The Medieval commentary on biblical verses called Bereshit Rabba includes a section on the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden.
Section 15:7
What was that tree [of knowledge] from which Adam and Eve ate? Rabbi
Meir said: It was wheat. When a person does not have knowledge, people say:
That person has never eaten wheat bread in all his days. Rabbi Shmuel bar
Yitzḥak asked before Rabbi Ze’eira, saying to him: ‘Is it possible that it was
wheat?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He
said to him: ‘But is it not written that it was a “tree”?’ He said to him: ‘It
[the wheat in Eden] rose to a great height, like the cedars of Lebanon.’
… Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: They [the forbidden fruits that Adam ate]
were grapes, as it is stated: “Their grapes are grapes of poison, clusters of
bitterness for them” (Deuteronomy
32:32) – those clusters brought bitterness to the world.
Rabbi Abba of Akko said it was a citron. That is what is written: “The woman
saw that the tree was good for eating…” (Genesis 3:6). Go out and see which is
the tree whose wood has a taste like its fruit, and you will find only the
citron.
Rabbi Yosei says: They were figs. It is a matter that is derived from its
context. This is analogous to the a prince’s son who sinned with one of the
maidservants. When the prince heard, he expelled him and had him removed
outside the palace. He circulated among the houses of all the maidservants, but
none would receive him. But the one with whom he sinned opened her door and
received him. So, too, when Adam the first man ate from that tree, the Holy One
blessed be He expelled him and had him removed outside the Garden of Eden. He
circulated among all the trees but none would receive him. What did they say to
him? Rabbi Berekhya said: ‘Here is the thief who deceived his Creator.’ That is
what is written: “Let no arrogant foot come to me” (Psalms 36:12) – the foot of
one who was arrogant towards his Creator. “Let the hand of the wicked not move
me” (Psalms 36:12) – you may not take a leaf from me. But the fig tree, whose
fruit he had eaten, opened its door and received him. That is what is written:
“They sewed fig leaves” (Genesis 3:7). What [type of] fig was it ? Rabbi Avin
said: It was the berat sheva species, as it brought seven [sheva]
days of mourning to the world. Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of
Rabbi Elazar: It was the berat elita species, as it brought weeping [elita]
to the world. Rabbi Azarya and Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said in the name of Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi: Far be it that God should have revealed [the identity of]
that tree to any man, nor will He reveal it in the future. See what is written:
“A woman who will approach any animal [to copulate with her, you shall kill the
woman and the animal]” (Leviticus 20:16) – though the person sinned, what sin
did the animal commit? [The animal did not sin,] but it is [killed] so that the
animal should not pass through the marketplace, where people would say: This is
the animal on whose account so-and-so was stoned. If He is concerned about the
dignity of his [Adam’s] descendants [even though they had committed a grievous
sin], is it not all the more so regarding his [Adam’s] own dignity [after his
sin]? That is a rhetorical question.
The opening
of this section states in the name of Rabbi Meyer that the ‘Tree of Knowledge’
was in fact a sheaf of wheat.
When challenged that wheat is not a ‘tree’, he replied that this special
wheat sheaf grew as tall as the cedars of Lebanon.
Now Rabbi
Meyer offers no biblical verse as a source, just the common folk saying:
When a
person does not have knowledge, people say: That person has never eaten
wheat bread in all his days.
Surprising, no other
rabbinic interpretation is presented here but his view is clearly challenged in
the ensuing debate or the fruit that was eaten.
The Fruit
In Western culture and art,
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge has been usually identified as the apple.
Presumably because the Latin
Vulgate Bible correctly translated the Hebrew for Gen. 2:9 “and the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil” as “de ligno autem scientiae
boni et mali”. And the Latin word for apple is malum,
and its genative form is mali.[i]
Other identifications
noted by Wikipedia’s “Forbidden fruit” are:
·
Pomegranate – an early
domesticated fruit
·
Mushroom – as per a 13th
century French fresco
·
Banana – in 13th century
translation by Nathan HaMe'ati's and in
the 16th century Menahem Lonzano claimed this was the common
understanding in Egypt and Syria
·
Cocoa de mere palm tree – as attriubuted
by 19th century Charles George Gordon
Wikipedia also lists the options presented
above in Bereshit Rabba.
As to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge,
there is a diversity of rabbinic opinion:
|
|
Fruit
|
Proof quote |
|
Rabbi Meyer |
wheat |
Common folk saying (quoted above) |
|
Rabbi Yehuda bar
Ilai |
grapes |
Deut. 32:32
“Their grapes are grapes of poison, clusters of bitterness for them.” |
|
Rabbi Abba of Akko |
citron i.e., Hebrew ETROG |
Gen. 3:6
“The woman saw that the tree was good for eating…” Go out and see
which is the tree whose wood has a taste like its fruit, and you will find
only the citron. |
|
Rabbi Yosei |
figs |
A conclusion derived from the fact their
apron coverings were from a fig tree (Gen. 3:7) and an anecdote that when
Adam looked for tree leaves to cover their nudity, all the trees said “No,”
but the fig tree agreed – as it was the tree from which they ate. |
|
Rabbi Avin |
Fig of berat sheva spercies |
because the word SHEVA is the 7 days of mourning
for the dead |
|
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of
Rabbi Elazar: It was the species, as it brought weeping [elita] to the
world |
Fig of berat elita species |
because the word ELITA means weeping |
|
Rabbi Azarya and Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said
in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi |
Unknown secret |
Deduced from: Far be it that God should have revealed [the
identity of] that tree to any man, nor will He reveal it in the future. See
what is written: “A woman who will approach any animal [to copulate with her,
you shall kill the woman and the animal]” (Leviticus 20:16) – though the
person sinned, what sin did the animal commit? [The animal did not sin,] but
it is [killed] so that the animal should not pass through the marketplace,
where people would say: This is the animal on whose account so-and-so was
stoned. If He is concerned about the dignity of his [Adam’s] descendants
[even though they had committed a grievous sin], is it not all the more so
regarding his [Adam’s] own dignity [after his sin]? |
If ‘majority rules’, then the fruit should
have been a fig of one variety or another.
This view is accepted by Rashi in his third
commentary to Gen. 3:7 citing Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 70b and the
story of other trees saying “No.”
But Rashi also notes the tradition that the
tree’s identity is unknown and kept secret citing Midrash R. Tanchuma
1:4:14.
The logic of the fig claim, however, is suspect.
The story of other trees refusing to give up
their leaves for clothing is just that, a folktale. And there are no biblical
quotes or text allusions ever cited as proof.
As to the fruit being grapes, that too is
suspect as it uses a verse from the last volume of the Chumash as proof,
Deut. 32:32. And the verse explicitly connects the ‘grapes’ to Sodom and
Gomorrah: not the Garden of Eden.
|
לב כִּי-מִגֶּפֶן
סְדֹם גַּפְנָם, {ר} וּמִשַּׁדְמֹת
עֲמֹרָה: {ס} עֲנָבֵמוֹ,
עִנְּבֵי-רוֹשׁ-- {ר} אַשְׁכְּלֹת מְרֹרֹת,
לָמוֹ. {ס} |
\32 For their vine is of the
vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of
gall, their clusters are bitter; |
(Deuteronomy 32 /
Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
As to the citron or etrog being the fruit, the
verse cited as proof is from within the Genesis account, Gen. 3:6.
“The woman saw that the tree was good for eating…”
Go out and see which is the tree whose wood has a taste like its fruit,
and you will find only the citron.
The argument, that the wood of the tree tastes
like its fruit, is the rabbinic reasoning for using the etrog at Succot as part
of the ceremonial 4 species.
The biblical verse states:
Leviticus 23:40
On the first day [of Sukkot] you shall take a peri etz hadar,
palm fronds, branches of leafy trees, and river willows, and you shall be happy
before the Lord
your God for seven days.
The
tradition that the etrog tree is the “etz hadar” in the above verse is ancient.
It can be
found in the common Aramaic translation of Onkelos and in various ancient
‘translations’ or targums of Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Targum fragments from the
Cairo Genizah: all of whom identify the “etz hadar” tree as the etrog tree.[ii]
It is also the interpretation of Rabbi Yehudah
ha- Nasi, the redactor of the Mishnah who stresses the tree’s unique all
year-round fruit production.[iii]
But anyone who has ever bit into the flesh of an etrog knows that it, like its kinsman the lemon, has a bitter, sour taste.\
Moreover, like all citrus fruits, it has a tough outer skin that needs to be peeled off or cut through to get to the soft pulp inside.
Just as we have to do to eat
oranges and grapefruits.[i]
And in the case of the etrog, that rind is
extra thick.
Only apples and pears and the like have thin,
easily pierced outer skins that can be bitten through and safely digested.
So no one would voluntarily eat an etrog’s pulp nor manage to bite through its tough outer skin: though Eve seems to have
done so from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 3:6) and so too Adam
(Gen. 3:6).
|
6 And when the woman saw
that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and
that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did
eat. |
ו וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל
וְכִי תַאֲוָה-הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל, וַתִּקַּח
מִפִּרְיוֹ, וַתֹּאכַל; וַתִּתֵּן גַּם-לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ, וַיֹּאכַל. |
(https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm)
Put simply, an etrog is not the kind of nibble
that would be pleasant whatsoever.
And, if it were the fruit that led to Adam and
Eve and the Serpent to be cursed and punished (respectively Gen. 3:17- 19,16
and 14-15), it would make a highly unlikely choice for the joyful, religious
procession and annual celebration of Sukkot.
Using a folk saying or a possible allusion
from a much later biblical verse or an odd legend where trees can talk or
allusions in the names of fig varieties, is all rabbinic speculation and outlandish.
Even the argument for the tree being kept
secret – a deduction from the law re: bestiality, is most bizarre.
Personally, I suspect the last choice is the
truth. The tree and its fruit are
unknown and kept secret.
No comments:
Post a Comment