Rashi explained, Eve added to G-d's prohibition of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge and said He also prohibited from touching it. Because this assertion was false it caused damage... because the Serpent pushed Eve into the Tree of Knowledge and when he showed her that she was not harmed by touching it, he said, Just like you didn't die by touching it you will not die by eating it.
This needs further explanation. Because it is clear that Eve did not add to G-d's command on her own. Because if she had it makes no sense that the Serpent was able to persuade her by pushing her. Because if she had originated the addition then she would also know that G-d had not prohibited touching the Tree of Knowledge.
Therefore the correct understanding is that which is found in Avos D'Rabbi Nossan (1:35) that Adam was the one who made up this protective prohibition on his own. "Adam did not want to tell Eve exactly what G-d had said to him. Rather he added an additional restriction to what G-d had said...That is because he wanted to protect himself and Eve from the Tree - even to the degree of merely touching it."
In other words Adam failed to tell Eve that not touching it was his own prohibition - not G-d's. Consequently Eve that not touching and not eating the Tree of Knowledge were both G-d's prohibitions. Therefore when the Serpent pushed her into the Tree of Knowledge and she realized nothing happened when transgressing what she thought was G-d's prohibition - she was ready to accept the claim of the Serpent that she would not die by eating it.
Consequently the sin of Adam was not in his making of an additional prohibition beyond that which G-d had said. In fact the opposite is true. It was in fact a good idea to make an additional prohibition just as we find that our Sages made additional protective decrees for many Torah prohibitions.
The problem was the fact that Adam failed to tell Eve what G-d had actually prohibited and what he had added himself as a protective measure. Eve's serious mistake followed from this.
Is there a chol hamoed shiur this year?
ReplyDeleteNo. He doesn't have time this year
ReplyDeletethis is a very nice Chiddush, because Avot D'Rabbi Nathan brings it as a criticism and an example of the prohibition of adding! If it is permitted to say this, The Avot 'Drabbi Nathan gives strength to the Tsedukkim, whilst Rav Yaakov sees that problem and gives it a chiddush to its meaning.
ReplyDeleteRemember also, that Rambam paskens that if we call a fence a D'Oraita (which was part of the misunderstanding of Adam /Chava) then it is oiver the prohibition of Bal Toseef.
In my sefer ואתה תחזה I write that Adam prohibited touching the fruit and told this to Chava. But Chava added to the prohibition saying that it was forbidden to touch the tree! This enabled the Nachash to push her into the tree (it would have been harder to push her into the fruit). This way we can see that she was גוזר a גזרה לגזרה.
ReplyDeletehow do you know this?
ReplyDeleteIsn't a sin only punished when the intent and action line up? That's the whole idea of a City of Refuge. The killer is not a murderer because the killer lacked intent.
ReplyDeleteEve was pushed into the Tree. She had no intent of touching it. Perhaps we could say that on some level she was complicit by just hanging out with Snake and conveniently putting herself in a position to be pushed. Still, when push comes to shove, it seems she acted involuntarily.
Furthermore, even if we say that Adam failed to tell Eve that touching the Tree was a D'rabanon, would he have gone so far as to say that violating a D'rabanon is punished by death? I don't think so. Yet a plain reading of the Chumash seems to indicate that she is telling Snake that touching is punishable by death.
One more point. It seems illogical that there would be a D'orysa that eating from, and also touching, the Tree are both punishable by death. Is it possible to eat without touching? Unless we interpret touching to mean only touching with hands. But if touching is only touching with the hands, we are led back to Eve being pushed, and presumably not necessarily touching with her hands.
she thought that touching had been prohibited by G-d and that violating His command was punishable by death. Adam didn't tell her that he made up the prohibition of touching.
ReplyDeleteShe was told that any contact with with Tree was violating G-d's command
who?
ReplyDeleterav yakovs question still stands!!
ReplyDelete"Because it is clear that Eve did not add to G-d's command on her own. Because if she had it makes no sense that the Serpent was able to persuade her by pushing her. Because if she had originated the addition then she would also know that G-d had not prohibited touching the Tree of Knowledge."
Rav Meir Triebitz
ReplyDeleteBut don't we say that Snake forced Eve to touch the Tree? Did Eve believe that she was going to be held responsible for a sin she was physically coerced into doing?
ReplyDeleteThe following is a quote from my recently published sefer, ואתה תחזה על ספר בראשית:
ReplyDeleteלא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו (ג' ג'). כפי שכבר הזכירה חוה עצמה בפסוק הקודם ואמרה מפרי עץ הגן נאכל, ונתכוונה בדבריה לכך שמתחילה לא היה להם היתר אכילה בשאר כל אילן ואילן כי אם הפירות לבדם אבל לא העלים ושאר חלקי העץ, כך גם כשנאסרו באכילה מעץ זה לא היה האיסור אלא על הפירות, כמדוייק בדבריה שאמרה לא תאכלו ממנו ולא אמרה לא תאכלו אותו, שלא היה צורך לאיסור מיוחד על עציו וענפיו, כיון שבדבר זה לא הותרו באכילה בשום אילן:
כיון שהיה אסורים באכילת הפירות ראוי היה שיהיה סייג ואיסור נגיעה בפירותיו דייקא, אבל הִרחיקה חוה יותר מדי ואמרה שאף אסורה עליהם הנגיעה בו, היינו בכל העץ, אלא שכל המוסיף גורע, כי דיבורה הלזה היה פֶּתח לנחש שדְחָפָהּ עד שנגעה בו, כמובא ברש"י על פסוק הבא, וכך הוכיח לה שאין מיתה בנגיעה. אבל אילו היה הגדר רק שלא ליגע בפירות, היה הדבר מקשה על הנחש שלא היה יכול לדחפה עד שתיגע בפירות, מה גם שבדרך כלל פירות האילן גבוהים:
ונראה, שאכן לא ציווה הקב"ה את האדם אלא על מניעה מאכילת הפירות, אבל כשמסר אדם לחוה את ציווי הבורא, הוסיף מעצמו וגָדַר בעדה אף את נגיעת הפירות, וחוה מעצמה הוסיפה אף את איסור הנגיעה בעץ:
והנה כתב השפתי חכמים (על רש"י פסוק ד' ד"ה לא מות תמותון אות ג') שבשעה שציווה האדם לחוה הזהיר אותה אף על הנגיעה, אולם לפי דבריו לא נוכל להלום על בוריים את דברי רש"י כאן וז"ל הוסיפה על הציווי, עכ"ל, שלפי דבריו היה לו לומר הוסיף על הציווי, לשון זכר, שהרי לפי דבריו, אדם הוא זה שהוסיף ולא חוה. אבל לפי מה שפרשתי הלשון מדויקת:
ומזה לומדים שאין עושים גדר לגדר וגזירה לגזירה אלא אם כן עשו כל הסייגים בבת אחת, כדי שנדע בבירור מה הוא הדבר שעליו נצטווינו על ידי הקב"ה:
The Mahral discusses your question. He is also bothered by how Chava knew that touching the tree wouldn't kill her even after the snake pushed her into the tree. If when she and Adam actually ate, they still lived for about 1,000 years, then how would the snake have proven to her that nothing happens if she touches it?
ReplyDeleteIt's in Gur Aryeh on those Pesukim.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to go along with Rav Yaakov, then even the prohibition invented by Adam is 'd'oraita, since there is an issur of Lo Tasur
ReplyDeleteTo claim it was a good idea to add, is similar to claiming it was a good idea for European Jews to stay put before and during the holocaust.
This is in fact one of statements which points to the counterproductive nature of certain man made issurim. Raavad takes issue with Rambam on the question of whether BD greater in number and wisdom is required to cancel a gezeira.