We respond to every follow-up question submitted, but only publish selected ones.
In order to be considered for publication, questions must be on-topic, polite, and address ideas rather than
personalities.
Question: If Adam is the one who did what G-d had forbade him to do, why then do we all have to suffer for what Adam did? Isn’t it true we are all accountable for our own “sins”?
Answer: In fact, the Torah teaches that we are not responsible for Adam’s sin and nor do we bear any guilt for what he did. That’s a Christian concept. “Each man will die for his own sin” is, as you suggested, the last word on the subject. Having said that, we do live with the consequences of other people’s decisions: the fact that Adam did what he did does have a practical impact on us much as do the failings (not to mention successes) of our own parents in our upbringing. But that’s not the same as guilt.
With regards,
Rabbi Boruch Clinton
Ottawa, Canada
My question is about Genesis 3:22: How did Adam and Eve change after they ate the forbidden fruit?
This is, of course, a complex subject and, even within the framework of traditional Torah scholarship, there are quite a few approaches to it. I’ll offer a brief summary of Rabbi E.E. Dessler’s understanding of the thinking of the classical scholar, Nachmanides.
Before they ate from the tree, Adam and Eve possessed free will, but in a different proportion to what we’re used to: choosing evil was a possibility, but it took more effort.
There are, within a human being, two personality aspects; two voices. In a way, perhaps, these can be “sensed” in the silent conversation that’s always going on inside our heads. There’s one voice that says things like “you shouldn’t do this” or “why did you do that?” and another voice that says “because I wanted to” or “I’d really enjoy this”. Rabbi Dessler writes that the voice that speaks in the first person is likely a manifestation of the “evil inclination” , i.e., the personality force that wants to indulge and that fights discipline. The voice that speaks in the second person (“you can’t”) is the good inclination. It is telling that the first-person speaker (the one that we most closely identify with our essential selves) is the undisciplined one, because, since that first sin, self-indulgence became our default mode with discipline and morality requiring greater effort to impose.
Before the first sin, according to Rabbi Dessler, the roles were reversed: man’s natural tendency was to virtue, and sin required conscious effort. In that sense, after the sin, man became “knowers of good and evil” in a more immediate and personal way than ever before.
I hope this helps,
Rabbi Boruch Clinton
Comment by ATR — August 13, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Did the actual fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil have anything to do with altering their personalities? I know this may sound lame, but vs. 22 does mention that if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, they would live forever, so that’s why I wonder if the two fruits, contained ingredients to do what they were named for?
While here too there’s a range of perspectives, I think that the mainstream approach is that the fruits were, indeed, created with the ability to promote knowledge and longevity. I would, however, think it’s obvious that attempting to identify and replicate these qualities is a complete waste of time.
Comment by ATR — August 14, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Were Adam and Eve’s tainted personalities caused by consuming fruit that gave knowledge that they were never suppose to have? After our original parents ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, did Cain, Abel and the rest of us inherit their tainted personalities (or altered minds)?
Their decision to eat was the sin (which was their sin alone). The knowledge that came with the fruit was merely a consequence of that decision and we, their children, are consequently born with knowledge (or, better, with the internalized tendency to choose wrong). I wouldn’t categorize our personalities as “tainted” though, but rather we’re forced to expend greater energy to remain righteous. I’m not sure that this places us at any real disadvantage, as the Torah teaches that each of us is judged in relative terms; taking into account our background and effort rather than from some arbitrary universal starting point.
Comment by ATR — August 14, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
What about? Hosea 6:7 – “They are like Adam…” Isa 64:6 – “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Ecclesiastes 7:29 “This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions”.....
Let me answer your questions one at a time. First of all, though, I will comment that if you’re trying to prove some point from a Biblical passage, it’s not enough to say that it could mean what you claim (because there’s an infinite range of possible interpretations), but that your interpretation is the most likely.
Hosea 6:7 – “They are like Adam…”
Let’s look at the context of this verse (taking into account the rest of the chapter). Judah and Israel have sinned (i.e., that there are among them many individuals who have, to one extent or another, strayed from the Torah path) and the prophet, as is his job, is goading them to return. Perhaps he chooses to compare them to an historical figure (Adam) who, too, had been given a fine land and every opportunity and who, nevertheless, had willingly strayed from the proper path.
But is there any indication here that all members of every generation in history are complete sinners?? Of course not. And even if it were so, why, then, should the prophet bother rebuking them: it’s all beyond their control!
By the way, I’m sure you have noted the previous verse “Kindness I desire, not sacrifices”
Isa 64:6 – “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”
First of all (and this has little bearing on your argument), I would take issue with the translation of “idim” as “filthy.” A more accurate rendering would be “worn out.” It would seem, however, that a razor-sharp translation would go like the 19th Century commentator, Malbim, who would have it “adornment” (see “edyom” in Ex. 23; 6). That is to say, the Jews of that generation were prone to perform their Divine service in the hope of self-aggrandizement rather than for G-d’s greater glory alone.
In any case, we are, in this passage, again shown a generation that was imperfect and in need of correction. But there is, again, no indication that this is somehow the permanent state of all humans everywhere. I should point out that no one would argue with the proposition that human beings sin and that some generations are worse than others (and, therefore, more deserving of rebuke and even corrective punishment). But demonstrating that is not at all the same as demonstrating that it’s their permanent condition.
Ecclesiastes 7:29 “This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions”
Indeed. They have. But we’ve also done many great things and, sometimes, risen above any predisposition to the overtly physical. Does this passage suggest differently?
Is it not true that THERE ARE NONE RIGHTEOUS,
Really? What about Gen. 6; 9 or 15; 6 and many others? It does say in Eccles 7; 20 that there’s no man who’s entirely perfect with no error at all. But that’s a far cry from saying that there’s none who is righteous!
and that ALL need innocent blood for the remission of sin?
Absolutely not.
Is that not the reason for sacrifice?
No way. And I’ll prove it three ways:
Number one (courtesy of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch):
The tabernacle (mishkan – portable temple used by the Jews for their years in the wilderness and for the first centuries in Israel before the Temple in Jerusalem was built) was erected for the first time on the first day of the first month in the SECOND year after the Jews left Egypt (see Exodus 40; 17). Until that time, obviously, there were no animal or incense offerings (with the one-time exception of the Passover offering in Egypt itself).
The sin of the golden calf took place and was atoned for BEFORE the mishkan was built
(as is clear from many verses: the sin occurred the day Moses came down which was 40 days after the giving of the Torah on the 6th day of the 3rd month of the first year; atonement occurred 40 more days after that, see Exodus 32; 30 – 34; 10). The atonement for one of the greatest sins in Jewish history was all wrapped up even before the first drop of “atonement blood” was spilled!
Number two:
If you will carefully read the passages in the Torah describing temple offerings (most of which appear in the first seven chapters of Leviticus) you will find that with one – and only one – exception, ALL offerings come to atone only for accidental sins (eg., you weren’t aware that the particular act was sinful). The exception is the guilt offering brought for denying your obligation to testify in court.
So then, how did the Jews EVER achieve atonement for any of their intentional sins!
Number three:
The Talmud tells us that, even for those sins whose consequences can be softened by offerings, the act of studying the laws of their particular offerings substitutes for its being brought.
So what, then, is the purpose of temple offerings? Rabbi Hirsch (Nineteenth Century Frankfort scholar) goes to great lengths to show how each nuance and law of each type of offering – its location, time, process etc. – is meant to impress upon the bringer and the observer an aspect of the true Divine plan for humankind. If we bring the offering with our eyes and hearts open to its messages, then we will surely become better, will leave the temple inspired to live up to G-d’s holy mission and will certainly stay far from the sin that brought us there in the first place (although, sin is only one reason for bringing an offering).
That, no doubt, is why studying the laws is akin to bringing the offering. . .both can have the same effect.
And how do we get atonement? The same way we always did. Repentance, the Day of Atonement and, if necessary, personal suffering and eventual death (see the final chapter of the Talmud tractate Yoma).
Do we not all need a mediator between a Holy G-d and men?
Certainly not. See Psalms 145; 18 and 130; 8.
Why is it that Torah says we need death of the innocent for the redemption of our sin?
I’m not aware of any place in the Torah that says that.
Isn’t it true that G-d called us, and in the calling we might receive the promise of eternal inheritance? For we all have a testimony of his mercy in the blood of a sacrifice.
I’m not sure why you think His mercy is more manifest in sacrificial blood than in all the myriad kindnesses He bestows upon us every day of our lives (indeed, for our lives themselves)!
A price must be paid for a debt we owe, right?
Perhaps (although I’m not sure what you mean by “price”). But which mere mortal can say with confidence precisely what G-d thinks this price might be. Can’t devoting your life to kindness and striving to act as He would want you to act be payment? Especially, since He has given us abundantly clear instructions for such a lifestyle in His revealed Torah. Why make up new theologies when His is clear for all to see?
When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
Actually, this announcement took place at the time of the Sinaitic revelation, some forty years before Moses had taught my ancestors the last of G-d’s instructions.
he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book,
There’s actually no reference to his sprinkling the book.
and all the people, not just some of the people, right? Saying,
This is the blood of the testament which G-d hath enjoined unto you.
A moving passage indeed. Thus, the vigor and youth inherent in the animals just offered becomes a fitting symbol for the enthusiastic attitude with which all Jews are forever enjoined to serve their G-d. But what does that have to do with human frailty and sinfulness?
With my best regards,
Rabbi Boruch Clinton
Comment by ATR — August 25, 2006 @ 3:44 pm