaism's rejection of this doctrine:

One searches in vain the Prayer Book, of even the days of Penitence, for the slightest echo of the doctrine of the Fall of man. 'My God, the soul which Thou hast given me is pure,' is the Jew's daily morning prayer. 'Even as the soul is pure when entering upon its earthly career, so can man return it pure to his Maker' (Midrash).

[2] According to Nefesh HaChaim (R. Chaim Volozhin 1749-1821) the knowledge of good and bad vested in the Tree resulted in the conflation of good and bad within man. Needless to say, this assumes a wholly negative outcome:  

והענין כי קודם החטא. עם כי ודאי שהיה בעל בחירה גמור להטות עצמו לכל אשר יחפוץ להטיב או להיפך ח''ו. כי זה תכלית כוונת כלל הבריאה. וגם כי הרי אח''כ חטא. אמנם לא שהיה ענין בחירתו מחמת שכחות הרע היו כלולים בתוכו. כי הוא היה אדם ישר לגמרי כלול רק מסדרי כחות הקדושה לבד. וכל עניניו היו כולם ישרים קדושים ומזוככים טוב גמור. בלי שום עירוב ונטי' לצד ההיפך כלל. וכחות הרע היו עומדים לצד וענין בפ''ע חוץ ממנו. והיה בעל בחירה ליכנס אל כחות הרע ח''ו כמו שהאדם הוא בעל בחירה ליכנס אל תוך האש. לכן כשרצה הס''א להחטיאו הוצרך הנחש לבא מבחוץ לפתוח. לא כמו שהוא עתה שהיצר המפתה את האדם הוא בתוך האדם עצמו. ומתדמה להאדם שהוא עצמו הוא הרוצה ונמשך לעשות העון ולא שאחר חוץ ממנו מפתהו.

ובחטאו שנמשך אחר פתוי הס''א. אז נתערבו הכחות הרע בתוכו ממש. וכן בהעולמות. וזהו עץ הדעת טו''ר. שנתחברו ונתערבו בתוכו ובהעולמות הטוב והרע יחד זה בתוך זה ממש. כי דעת פי' התחברות כידוע. והענין מבואר למבין בע''ח שער קליפת נוגה פ''ב אלא שקיצר שם בענין. ועיין היטב בגלגולים פ''א. וזשרז''ל כשבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא. ר''ל בתוכה ממש. ומאז גרם עי''ז ערבוביא גדולה במעשיו. שכל מעשי האדם המה בערבוביא והשתנות רבות מאד. פעם טוב ופעם רע. ומתהפך תמיד מטוב לרע ומרע לטוב. (נפש החיים שער א' פ"ו בהג"ה)

[3] Guide for the Perplexed (1:2):

Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance… "It would at first sight," said the objector, "appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam's disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his nature was changed for the better, and he was made to shine as a star in the heavens…

Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that "man was created in the form and likeness of God." On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: "And the Lord God commanded Adam" (Gen. 2:16)--for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. (M Friedlander translation)

Rambam goes on to describe how this faculty was lost in the process of the sin not just as a result of eating itself. This point will be discussed later on.

[4] Ibn Ezra (3:7)

[5] Hertz (ibid) describes it as follows:

Chapter III is one of the most beautiful in the Bible. It has been called 'pearl of Genesis', and men read with wonder its profound psychology of temptation and conscience. With unsurpassable art, it shows the beginning, the progress and the culmination of temptation and the consequences of sin. It depicts the earliest tragedy in the life of each human soul – the loss of man's happy, natural relation with God through deliberate disobedience of the voice of conscience, the voice of God. 'Every man who knows his own heart, knows that the story is true; it is the story of his own fall. Adam is man, and his story is ours’ (McFayden).

[6]

וַיִּשָּׂא־לוֹט אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת־כָּל־כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת ה׳ אֶת־סְדֹם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן־ה' כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר׃ (בראשית יג:י)

כִּי־נִחַם ה' צִיּוֹן נִחַם כָּל־חָרְבֹתֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן־ה' שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה׃ (ישעיה נא:ג)                                                                                                                                            

[7] See Jonathan Grossman, Creation: The Story of Beginnings, p80-107 (Hebrew) for a similar analysis with further discussion and sources. 

[8] Modern psychology refers to this as Self-Awareness Theory. In its basic form, it is the idea that ‘you are not your thoughts, but the entity observing your thoughts; you are the thinker, separate and apart from your thoughts’ (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). The extent to which this attribute exists in parts of the animal kingdom is highly contentious. In any event, even if there is some form of sliding scale of consciousness, there appears to be a world of difference between recognising one's reflection in a mirror (the so-called MSR test) and the self-awareness in a human.

[9] The approach is similar but not identical to the Ramban (2:9):

והיפה בעיני כי האדם היה עושה בטבעו מה שראוי לעשות כפי התולדת כאשר יעשו השמים וכל צבאם פועלי אמת שפעולתם אמת ולא ישנו את תפקידם ואין להם במעשיהם אהבה או שנאה ופרי האילן הזה היה מוליד הרצון והחפץ שיבחרו אוכליו בדבר או בהפכו לטוב או לרע ולכן נקרא "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" כי הַ"דַּעַת" יאמר בלשוננו על הרצון כלשונם (פסחים ו) לא שנו אלא שדעתו לחזור ושדעתו לפנותו ובלשון הכתוב (תהלים קמד ג) מָה אָדָם וַתֵּדָעֵהוּ תחפוץ ותרצה בו יְדַעְתִּיךָ בְשֵׁם (שמות לג יב) בחרתיך מכל האדם וכן מאמר ברזילי האדע בין טוב לרע שאבד ממנו כח הרעיון לא היה בוחר בדבר ולא קץ בו והיה אוכל מבלי שיטעם ושומע מבלי שיתענג בשיר והנה בעת הזאת לא היה בין אדם ואשתו המשגל לתאוה אבל בעת ההולדה יתחברו ויולידו ולכן היו האיברים כלם בעיניהם כפנים והידים ולא יתבוששו בהם והנה אחרי אכלו מן העץ היתה בידו הבחירה וברצונו להרע או להטיב בין לו בין לאחרים וזו מדה אלהית מצד אחד ורעה לאדם בהיות לו בה יצר ותאוה

Nechama Leibowitz (Studies in Genesis, 3:25) interprets R. Bahya (whose explanation is almost identical with the Ramban) as associating the Tree with the onset of conscious desire. It is not clear to me, however, that this is the intent of either R. Bahya or the Ramban who seem to include the acquisition of sensory experience in the shift from the pre-sin state of man. Nevertheless, they see this as part of the process of obtaining free will and view it as a potentially positive attribute.

[10] In a human, this stage of development (known as Theory of Mind) is associated with the development of language. This is particularly interesting in light of R. Yehuda's statement. 

Admittedly, Adam’s naming of the animals already indicates a comprehension of separate identities even prior to the sin. This overlap between the pre and post-sin state is discussed in the next section. 

[11] The centrality of self-awareness is also reflected in the cosmological view of the Rambam where each of the spheres are conscious of 'themselves', and conscious of the First Cause/God (and the separate intellect/angel which emanated them). See Yesodei HaTorah 3:9.  

[12] R. Kook writes about this in Shemonah Kvatzim (see 1:129)

[13] R. Mordecai Breuer (Pirkei Mo'adot I. p. 113) also applies the maturing child model. Avivah Zornberg (cited Grossman) notes that since Adam and Eve did not have biological parents, God is the parent in the story who experiences the parental conflict inherent in fostering a child’s independence on the one hand, and separating from them on the other. 

[14] Interestingly, the interaction with the animal kingdom remains until the aftermath of the flood and then disappears almost entirely.

[15] There are some very small exceptions when it comes to farming – see http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150105-animals-that-grow-their-own-food. Cooking is entirely unique to humans – https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121026-human-cooking-evolution-raw-food-health-science/