(ט) וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃
(9) And from the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
(ו) וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל וְכִ֧י תַֽאֲוָה־ה֣וּא לָעֵינַ֗יִם וְנֶחְמָ֤ד הָעֵץ֙ לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל וַתִּקַּ֥ח מִפִּרְי֖וֹ וַתֹּאכַ֑ל וַתִּתֵּ֧ן גַּם־לְאִישָׁ֛הּ עִמָּ֖הּ וַיֹּאכַֽל׃
(6) When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Ibn Ezra - (1089 - 1164 CE)
Avraham ben Meir ibn Ezra, better known simply as Ibn Ezra, was a medieval Spanish Torah commentator, poet, philosopher and grammarian. While he wrote on grammar, philosophy, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics, he is most famous for his Biblical commentaries, which, alongside those of Rashi, are ubiquitous and indispensable. His commentaries focus on grammatical explanations and the "peshat" (plain-sense) meaning of the text. He often incorporates biting or humorous comments directed toward other commentators, especially towards the Karaites. He maintained a deep friendship with R. Yehudah Halevi, and quotes some of his interpretations in his commentaries. His poetry is still read and sung as part of the regular liturgy. Ibn Ezra knew great poverty and traveled widely, almost incessantly, teaching and making connections with fellow scholars, notably Rabbenu Tam in France.
Ibn Ezra commenting on Genesis 3:6 says, "The tree of knowledge engenders sexual desire, which is why they covered their nakedness."
Nachmanides - Ramban - (1195 - 1270)
Moshe ben Nachman, also known as Ramban, was a leading Torah scholar of the middle ages who authored commentaries on Torah and the Talmud. He was a posek who wrote responsa and stand-alone works on Halachic topics, as well as works on mysticism, science and philosophy. Ramban's commentary on the Torah often critiques earlier commentaries and incorporates kabbalistic teachings. He was born in Gerona, Spain, where he established a large yeshiva which produced hundreds of disciples who became leaders of Spanish Jewry. In 1263 he took part in a debate in Barcelona with an apostate Jew named Pablo Christiani, at the behest of the Church. In 1267, at the age of 72, he immigrated to the Holy Land, where he settled in Akko (Acre). He died there at age 76.
(א) וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע בעבור שאמר הכתוב וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים "בְּתוֹךְ" הַגָּן ולא אמר "בגן" ועוד שאמר (להלן ג ג) וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ שלא הזכירו ולא הודיעו בשם אחר נאמר לפי פשוטו שהוא מקום ידוע בגן שהוא בתוך ולכך תרגם אונקלוס "במציעות גנתא" והנה לדבריו עֵץ הַחַיִּים וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת שניהם היו באמצע ואם כן נאמר שהוא כאלו תעשה באמצע הגן ערוגה אחת סוגה ובה שני האילנות האלה ויהיה האמצע הזה אמצע רחב כי אמצע הדק כבר אמרו שאין יודע בו אמתת הנקודה בלתי השם לבדו וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים אילן פריו נותן באוכליו חיים ארוכים "וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" — אמרו המפרשים כי היה פריו מוליד תאות המשגל ולכן כסו מערומיהם אחרי אכלם ממנו והביאו לו דומה בלשון זה מאמר ברזילי הגלעדי הַאֵדַע בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע (שמואל ב יט לו) כי בטלה ממנו התאוה ההיא ואיננו נכון אצלי בעבור שאמר וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע (להלן ג ה) ואם תאמר כחש לה הנה וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֱלֹהִים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע (להלן ג כב) וכבר אמרו (פירקא דרבינו הקדוש בבא דשלשה טז) שלשה אמרו אמת ואבדו מן העולם ואלו הן נחש ומרגלים ודואג האדומי הבארותי 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 ואפשר שנתכוון הכתוב לענין הזה כשאמר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם יָשָׁר וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים (קהלת ז כט) ה"יושר" שיאחוז דרך אחת ישרה וה"בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים" שיבקש לו מעשים משתנים בבחירה ממנו וכאשר צוהו הקב"ה על העץ שלא יאכל ממנו לא הודיעו כי בו המדה הזאת רק אמר לו סתם "ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן" כלומר הידוע באמצעותו לא תאכל ממנו והוא מאמר האשה אל הנחש והכתוב שאמר וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (להלן פסוק יז) הזכירו הכתוב אלינו בשמו:
(1) ...The commentators said that the fruit of this tree gave birth to the sexual desire, and this is why they covered their nakedness after they ate from it. They brought as proof a similar usage of language in the statement of Barzilai haGiladi “I am now eighty years old. Can I tell the difference between good and bad?” (Shmuel II 19:36) which indicates that he had lost the sexual desire. This is not correct in my eyes, because later in this story it says “…and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” (Bereshit 3:5) And if you want to say that the snake lied to her, it says further on And the LORD God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad…” (Bereshit 3:22) It has already been said (Pirke d’rabbenu hakadosh, Gate 3, 16) that there were three who spoke the truth and were destroyed from the world, and they are – the snake, the spies and Doeg the Edomite (the Beroti). It seems right in my eyes that the human did what came naturally, just as the heavens and all their host, which do only truth, whose acts are only truth and do not deviate from their appointed task. There is no love in their actions or hate. The fruit of this tree gives birth to the will and desire that those who eat it should choose a thing or its opposite, for the good or the bad. This is why it is called ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ because da’at in our language refers to will or intention, as the Sages said ‘we only taught this in a case when his intention is to return…if it is not his intention to clear it out…’ (Pesachim 6a). This is true in biblical Hebrew as well - “what is man that you should know him?,” (Psalms 144:3) meaning that you should care about or desire him, or “I have known him by name…” (Shemot 33:12) meaning that I chose him from all other people. So too the statement of Barzilai haGiladi ‘between good and evil,’ meaning that he had lost his power of discernment and could no longer desire something or be disgusted by it, eating without tasting and hearing without taking pleasure in son. Here in the garden there was no desire for sexual intimacy between the man and his wife, rather at the proper time they joined together and gave birth. Therefore their sexual organs were exposed just as their faces and hands and they were not ashamed of them. After they ate from the tree, the choice was in their hands and they had the will to do evil or go to themselves or others. This is a divine quality from one perspective, just as it was bad for humanity as they now had lust and desire. It is possible that the verse intended this when it said “…God made men straight, but they have engaged in too much reasoning.” (Kohelet 7:29) ‘Straight’ means that one should seize on a single straight path and ‘engaged in too much reasoning’ means that one seeks various acts among which they can choose. When Gd commanded the man not to eat from the tree he did not inform him of this quality of da’at which it imparted, rather Gd simply said ‘from the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden,’ meaning the known one in the middle – don’t eat from it. This is what the woman said to the snake, and only in a later verse does it mention the tree by name “but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it.” (Bereshit 2:17)
Moses Maimonides (Rambam) - 1137 - 1204 CE
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) was perhaps the greatest intellectual and spiritual figure of post-Talmudic Judaism. He wrote indispensable works of philosophy, Halacha, commentary, and responsa. Born in Spain, his family fled while he was still a youth. After an extended period in Morocco, he settled in Egypt, where he became Nagid (leader) of the Jewish community. His works were all foundational in their field. He was the first to produce a comprehensive commentary on the entire Mishnah. His great work of philosophy, Moreh Nevuchim, spawned an entire discipline and had incalculable influence upon enthusiastic promoters and vehement opponents alike. His code of law, Mishneh Torah, is the first and unsurpassed comprehensive code of Jewish law and practice. He also served as court physician to the Muslim leader Saladin. All of his works were written in Judeo-Arabic except for Mishneh Torah, which was written in a magnificent Hebrew. The precision of his expression is legendary. His descendents served as Negidim of Egypt for another four generations.
Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes."
Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration. "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." Such was the purport and subject of the question, though not in the exact words of the inquirer.
Now mark our reply, which was as follows:--"You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. 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. ii. 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. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition "the heavens are spherical," it is "good" or to declare the assertion that "the earth is flat" to be "bad": but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false--a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason--on account of which it is said: "Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels" (Ps. viii. 6)--he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man's disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, "And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (Gen. iii. 6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, "And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil," and not "knowing" or "discerning the true and the false": while in necessary truths we can only apply the words "true and false," not "good and evil." Further observe the passage, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked" (Gen. iii. 7): it is not said, "And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw"; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong. Besides, you must know that the Hebrew word pakaḥ used in this passage is exclusively employed in the figurative sense of receiving new sources of knowledge, not in that of regaining the sense of sight. Comp., "God opened her eyes" (Gen. xxi. 19). "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened" (Isaiah xxxviii. 8). "Open ears, he heareth not" (ibid. Xlii. 20), similar in sense to the verse, "Which have eyes to see, and see not" (Ezek. xii. 2). When, however, Scripture says of Adam, "He changed his face (panav) and thou sentest him forth" Job xiv. 20), it must be understood in the following way: On account of the change of his original aim he was sent away. For panim, the Hebrew equivalent of face, is derived from the verb panah, "he turned," and signifies also "aim," because man generally turns his face towards the thing he desires. In accordance with this interpretation, our text suggests that Adam, as he altered his intention and directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was forbidden, he was banished from Paradise: this was his punishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses, (as we have already stated above), and partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was deprived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest kind of food, such as he never tasted before, and this even only after exertion and labour, as it is said, "Thorns and thistles shall grow up for thee" (Gen. iii. 18), "By the sweat of thy brow," etc., and in explanation of this the text continues, "And the Lord God drove him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken." He was now with respect to food and many other requirements brought to the level of the lower animals: comp., "Thou shalt eat the grass of the field" (Gen. iii. 18). Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, "Adam unable to dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb beast" (Ps. xlix. 13)." May the Almighty be praised, whose design and wisdom cannot be fathomed."