tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post6470535501625410206..comments2023-08-02T05:15:31.724-07:00Comments on Moreh Nevuchim: The Not-So-Promised Land: Eishes Chayil, Mi Yimtza?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-10833612383513335152010-03-22T03:01:29.420-07:002010-03-22T03:01:29.420-07:00Yes this is alot to think on. Shows how G-D gives ...Yes this is alot to think on. Shows how G-D gives us choices in life sometimes we make good choices and sometimes we make wrong choices. But whatever we choose we learn a lesson. Some are hard lessons some are life learning lessons. We are children and we tend to put ourselves in the way and make our path harder to stay on. Thanks and Love Ya MomMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16148314811526071295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-17094043860139687232010-03-21T06:33:59.354-07:002010-03-21T06:33:59.354-07:00wow beezeewow beezeelars shalomhttp://dadoichzlig.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-48402269119734283632010-03-20T19:03:20.724-07:002010-03-20T19:03:20.724-07:00The imagery of G-d "walking" is clearly ...The imagery of G-d "walking" is clearly metaphoric, as G-d is not bound by physicality. The command to not eat from the tree was given as a form of revelation, and as G-d does not change, there would not be a "new revelation" to add to what was originally commanded. The notion that Adam relayed a more stringent command to Eve is one that has tradition going back to sages who received tradition that came directly from Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses), and was not just "assumed" by some random person at some point in time. As far as Eve being the one who added the addition to the command, this is clearly possible as well. It is a second interpretation of the verse that is given legitimacy by the Sages.<br />I'm not sure why it is more difficult to believe that Adam would think to "lie" without "knowing the difference between good and evil," but it is not difficult to think that Eve herself would think to transgress a Divine commandment without "knowing the difference between good and evil." Both lying and transgressing the Divine will are wrong by our standards, but did Adam and Eve have any command regarding lying or telling the truth? The commentators explain that the reason why the text says, "they knew that they were naked" is because they realized that they were lacking in the single command that they had been given.Baruch Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15996475412403160519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-5063755415102987652010-03-19T16:04:49.636-07:002010-03-19T16:04:49.636-07:00May I pose a two questions? Genesis 2:17 does not ...May I pose a two questions? Genesis 2:17 does not include a command not to touch the tree of knowledge, that I see, however:<br /><br />1) Could G-d on any other occassion of "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" have told either or both Adam and Eve to not touch the tree in further instructions?<br /><br />2) Is it not an asumption that Adam told Eve not to touch the tree? Could she not have advanced that statement on her own?<br /><br />I do think ultimately the fault lies with Adam. He was responsible for her.<br /><br />What I find interesting is it doesn't seem that Eve ate the fruit while the serpent was talking to her. It seems the serpent planted the seed for his disobedience, then when she and Adam were out togeher (Genesis 3:6) she took the fruit and ate it and then gave it to Adam who was with her the text says and he ate.<br /><br />I struggle with the idea that Adam "lied" to Eve. How would he know how to do that? It seems that they didn't know good nor evil at that time.<br /><br />Of course I struggle with the disobedience of both of them. Why didn't Adam knock the fruit out of her hand? Why did he let her eat it? Why did he eat it?<br /><br />I do not dispute the fact that Adam may very well have added to what G-d had said when he gave her the instructions. I have never crossed the idea that he may have "lied."<br /><br />Thank you for causing me to think on this.Gregg Metcalfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16413691313803396844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-38484595041461564032010-03-19T14:47:35.119-07:002010-03-19T14:47:35.119-07:00With regard to Chava (Eve) being the one who was d...With regard to Chava (Eve) being the one who was deceived, the whole reason she was (according to Judaism) is that Adam lied to her when he told her the issue regarding the tree. As she was not yet created as an individual entity whenever the command was given to Adam, he was given the responsibility to relay this message to her. As we see from her response to the serpent, he told her that she couldn't even touch the tree (Bereishis/Genesis 3:3, versus 2:17 when the command was given to Adam). As this was not true, the serpent used Adam's own relation of the rules against the woman, and showed her that since the first part of Adam's warning didn't take place, the second part probably wouldn't also. Therefore, it isn't so simple to say that she was deceived because of her own shortcomings.Baruch Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15996475412403160519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2917230819240247395.post-31550874736871801742010-03-19T10:35:57.217-07:002010-03-19T10:35:57.217-07:00There is a lot to digest here. I do like what you ...There is a lot to digest here. I do like what you said, in essence,when the reason for a commandment is help draw us closer to G-d.<br /><br />With no disrespect intended, I have thought of the woman as the "weaker vessel" (First letter of the Apostle Peter 3:7) and that it was Eve who was deceived in the Garden. It seems that Adam was not deceived but chose to deliberate join her in her sin against G-d.<br /><br />No doubt, man is not complete without a wife. Both men and women have definite G-d given roles in order to accomplish His purpose and to expose His glorious nature and character.<br /><br />I will have to look at the Hebrew in respect to "formed" and "built." I do not recall having heard thatg distinction before.<br /><br />Lot to chew on and to attempt to digest. Thanks for helping me to think critically.Gregg Metcalfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16413691313803396844noreply@blogger.com