A Project Genesis website

The Tree of Life Today

Question

Eating the fruit caused man to die. But it was not the physical act of eating right? It was the disobedience embodied in it that caused death. In other words, it was a spiritual act that resulted in death. So why place an angel to protect the tree of life? The text says so that they might not live forever. But how can eating a fruit from a different tree bring eternal life when it is not a spiritual act but a physical one? In other words, how can simply eating of the tree of life reverse the effect of a spiritual disobedience? If it were that simple then why the sacrifices and the need for atonement if eating a fruit could accomplish it?

Answer

Your question is an excellent one. I will share with you an idea that some of the earlier commentaries and the approach that they take in understanding the story line.

As a rabbi I’ll answer a question with question. What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil and and why couldn’t he eat from it? Isn’t the knowledge of Good and Evil (G&E) a good thing? If it was bad why create it and tempt man? if he didn’t have the knowledge of G& E how can he be culpable for eating from it.

Maimonides’s approach is that obviously man had knowledge of G&E before, yet it was with a clarity that was free of human subjective desire and ego. It was what he described as truth and falsehood. Just as 1+1=2 is true rather than good, listening to God was true rather than good; and the opposite – 1+1=3 is false as is disobeying God.

The test and perhaps temptation of mankind was whether to fulfill the will of God in this fashion and thereby earn the right to eternal life by his choice or to disobey. The logic being that choosing to incorporate an inner desire and subjectivity into the desicion making process (the consequences of eating from the tree transforming it into a G&E decision rather than a T&F decision) thereby making the challenge and the choice to serve God in those circumstances much more difficult and challenging; yet, perhaps, this would be even a greater act. Adam may have been right in the logic of it being a greater act yet quite simply he failed his test, choosing to use his own rationalization; ergo creating a separation between him and His creator, rather than further existing in the existential state of pre-sin Eden.

That explains God’s question to Adam ” where are you.” The Midrash states that God was saying “before you were with Me now you are not here”. Meaning, before your will and my will were the same, today you have created a separate subjective desire that transformed the face of the world. All choices man must make now are always going to be subject to the definiton of his independent ego.

To symbolize this transforamtion of now an independent (and thereby finite mortal exisence rather the the infinte God-like immortal existence that was unseparated from God) he is thrown out of Eden never to return. Yet there is stll a tree of life and he knows it. The Eden one is off limits, it is no longer that route which he can return and find his way back to that eternal existence. But he must know that there is another “tree of life” also connected with angels … in fact angels that embrace and welcome him. That, my friend, is the Tree of life of Torah contained in the Ark overlayed by cherubs (same words). By grasping on and delving and subjugating ones own personal desire to the ways and wisdom of the Torah, that is the new world method of reconnecting to that which is eternal that which can reconnect us to the Source for which we long.

Rabbi Ephraim Schwartz
West Seattle Torah Learning Center
www.seattlekollel.org

Follow-up question

Question

I appreciated your insight into the matter. I think I understand it as being a G&E decision as opposed to a T&F decision. If I may ask for clarification, it appears that you are saying that the Tree of Life was a shadow of the Torah; or that by disciplining himself by the Torah he could regain that relationship with the Eternal. I have heard it said that these were not literal trees, but rather they are emblematic of the struggle that each man has with the Eternal. I have also heard it said that both trees were literal. Since I am inexperienced in these matters I am curious as to what you may believe about this.Also, I am still confused about the need to protect the Tree of Life that was in Eden. Was that tree of life also the Torah rather than a literal tree? It seems that it could not be a literal tree that could literally give life because that would imply that our need for finding the Eternal’s favor could be fulfilled by simply eating a fruit. I feel as if I am still missing a pretty big piece of the puzzle. Can you shed some light on this?

Answer

I do believe the Talmud says that they were in fact literal trees. (although certainly not a an apple tree:)) Abarbanel seems to indicate that in fact the G&E tree may have been some type of aphrodisiac that would have set the perfect balance of their existence off killter. In regards to the tree of life though if you examine the text carefully you will note that there was in fact no prohibition to eat from the tree of life until after the sin. In fact it seems that he probably would have had eternal life had he not sinned . Death (or more acurately mortality) being a consequence of the sin, “for on the day you eat you shall die” meaning become mortal.

I believe that in the pre-sin world following the Divine’s only commandment would have led to Adam naturally living an eternal existence, being created for that purpose. The tree of life, although literal, in that world symbolizes Adam maintaining the commandment of God. Although not a Torah it does as can be inferred from its replacement tree of life, the torah, symbolize man’s destiny in heeding the will of God. It is only in the post sin already weighted to mortality and physicallity world that a broader spectrum of mitzvot/ directions are neccesary in order to recapture that eternal existence.

Rabbi Schwartz