Friday, November 18, 2022

What was Adam's sin? to live as man or angel

Madreigas haadam ch 1):The issue of the nature of the Tree of Knowledge according to how we picture it is very difficult to understand. How is possible that Adam the greatest of G-d’s creation  who contained all the souls of mankind    - should transgress a direct command from G-d on the very same day that he received the command? This is especially difficult since he knew that the punishment for disobedience would be death – this is something that none of us – with our poor intellects would even think of doing. Even according to the view of the Rambam that the basis of the sin was a mistake – this requires clarification – How could he come to making such an error since before the Sin his mind was purely rational without any material influence – so how could he make an intellectual error? If you accept that this created nature made it impossiblr to err regarding good and evil but only regarding truth and lies, what was he supposed to do if in fact the error was about truth? Furthermore how did the sepent mislead Eve what was her error? It is inconceivable that she believed the sepent’s assertion that she would not die more than G-d Who said she would die? What was her response to the serpent saying that they might die when in fact He said they would certainly die?
Knowledge of evil is of two types. The first type does not arouse lust and desire while the second type does. For example I might know that taking  a certain drug is extremely pleasurable such as smoking opium. Scientists say that immediately after  placing opium in one’s mouth  there is a feeling of detachment from the physical and the appearance of many diverse and wonderful images each new one more pleasant than the previous pass before his eyes. Within the context of these dreams and vision’s, this kiss of death he passes entirely from the world. Nevertheless even though  we know how pleasant the experience is it doesn’t arouse in us a lust or desire because we know also how harmful the experience is. This knowledge suppresses our natural desire for all pleasant experiences The awareness of the dangers makes it disgusting so it is not a real chice for us at all And there is another type of knowledge such as the awareness that lust jealousy and desire for honor and adulation is very  self destructive, nevertheless that awareness  does not influence our desires  but simply remains just an intellectual fact
Adam before the Sin was entirely rational intellect without any influence from desire or emotions. Thus his physical, material side had no influence whether for good or bad. He was fully aware of the bad and yet he only did what was good. His mind was like that of an angel, while his physical being was like an external garment. This expessed by the verse in Job 10:11): You clothed me with skin and flesh. Just as we are not ashamed of our clothing to the point that we would change them for others that is how his body was perceived by Adam.. That is why it says they were naked but not embarrassed. There was only a single difference between his and our clothing. His clothing was eternal and never needed changing. There was only aspect distinguishing him from an actual angel. An angel has absolutely no free will. He canot do evil even if he wanted because his essence is doing good. The first man Adam was not that way. Even though his mind functioned without the slightest influence from his physical nature, nevertheless he had the option of not being like an angel i.e. he could live a life of free choice and not the existence of an angel. He had that choice.
Thus his free will was not like ours - choosing between good and evil or truth vs lies. .  Rather he could choose between living as an angel or like us. And this choice depended on whether he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. If he wanted to be like an angel without any threat to his spirituality, he just needed to refrain from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Then his conscious awareness would be so strong that there would be no normal natural urge or desire that could influence him in the slightest. However if he wanted to live a normal human life of free-will, if he wanted to arouse lust and desires within himself so that he could do battle with them and defeat them - all he needed to do was eat from the Tree of Knowledge. That would immediately arouse desires lusts and inclinations to produce a strong battle with his intellect. And if his intellect was successful in defeating his lusts and desires - then he would be elevated to greater heights than he was before. That is because of the principle – that the reward is according to the effort. Then he would continue living forever as before eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However if he was not successful in defeating his natural lusts, and the natural physical powers ruled over him – then he would be mortal and obviously die. That is because he would be a natural being -and not a spiritual one -which does not live forever.
This is what G-d said to him, “From all the trees in the Garden you May eat except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which you should not eat from        because the day you eat from it you will surely die.”Apparently these words were not made as a command and warning but rather they were simply advice. In other words, “I am offering you advice that you shouldn’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge in order that you not arouse natural lusts within you because I know that if they are aroused within you you will not be able to overcome them and as a consequence you will die.That is not a punishment for eating the fruit since the eating is not a sin – but rather because you will be controlled by your physical nature and not your spiritual one and a natural being inherently cannot be eternal.”
That is why Eve replied to the Snake’s question of What did G-d say?” From the Tree in the Garden don’t eat because you might die”. The inference from “might die” is that in reality it was possible to eat from it and not die.. Because even after eating from the Tree of Knowledge it was still possible to defeat the natural lusts and then not only would the eating not be wrong but it would be beneficial because they would be elevated to a higher spiritual level than they were before.
That is why the serpent answered her by saying’”You will not certainly die but rather you will become like G-d knowing Good and Evil”. In other words “You shouldn’t have any doubts about being able to survive the challenge’ because you definitely will and then you will become like G-d. And just as G-d’s knowledge about Evil has not the slightest  influence as we see from the Thirteen Attributes of G-d (Shemos 34:6-7)  “a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness,  faithfulness, extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; yet He does not remit all punishment, but visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generations.”  Why is this considered praise? The explanation is that even though the sinner is not absolutely forgiven for his sins, nevertheless G-d’s knowledge of the sin and His need to punish the sinner does not influence the attributes of being slow to anger and having abundant kindness which existed prior to punishing the sinner. That is because for G-d, the necessity to punish is not a type of anger or concern but is rather just an intellectual awareness and something required by justice. Therefore the attributes of Justice and Mercy can exist together for G-d .which is not true for humans. Because if a man is angry or irritated about someone, he is not able to contain his anger till a later time like it was prior to the transgression so that it has no influence at all. This is what the Serpent replied to Eve that even after eating from the Tree of Knowledge and consequently experiencing the natural lusts and desires that would result from that she would experience it merely as a type of awareness. Therefore it would be worth it for her to eat of the fruit in order to acquire greater levels of spirituality And this is how the Serpent convinced Eve. It misinformed her by promising her that she would definitely not fall to a lower level but instead would achieve a higher level of total control of herself, while in reality this would only happen if she defeated her natural desires. At the end it became clear that it was a mistake to think she could easily win the battle with her natural desires. That realization they finally had made them ashamed.  From this we see clearly that it was not a good idea to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Because if nothing had changed what was there to be embarrassed about? If in fact they could easily vanquish their desires as if they didn’t exist just as before they transgressed – what was the blemish “Who told you that you were naked?” But the truth was originally – before the arousal of lust and desires – their intellect was primary and they had no reason to be embarrassed. Because their body was merely a type of garment. However after eating from the fruit when lust was aroused in them which they couldn’t control – it was only then they felt a need for clothing to cover themselves to help subdue their lust to some degree and since they are stronger when naked. This why G-d said “Who told you that you are naked?”Did you eat from the Tree which I told you not to eat from? Didn’t I tell you don’t test yourself. And you say it is not a problem. Consequently your defeat in your battle with nature and that now you are ruled by your natural lusts and desires, cursed is the ground… because you are dirt and you will return to dirt” and thus death was decreed for them

 the ocr has mistakes

 הנה עניז עין הדעת, כנוי שסצריר בשכלנו, הוא דבר שקשה םאר להבין, איך הוא נאםת שאדם הראשון, נחיר הנבראים, יציר כפיר של הקב"ה, אשר נו נכללר כל חנשםוח, יעברו על םה שצרח השם בפירוש עוד נאותר חירם שצרחו, נשעה שידע אח עונש המיתה שישיבתו אחרי כן, רבו שאפילו אנחנו לפי קם שכלנו לא היינו עושים כזאת. היעלה על הדעת דבר כזה ~ א l : לפי דעת חדםב"ם ז"ל, שעיקר חהםא חיה דון פוערת, צריכים אנו להבין הדבר, איך בא לידי טעות, םאחד שקודם ח n םא חיה שכל פשוםז בלי שום החפ;ילרת םבעית, אין היה הסערת בשכלו י ואם נניח כמר שאםו שכזציארת בריאותו היה באופן שלא היה יכול לםעדת נעביד חםרב והרע, אולם נעני j חאסח והשקד חיה בו נzקום לפוערת, וחיה שם הטעות כעניז האמת וחשקו, m חיה לד לעשרת סאחד שסעה י כסח חסית הנחש ת חוח רכסה הסעה ארתה 'l רני יעלה על הדעת שחדה האמינה לדברי הנחש כי לא תםות, יותר םלדברי השם ? םה זה השיבה כששאלה הנחש ~ ,,אף כי אםר אלקים ונד' וספרי העץ וג i ' פן תםדתרן", והלא הברוא אסר להם שדואי יםדתד י

ידיעת הרע סתחלקת לשני חלקים : הא'( היא ידיעה שאינה םערררח וצדן ותשוקה. רחב'( ידיעה שסעודות רצון ותשוקה. דרך משל : אבר יודעים, כי שתיית סם פלוני הדא דנו סתרק בזאר, ויש סםים כאלו כסר עשיך חארםיוס, שחרא נחשב לדבר היותר נעים שבעולם. חכמי הבזבע אוסרים, כי םעשני חארפיד c סיד שלוקחים הםקסות לתוך פיהם חם סרנישים חתפשסרת הגשסיות, חסונות שדנות וםשו u ת כל אחת יותר בעיסה כחברתה, עוכרות כנד עיניחס. וכתוך חלומות ררז'ות כאלו, בםיתת נשיקה כזר הם נפפורים סן העולם לכסדי. ובכל זאת, אף שיודעים אנו את פחיקות חסם הזח, אין הידיעה הזאת סעודות אצלנו שום רצון וחשוקה, יע i ני חכרת תשכל בנזקו


  1. which book is this from?
    It doesn't really answer the question
    Midrash already tells us that Adam sexually experimented with all the animals, hence he had desire. So that cat is out of the bag.
    Perhaps this is fuelled by Kabbalah fantasies that Adam was really Adam Hakadmon, or God's "double" (in Kabbalah monotheism disappear and dualism/idolatry reappears).

  2. Benny Brown just published this article on the concept of Daat Torah

  3. Not a reliable author, was extreme kvetchkite, opposed by many gedolim.

    Here we see a better explanation and also a link to the Egel zahav

  5. It's a sabbatean approach. Mussar extremists were the misnagdic

  6. Wow so you claim everybody is a follower of Shabtzai Tzvbi?!

  7. Rav Reiness, the CI...

  8. It's a sabbatean teaching, the descent into sin.

  9. You can change the Torah to mean there are no issurim. There's even a blessing - mattir issurim. But still maintain an outward religious appearance

  10. They opposed his writing and ideas or only a specific action?

  11. You think only sabbatean think there is sin?

  12. maybe certain practices

  13. Maybe you are simply mistaken about your claims

  14. Not sure what you are asking.
    There's no holiness in lgbqt.
    It's like the argument that the issur is only for straight people, but not for gays.
    So novardok is concocting that there is no Chet of Adam. It's all voluntary, like in San fransicsco. In fact California is the Gan Eden that he's talking about, and shaatnez doesn't apply either, it only strengthens you. Just need to smoke the right drug and you are the kohen gadol.

  15. Think this through
    This is what G-d said to him, “From all the trees in the Garden you May eat except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which you should not eat from because the day you eat from it you will surely die.”Apparently these words were not made as a command and warning but rather they were simply advice.

  16. The CI didn't want Mussar to determine halacha.
    Mussar is experimental, like reconstruction or open o. Just because rav salanter was great, does not mean others were balanced or had good understanding of the human condition.
    In any case, the Torah itself is explicit about the fall of Man, it was a sin, not a mitzvah.
    If your people said chazir is permitted, you would not object. But when riskin gives a heter, he's reform.

  17. Chzon Ish was against Mussar not against Madreigos HaAdan in particular

  18. So you are clamming you don't like an explanation that fits the Rambam's words - so whom are you opposing Rambam or Madreigos Haadam?

  19. Nothing to do with the rambam. Where does rambam say there was no aveira involved?
    Maskilim also commented on rambam, does that mean we must accept their hasagot?
    to put it another way, your approach is whether the author is kosher, and then bend your mind over his words.
    since you ask who am I? my approach is like what Ramchal says - does the content make sense, irrespective of the author?

  20. The Torah clearly states that eating from that Tree was a lav :
    וּלְאָדָם אָמַר, כִּי-שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, וַתֹּאכַל מִן-הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ--אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ. 17 And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy.

    rambam was replying to a question of how after the sin, man was rewarded with knowledge of Good and Evil. His answer was that truth and falsehood was a higher, faculty.
    It's no surprise that in the yeshiva world, there is no such concept of truth and falsehood, only subservience to the clergy.

  21. I'm opposing the madreigas.
    There's a monty python sketch about Michelangelo and the Pope, about their ikkarim vs artistic freedom. The Mussar rabbi, who bricked himself into a prison-home, is just expressing his freedom of thought. It's nothing to do with the rambam. The Christians also had ascetics, doesn't mean they are holier.

  22. Wow please tell me what the Rambam was concerned with - not what you think should have been his concern!

  23. His self imprisonment had nothing to do with his explanation ogf Rambam and similarly your claimed opposition of gedolim to him was solely because of his action not his ideas about Rambam

  24. This essay does it better than I can

    There are several concepts

    The fall of man

    Truth thinking Vs good and bad thinking
    Sin taking place even before consuming of the fruit - IE destroying his own intellect

    Rambam ß interpretation of the gemara on thought being worse than the act.

    But need to read the essay

  25. Did sabbetai zvi ß bizarre acts have nothing to do with his conversion to Islam and heter issurim?

  26. The problem here is antinomianism, something associated with sabbatean, early chassidim, and Maskilim. Norman lamm tries to deal with that problem in his essays in Faith and doubt, but not entirely successfully.
    it's very easy to misrepresent or misunderstand what sophisticated works such as the Rambam or the zohar say.
    Golden calf - at best a mitzvah but not a sin.
    Fruit of Eden, pareve but not assur.
    Fall of Adam, no just that he opted to travel the world. Gemara says he hid his place of milah. Was that also a hidden mitzvah?

  27. I am sure you are the only one who knows the answer


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.