The First Philosopher | Rabbi Ari Kahn | October 8 2026

Right. >> Um, okay. So, speaking of uh going, I won't be here the last Thursday in October. I'm uh I'm speaking someplace in continental United States. >> No, not at all. Not at all. Okay. So, let us begin. There is a certain part of our brain that tries to deal or doesn't try to deal with besid especially the early chapters of Berich and I think there are certain questions that we don't ask and therefore there are certain answers that we don't give and what we kind of do is maybe even the best plan is just to read it over on some Torah when uh anyway you may be somehow uh of diminished capacity and that that's probably the best plan. So it's like like among the things that we don't think about again we don't know what to do with the first couple of chapters and for that matter probably the challenge all the way is until Aravino comes on the scene which means it's even when you have the tower and everybody speaks one language and the dispersion and before that the flood and before that the powerful and so on which means there's just like one episode after the other that we don't really know how to deal with it with them because they are so different from the reality in which we live. So if you need a little bit more convincing of this, we don't know what to do with the first couple of verses of brachet. You have the beginning, you have light which is created, but you don't have the sun until the fourth day. Then you have three days before the fourth day, but the three days, a day is normally the setting, the rising of the sun, but there's no sun. And how are you counting days? And what exactly does time mean? Which means that there are just some basic questions over there that we just simply don't have the capacity to be able to deal with it by itself. >> We have the plants, the trees, the vegetation, but there's no photosynthesis because there's no sun. >> Good. Good. Good. You follow so you're following you're you're following the problem is that I'm going to say it again. We we don't know how to deal with any of these things in early BA certainly from the perspective that we have uh in terms of how we see the world today. So, and continuing on that is uh you know throughout the first chapter of all the creation that takes place and then the second chapter especially what we're going to have is how Eve comes onto the scene which is not the normal way of the world and finally we move from that into the third chapter and I'm going to start with the third chapter but I will go backwards a bit and that leads us to this other I'm not sure to call we can call him an antagonist right not a protagonist agonist antagonist and that is the serpent. So we have no idea what to do with the nash and we don't know what to do with the nash because the the the nash is something that we don't easily understand but but today today the nash is going to be our topic. If you noticed on the bottom of the page I put a title for today and we called it the first philosopher. So that is our uh that is our nash. We had other possibilities along the way but we we settled on this. So I mean the first part of it is you don't know what to do with a talking animal. But again just going back to the first you know the beginning of braia. We don't know what to do with days without sun and or as you point out photo we there's all these things we don't know what to do with. So although we could just you know stop a second and think about him and we'll see some who do in terms of okay we have other talking animals right not just Mr. Ed, we have other talking animals at some place along the way. We have but there there's a very big difference that God opened up the mouth of the right of the aton which means that that is a little different because there you see a divine action taking place micromanagement in order to have that particular result and over here it's just kind of you know taking a stroll on one nice afternoon in the garden of Eden and then the the serpent shows up and you know engages in dialogue. So that's why I'm going to say it again. We have no idea what to do with this. So when we don't know what to do, we start reading. So he was more Now I'm going to use the word clever. So by the way, that itself is going to be very interesting. What exactly does cleverness mean? I know what cleverness means in our world today. I don't know what to do with this non homo sapien that has [snorts] intelligence. And by the way, if anyone's is interested back years ago in uh my book echoes of Eden on Batit, I do have an essay there called In Search of the Serpent. And I do claim that the serpent there was a homo sapiion. So if anyone is interested, then you can take a look and see what I wrote over there or you can find a recording of this online. You can find a recording online as well of this >> online. >> In search of the serpent most likely. In search of the serpent. Yes. But I'm going to note something else right now which is already going to be the thing that we're going to use moving forward. And it says Elohim. So I do want you to note that there are two names of God used over here. Hashem Elohim and Elohim are being used. And just now to reflect somewhat on the first two chapters. In the first chapter we have the name which is used exclusively. Now the there's a early footnote in um in Rav Salvetic in the lonely man of faith where he talks about Adam one and Adam two and then he has a little footnote there saying that he is not particularly troubled by uh biblical criticism which then points out the different names of God could lead or does lead as far as they're concerned to different sources source criticism different sources and therefore different authors and he lets that go in passing, thereby frustrating most likely any uh students who are or readers who are reading this book who are troubled by this by him just saying, "I'm not troubled." And I'm sure there's all kinds of people who say, "Okay, Robert Salvich was very smart and he's not troubled, so I guess I'm not troubled either." But the problem is that you don't even know what you're not troubled about. So I'm I'm just going to share a little bit about not why I'm not troubled, but why I'm not intrigued. Okay, there there there's there's something which is different over there arguably. I mean, they like to claim, you know, Gil just wrote a book and we're giving him, you know, everybody should, of course, buy this book and support. I'm going to bring a bunch of books next week, I think, then. And uh yeah, [laughter] and the Bible has the reputation of being the all-time bestselling book. Okay, I I assume that's the case. That's that's what they say. It was the most important book that was published you know Gutenberg's first started with the printing press and primarily I would assume that most readers in the course of that time and before it when it was manuscript as well when it was a taviad people read the book because of theology. When you move to source criticism, which essentially is J PD and R and you claim that there are different authors that produced the different works, then you say that it's not a divine work. It's a human work and it's a human work written by people and each side has their own political agenda involved in it. So then you've reduced a book of theology to a book of politics. Now, that's the other thing I'm not going to talk about at all. At least not this week is politics because of, you know, personal disdain. I don't like anybody. That helps you. Okay, that that that that should make it much easier. That that once there's no theology in the book, then you no longer are able or capable of asking any interesting questions. Which means essentially what you've done is you've destroyed religion which may very likely have been wellousins and those who followed and I mean not all I'm sure there are some people who were in search of other things but once you've taken away the divine authorship then the book is of no significance but oh what significance is it then it becomes again much more of a political agenda. So the removal of theology is sure what bothers me much more because it is the theology which interests me which means what exactly is the theology of chapter 1 of chapter 2 and for that matter what is the theology of the serpent in chapter 3. So even though I called him the first philosopher, so maybe we can go back to the first theologian, but let's see what he says. First of all, we're told that he's clever. And you and you never know if clever is good or bad, right? Uh I don't know. Do you want to buy a used car from someone who's clever or you want to buy a used car from someone who's honest? Elisha. And he says to the woman, she has not been named yet. A which is an interesting word in the sentence where God had said. So I would assume that Elohim here is spelled with a capital E. Elohim the Almighty. God has said not to eat from all the trees of the field. So if you're troubled by you're more troubled by what he heard than what he says. I'm >> I don't even understand how he was speaking. >> So So the speaking serpent doesn't bother you. It's his content which bothers you which good. Okay. Everything should bother you. But what he says is that you cannot eat from every tree of the field. Now, strictly speaking, it's true. And right, and what I'm about to say now is uh material that we've done before. So, if it sounds wonderfully familiar, then good. If it doesn't, also good. Technically, what he's saying is correct. But it's a question of framing. If I go back to what God said to Adam, he says you can eat from every tree of the field, but from the tree of knowledge and good and evil that you can't eat for the day that you eat from that, you'll die. And if you want, we can look at the verse very soon. So this is a reason why I would or how I would understand Khazal who tell us, oh, you know what that serpent is? This is Laksh teaches us that the serpent is the Malik. It is the Satan. It is the Sahara. He puts all those forces into one force. This is, if you like Foridian terms, this is man's built-in death wish. This is again our evil inclination. This is Satan, whatever it is. And what it tells basically, and again, I want to get to the first stage and the second stage. I'll skip the first stage for the moment. The second stage essentially is that is it it encourages God says you can't eat anything is right just one second you can't eat any of the trees of the field but that is that true or not true so hold on a second no we can't eat from the trees of the field we ate but from the tree with his within the garden by the way she didn't name it she identified it without naming it that itself is a source of confusion He says that you can't eat it, nor can you touch it, lest you die. And said to the woman, "You will not die." Now, if we pause for a second, well, we want to read it more in a moment. Theash is correct that when they ate it, they did not die. They brought death into the world. But then we talk about long-term consequences, the short-term consequences or essentially I want to get back to is the serpent the truth speaking reptile or is it a reptile or not? I don't know if it's technically actually the reptiles. But then he continues and yoda by the way is an interesting word when you're dealing with it itself may imply something. We'll see a midrash that builds up on this hopefully before we finish today. No, quite the opposite. When you eat from the tree of knowledge and good and evil, your eyes will open up. Elohim, you will be like God or gods. Now, I don't know how he if he used a capital or not. If he wrote Eloh, okay, you will be like Elohim and then you too will know good and evil. So without getting again ahead of ourselves because I skipped something along the way and what I skipped was his initial statement was that again he said to the woman God said you cannot eat from every tree of the field. So if I were to pause and follow rish and say this is the evil inclination. Evil inclination speaks of it gets us to be tempted and essentially it said something really interesting. You cannot eat anything. Okay. Now, that's not technically true. The way to read the serpent with him being truthful is that you cannot have everything. You cannot eat from every tree of the field. So now the question is, how do you understand that word every? I don't know if I need to say it twice, but it's I'm going to say the same thing twice, but it will mean two different things. I cannot eat from every tree of the field. Does that mean I can eat 99.99999%, but I can't eat from every tree of the field? Or I can't eat from every tree of the field. I can't eat all 100%. Which means the differential between my two translations is that 99.999%. So therefore, what the serpent can say is 100% true. But now the question is how is it processed by us or how did he intend it to sound? Which means there is deception in the formulation because the formulation could be meant to in two completely radically different ways. Now how does the sahara work? I can't have everything. I can't have anything. I can't have anything. So then why not? On the other hand, you can also say I'm fine with this that it's our works by saying, "Oh, I can't have everything." But I'm not sure if every person wants everything. Or maybe we do want the one thing that we can't have. But it's very different from saying you can't have anything versus you can't have everything. And over here, I'm just leaving that part open for the moment because the nash could be understood in both ways. And he could have intended it one way or he could have actually absolutely intended it to say it in a way which was confusing. Why would I credit him with that? Because we were just now told that he was extremely clever. So somebody who's clever can now put together a sentence which could be confounding. And over here again it could get somebody thinking hold why can't I have anything or why can't I eat from any of this? So again hold on to those questions for a moment and but what we are as of this moment speaking of the nash as a tempter as a satan as a yates but ultimately also as a malik again just completely embracing raesh and the reason for each and every one of them is because he is indeed a tempter and he is indeed fueling the sahara and he is indeed going to bring death into the world because when you eat from this then death will come into the world Even though I just now nuanced it a little bit because God said when you eat it, you will die. Correct? You will eat it, you will die. Who says that the death will come immediately? God can choose to do this as he want. There's another point over here which was completely misleading which I didn't get to and I'll have to come back to that and then get back to the misleading term in multiple ways because it's going to be the key to everything we do afterwards. I'm just telling you I'm deliberately leaving something open. By the way, the response on Eve's part because he's speaking of power. He's speaking of knowledge. Knowledge is power. You will be like God. You will have power. You will have knowledge. And the way it's played then in terms of the woman's response inva which by the way is very much an echo from the first chapter, right? God sees everything is now. species that this is a really good tree to eat from. Now that itself is really interesting and is just now introduced another element and that element is passion and it and looking at it as passion. So now you have in a sense the first advertisement right sleek advertisement which just makes whatever that is look incredibly tempting but the temptation of just I combined so far there's more we need to combine it's the ketove by the way keto is only partially true it's anto ver right it's to ver so but she only sees kito she only sees the positive part and then she sees and by the way Some of us will hopefully be self-aware enough by saying hold it. If there's some kind of passion and really powerful emotional energy pulling me in a particular direction. So that itself is something which is dangerous. But over here again we're not talking about knowledge and power. Now we're talking about which is selective in its editing. And we're talking about which is passion the way that it looks. So it's packaged looks beautiful and it's very pleasant to become knowledgeable. By the way, notice that's the third level. It's not the way the serpent started. The serpent starts the other way around. is that this knowledge which she had it in a stronger sense will make you like gods of knowing you know good and evil and she took from it and she ate and she gave it to her husband I imma with her and they eat together um if you don't have Rav salivic's work that was put out after he passed away the book which is called family redeemed so first First of all, if you've only read things or try to read things like the lonely man of faith and just got to like the first big word and you did not know what he was talking about and uh I've said it before, I've explained Rabbi Salvich before if you must. When he wrote his philosophical works, I believe he was formulating his sentences in philosophical German and then translating those sentences into English and therefore you have learn long German syntax sentences which don't work in English with all kinds of technical terms. But when you read family redeemed, there's a couple of those words, but they're footnoted on the bottom telling you what they actually mean. But it's in extremely accessible and important. And he plays through a number of these early chapters in Beret. And one of the things that he points out again this is his formulation that the serpent's temptation was one which was very male oriented in terms of knowledge and power and her response is very much in terms of the aesthetics and in terms of the beauty and working on a different level. So, so it's interesting that you know the advertisement is working in this way and she's processing it in this way and then she pointed out then Eve does something she's not Eve yet but the woman does something which no man ever would have done which is why history is the way that it is is that she then turns around and shares it with the man she >> shares it with her husband. She said women men historically never shared power with with women and therefore they use this in terms of whatever political uh >> maybe it's a stupid question. Why did the go to the woman first not to try to do the temptation to >> so which leads you then which is a great question which then leads us to another problem. What does he want? What's his endgame? What's his motivation? Or for that matter who is he? As I said, all of these questions we completely ignore. By the way, the same way we ignore every word that I just now try to break down along the way. But we do know that this has catastrophic uh consequences. It says uh that they eat and their eyes are opened and now they know. So what knowledge do they gain? Now they realize that they're naked. So that that's the knowledge that they get and they make for themselves these flimsy fig leaves to cover themselves with. All that a fig leaf will do it won't give you cover. It will give it will make sure that you're not uncovered but it's not protective. And then it's called and then they hear the sound of again now note it's who is in the man and his wife hidim. So notice Hashem elohim came back over here and I'm not sure how much further to go right now but I think that we'll pause over here because we have enough to at least be again confounded to try to figure out what in the world is going on. What does he want? What is the nash trying to accomplish? Now those of us that the furthest that we ever got was rashi. So this is going to again be one of those rashis which gets skipped. I don't know if you know this, but there's a very famous English rashi that I won't say by name that many of us may have used when we were young that skipped all of the salacious um episodes. So even people who read every Rashi there get very surprised when they find other things in Rashi later on. But it was just because he he had in his mind written them for uh for school children and just felt that uh by the way there's this whole argument who Rashi wrote for if Rashi wrote for an adult audience of children or Rashi wrote for everybody which seems more likely to me anyway in source number two what did he come from. Now, now you'll note what Rashi is about to do is really interesting, especially in terms of Eve. It says it's because he saw them naked. So, the serpent saw Adam and Eve naked and he saw them involved in intimacy right out there in the public. So you have this innocent Adam and Eve frolicking about in the garden of Eden spied upon by the Nash. So the first voyer is the Nahash and he's watching Vinit Avala and he has now the word you can't miss that in terms of Rashi he now has developed a passion a desire a lust for her. So therefore in our scene there is lust which is going to emerge. The lust is going to be Eve towards the fruit. Rashi is telling us that no, there's an earlier lust, which is the whole reason goes back to your question. Why is he talking to Eve? Because he's hitting on Eve. That that's what it comes down to. And again, we don't we don't know what to do with all of this. I will admit that in that article that I wrote, I did play with a extremely fraudian idea that essentially if the serpent is some kind of homo sapien, but he's described only as a serpent, what you have is using Rabbi Salvagic's uh family redeemed language, not his idea. I don't believe he has this. Then the serpent is an unredeemed phallic symbol and all that he is reduced to is in terms of that passion that Rashi is identifying over here. He is interested in Eve and that's why he's talking to her. He's trying to engage with her. He's trying to get her to take some trippy fruits and uh whatever is going to happen from that and then but he's trying to he is his passions are inflamed. He's trying to inflame her passions. That's essentially what Rashi is telling us over here. Um, again, we can continue with Rashi if you want. But what Rashi does for us, if we ever learned this Rashi, he's just now supplied for us, you know, two pieces. One is the answer to your question, why is he hitting on Eve? Because he's hitting on Eve. That's exactly the the answer over here. And why is because he's hitting on Eve. But I'm saying I I'm I'm I know may have sounded like where I repeated myself, but that's the motivation. That's that's where all of this comes from. if we uh follow Rashi and and the truth is we go back without what I added in terms of uh the serpent being homos but we have no idea what again to do with uh with any of this >> the same word you know >> he has a ta for him and for her and she has a ta for the fruit >> yes >> so like that's kind of disappointing for him he she's just using him for the fruit not for him >> okay we're not going to talk about rel relationships now are we okay in uh in source source number three is really the most important thing we're going to do today it's the Ibenezra and the Ibenezra is going to quote a bunch of different people and the Ibanzra is essentially going to be asking rational logical questions about what to do with all of this and let's let's read He addresses your question is that she is the first Dr. Dittle. She understood the the the the language of the animals. But by the way, that he's going to quote lots of things here. The first thing that he's quoting is that essentially he's saying is that some say, "Yeah, the serpent, again, I'm I'm reading into it between the lines. The serpent really isn't speaking, but she understood what the serpent meant." Right? You have people who can tell you they know what their dogs are saying. They can know what their fish are saying. They know all kinds of things. So he says that's one approach. But what you realize what it just now did is it was troubled by this question. What language? What words? What speech? What what are we talking about? It really a talking serpent? No, not a talking serpent but an understanding woman. If you need by the way a little bit more, there is a really interesting word used when Eve was what was Eve? She was formed. What word is used? Vivven. God built her out of right is noted is the of right is so she is created which means why does a woman again on look at the commentaries on that word why does a woman have because she's built within and therefore her again I'm reading this in Ibenz didn't say all this but those who he quoted perhaps they were attuned to this that She has so she now is able to understand what the serpent is saying but that that's the first thing that he says. So therefore the call was hinted it wasn't really said and some say now you know that this is based upon the gum already had said this that this is Satan. Okay. And now he's about to question this severely. And how did people who take this opinion not read the end of the chapter or the section? So now for all of history, Satan is slithering about on its stomach. I mean that's the punishment that this gets and how can the serpent be one that now will be eating for which means at the end of the section the serpent gets a punishment right we do we need to find the the punishment of the serpent here did we go that far Doesn't sound very much like we're talking about some kind of an angel. Sounds like we're talking about something which is in fact a serpent. So, so Izzar's point over here is saying, "Okay, you say it's Satan. That's great. And I know why you're saying it's Satan." Because there's something seductive over here. There's something self-destructive over here. I don't know. Is self-destructive the right word? What? No, no, no. I'm saying is it it it's what causes me to become self-destructive? But if I'm if something causes me self-destructive so that maybe it's not self-destructive but it is self-destructive because that is right it's this thing which is causing it. So he's saying but you can't say I mean just essentially what what the Ebenezar is telling us this great methodology we always we we're always troubled we always come back to this we always circle back to this point what is so the Ibenezar here if he's giving a lesson on you know what he's saying is read the whole section and then don't don't interpret one half of a verse and tell me what you know a serpent's identity is read everything about the serpent in the chapter and then make a suggestion of what it is. He goes, you can't ignore the end of the section over here. And that that's essentially his rejoinder to to this first point that it's the to the second point and so on. And many have been confused. So again, he's getting uh this why would God curse this? Sadi points out the only things that can speak are humans. And therefore, now notice what he did with SA. He takes it and does link it with that other case. But again, I know that there's a distinction there. It says, "And God died open the mouth." Over here, he says, "But they must be the same." Why? Because the animals don't speak. So they must be quote unquote an angel that God puts in charge and has gives the angel this ability to articulate. The of he responded to this claim. And again, he's giving you a really good um cross selection of what earlier commentators said, who as far as I can tell is Gabriel, which means he said this, he responded and he responded to the response. So essentially, we're not doing everything, but we are seeing one thing. Is quite troubled by what in the world are we talking about? He goes, "It seems to me that things are exactly as they say." The serpent can speak and it stood up. Now, why does it say it stood up? Because its punishment was that now it slithers. So, that means what was it before it slithered? It was standing. And by the way, this actually leads me to where I went with this. And that is if it talks like a man or if it walks like a man. So then maybe we should give this meaning it becomes the serpent afterwards. So we'll leave that and God placed within it the knowledge that man has. So all of this part of the Ebenezar should be in again he doesn't spell out what he doesn't spell out but this should all be quite intriguing and the verse attested that it's more clever than anything else. So what is that cleverness? What is that again [snorts] capacity? That must be coming from someplace. So here is where he stops short and he says but not as much as a man. Okay. Okay. Now, going back, it has wisdom, right? Right. I'm just going to skip. And if you're going to follow this approach that it had an angelic ventriloquist divinely commanded to speak, then why should it be punished for this other than saying that it itself was speaking? It makes no sense. He goes, it's not possible that this was an angel coming up. By the way, those who thought it was the Satan could think that the Satan is given that ability. How is it possible for an angel to rebel against God? Although again we could just to quote unquote play devil's advocate the devil is given the ability in order to give us the sahara in order to be rewarded for the aterto. So the theological point you just now raised I'm not convinced is uh is unassalable but I do want to skip a little bit more where it's bolded towards the end. So this last phrase is an observation that I'm just going to touch a part of it and and here I'll I'll just tell you the origin of this point. I was looking for this which means I noticed what I'm about to tell you and I am this point I'm no longer going to be completely true [snorts] in the benezer because I don't care that much. I gave you enough interesting things there. But there is something that he noted in passing which was the first thing which I had noted where I told you I had to come back to something and that was his formulation. >> I'm back in source one alf speaks God said not to eat. Now the word or the name Elohim over here. Let me now use a little theology and I'm going to first formulate it the way that I had previously thought about it. First of all, it's right God's strictness. God is strict and God says you can't have anything which by the way is a great way for the that's what God is. God God just puts all these rules and all these rules stop us from having any joy, any fun, any any pleasure in this world. Which means by framing this as Elohim said you can't do this. It's God the lawgiver and God says these are the rules and the rules are you can't have anything. And by the way that's the way Torah works. It's arbitrary. By the way, if I would have added what it actually says first of all what it actually says is why why why would we play games? We could look in source number six when God speaks about the tree. Look at Zion in in perbet source six. Notice it's commanded. By the way, the servant missed that. Eat from every tree, don't eat from this tree. Why? Because it's going to bring death. which means you can eat 99 99.999% of the trees, but the tree which is poison and will kill you. Don't eat that. Now, that's not arbitrary. Elohim saying I made the rules and I'm not letting you have anything. It's God who's compassionate saying I'm going there are boundaries and this is bad for you so don't do this. But that's not the way the serpent says it. Which which means in my mind the fact that the serpent frames this by saying Elohim said you can't have anything is very different from Hashem Elohim saying have everything but don't have this tree. So it's again so so the name Elohim being used over here is really important. It's law. It's arbitrary. It's the way that it is. And again I'm going to try to say a little bit more about this. But first I'm going to explain everything today. Right. Right now we're going to explain everything about what it was that I had really I don't want to say noticed but but what really occurred to me. There's another point here. If you go and now this goes back to our documentary hypothesis the difference of the first chapter and the second chapter in the whole first chapter which now for us will be source number four. It's all right. All of chapter one is all which means creation takes place by Elohim. I would actually sharpen that a little bit and say that Elohim is connected again for us it's connected to nature. If you need a really clever formulation and this may be the earliest it's certainly quoted by late people afterwards in source 14 is a book called the shared which is written by Yoseph Jatilia one of the important cabalists in the 13th century he writes here Abraham that is in charge of nature which of course all of chapter one is nature. Now, what he didn't say, but what he meant to say, as far as I can tell, is I just chose one out of a hundred what I'm about to show you in source 15 because it's well known that always is connected to nature. Elohim in gamatra is hatva and that you may not have known before but that is what the shahit sedic was telling us and that is what all the later writers know and now you go back to why in chapter 1 it's exclusively elohim being used because we are talking about the creation of nature so all as all of nature unfolds in whatever way it unfolds whether we understand or don't understand all the details in chapter one chapter one is about nature so therefore for nature has its own rules. You can't fight rules of nature. Do you want a rule of nature that you can't really fight against? Um, entropy. Entropy is a good one. Gravity is a good one. Just say I don't believe I don't accept I don't accept it. Right. I don't accept gravity. I don't accept that rule. I'm say right there's no nature, you know, kind of wins. And that's what all of chapter one is. All chapter one is nature. So, it's interesting that the serpent's formulation over here is he takes back this rule to a chapter 1 rule. He doesn't read it as it actually was formulated in chapter 2. And I've already showed you that chapter 2 is much warmer. It's much more understandable if that was what was presented, you know, at that moment. If I would have had, you know, a courtroom, a debate going on and one side presents, you know, this is an arbitrary rule of nature insisting you can't have this, but you really can have it because nature will change if you have this. This is one of the rules of nature. Eat from this tree something happen. I'll show you a midrash about that before we continue. Midrash actually quotes. Um on the other hand, the counter would be what are you talking about? This is chapter 2. This is Hashem. This is God's dealing with the world in a completely different way. And he's telling you don't eat from this because eating from this is catastrophic. Why? It's not a rule of nature. It mean by the way by saying it's not even a rule of nature, you know what I'm suggesting? It's not poison. There's no element of this particular tree that if you were to find that tree and do an analysis of that tree and say, "Oh, I see why it's poison because it has this and this and this in it." No, there's no poison in it. It's rather it's saying, "Oh, no, this stuff is that's it. The world will change because of this." It's actually not a rule of nature. It's something which is beyond Yeah. this whole idea of treaty you got to have the whole purpose of it just to say there are rules I make the rules it doesn't matter if you don't understand you can have everything but this and that's the test you need it's not that there's intrinsically I mean obviously they didn't die so it was poisonous you know when they had something psychological happen that all of a sudden they say oh they didn't even know that they have a concept of naked but all of a sudden they do whatever it is that they now understand. It's almost like it's like it's like like a hoke. You cannot This is something you cannot do. And you don't have to know why. >> Well, okay, good. I'm not convinced it's a hoax. I hear you. I'm not convinced it's a hoax. I wrote >> You said >> I I wrote a really depressing book. >> No, it did. It did. It did. I I wrote it during COVID. >> I stuck at home, you know, week after week writing depressing essay after depressing essay. And then you you know it came out and then the war started and it was perfect for people to read during the war like it was so perfect after October 7th people were reading this depressing book but it's called healing and repairing and one of the things that I wrote about in that at which point does Eve realize that death Eve is called the mother of all living things and at which point does she realize that death comes into the world when uh when kind kills he right it's it's the death of heaven. So she's also the mother of all death. I mean every person who was born subsequently at some point dies. I mean present company excluded but but people but people die. So as much as I can say that she's the mother of all life, she's also the mother of all of all death and having a dead son. By the way, now you realize how I'm writing this and then it's coming out during you know this war and dead whatever. I'm saying it's like such a depressing book, but it it's so much resonated with people. But it's chapter after chapter after chapter of this. It's an old varation. And um and and I'm I'm not I'm not sure what to say in terms of it being a correct God creates rules. There are boundaries. Okay. There are boundaries and uh and you can get expelled. I mean that that's part of it. But but the main point is that it's not just that the serpent says you can't have anything. He's saying Elohim said you can't have anything versus Hashem Eloim saying you can have everything except this one you can't have because you do it there are consequences and it tells you the consequence you're going to die and and the serpent denies the consequences which then brings us to that second point. Was there death or was there not death? Does it mean that you will die or does it mean that death will come into the world? So I I flattened it a little bit. I know it says the day you you die and then the but God can interpret that anyway wants. Hashmokim can say, you know what, it says in Psalms that a day for God is like a thousand years for man. So therefore, Adam ends up not living a thousand years, he ends up living only 930 years and therefore the day that you you die and God has the ability of interpreting. By the way, that's very much Hashem. Hashem can now do thing because it's not the same kind of arbitrary rules. It's God doing this as God chooses to do this. So >> they did die, rabbi, they weren't going to die. >> Correct. And they weren't going to leave Eden and they were expelled. Good. Okay. But but my again my point is I have to say this again. My point is the serpent not only content but it's framed by saying Elohim which now I'm going to say it again is very by the way I have a really good point coming which is why I keep saying this is very much a chapter one formulation. Chapter two where this particular prohibition is actually found is framed completely different. It's framed as hemloim eat everything else. So therefore that confusion right 99.9% or is it you know I can't have anything. No you can have everything except for this and God is saying that it's going to bring death to the world and he's denying it. So what it comes back to is okay so how does the serpent know this or is the serpent just lying? See I don't think any of us have a problem before we started today to say of course the serpent's lying. Who trusts the serpent? And I'm just noting the serpent may not be lying, but okay, let's continue now. There's there's a butt there, but let's continue now. Let's go back to chapter one. As as we noted, everything in chapter one is elim. And we're in source number four. And we're up to [clears throat] So is that where See, I'm not sure. I'm not sure where we put the serpent. I don't know what a serpent is. I could go back one more day before that. So again, I don't know what our where it fits in. Does he fit there in the fourth day or does he fit in on the fifth day? And that and that is right. Right. Now that was sixth day is so between the fourth and the fifth day we have all kinds of animal life created. And then those of you who like matri is 26 26 is by the way. He will then have control over the fifth day creatures and over the other sixth day creatures. So, we obviously could spend a lot more time in that, but we're not. They were blessed. So they have a they do have a role of dominating right this is an important verse I've given you all things that grow things which are planted and I've given you all of the trees to eat. Can we pause that for a second now? Do you want to know if there's any kind of limitation in the next verse? It's called so Adam if that's what you want to call him if you want to say Adam and Eve whoever was created just now in chapter 1 verse 26 27 was just now told you want to read the words again they can eat all the as za and they can eat a breezer they can eat from all of the trees Can I make an observation now? First of all, you now know that we have a verse that we have to delve into to understand what in the world is going on. We have to delve into this verse to understand what is going on. But do you want a hypothesis? The serpent is reading the world through a lens of chapter 1. And the lens in chapter 1 is that it's Elohim and you can eat from every tree. And that's exactly what he just now said. What the serpent is ignoring is chapter 2, Hashem elokin. And what he is ignoring is that there is one tree that you can't have. He's denying that. Why is he saying well you know I was I've already heard however he hears. So what a language and so on but it's already known. Chapter one says you can eat from every tree which means essentially we have a problem. And and if you've never thought about this problem, it's because the job of most commentators is not to create problems, but to create solutions. And essentially, you realize that before you get to a solution, you first have to identify there's a problem. So the solution is going to be that somehow you reconcile between what it just now said in chapter one about you can eat every tree versus chapter two that you can't eat from a tree. But I hope you now realize at least by the way if none of you ever realized there was a problem before. So guess what? There's a problem. Does this mean it's unreconcilable? I didn't say that. But the but before you get to a solution, you need to realize that there is a problem over here. But what I've gone further in claiming is that the serpent is hyper focusing on chapter one. And I'll say it again. How do I know that? Because he frames it by Eloim. And what did Eloim say in chapter one? He said you can eat from every single tree. So therefore, when the serpent is saying you can eat from every single tree, so he's saying what he knows to be true. Now, why did I call him the first philosopher, I called him a philosopher? Because he seems to deny Hashem Eloim, which means what's the difference really between Elohim and Hashem Eloim. Here's where we're going to, you know, extend a little bit. If Elohim really is the God within nature, so therefore, he is saying there is a God within nature. But that's very different from saying that there's a god who transcends. And the name Yudv by the way also the same source says VK is this aspect of God which is completely transcendental by the way it's also the aspect of God which is full of compassion which means it's not what is the foundation of the world is the foundation of the world is it judgment which maybe you get when you say oh brace it's all judgment consequences or is there also this aspect of transcendence and then compassion. By the way, go back to what the other thing that I skipped along the way was the second chap second part of chapter 3. Man sins, there are consequences. Man is punished. And then what what does God do at the very end of chapter 3? Again, back one more time to source number one in God. then says, "Okay, they're cold. They're they they they are now, you know, walking around in these flimsy uh what is it? Um fig fig leaves. Let me give them some proper clothing to wear." And God clothe them with sturdy warm clothing. Of course, the wonderful midash that says he clothed them with snakes skin is uh is is great. and uh and and God takes care of that's hashmokim that that's not the judge who just now you know gave put them on death row that's hash elohim after the sin is still there after the sin the voice of God is still there after the sin God engages them in conversation after the sin God gives them the opportunity really to say you know what we messed up and we're sorry and we have no idea how that would have played out which means the serpent along the way over here is seeing that there's a nature, there's rules of nature, there's a power within nature and he actually feels that some of the p some of nature you can harness. He believes that there are ways of of of of being that power within nature of being the most powerful but he doesn't seem to either be aware of or he denies which means that itself becomes interesting. When I first started this thinking about this and and again this is of no significance whatsoever it's just in order to show you that I am indeed a pseudointellectual I actually started with CS Lewis the screw the screw screw tape what is what >> the screw turn letters the letters screw >> screw tape letters that's where I started because it it is letters written by Satan and that Satan did not help me at all did not help me at all in this. But that was my first thought. My first thought was trying to but CS Lewis did not help us at all. What we moved on from there to something which was far more promising and that was Nietze beyond good and evil and beyond good and evil I hope you realize is everything about it to and and essentially Nietze complains that there are any rules. He thinks that all rules are uh are again he would get rid of all of chapter 2. probably get rid of chapter one also. But uh but one of the things that he attacks is Kant which by the way really gets us much more because Kant would live in a world whereby anything metaphysical can can't be proven and therefore should be denied which essentially means we get rid of chapter 2 and therefore now what happens where do the rules still come in? Nze didn't like any of the rules and Kantis likes the rules but again where the rules come from but again that was just dropping these names along the way because ultimately I'm not really concerned with any of them. Who am I really concerned with? I'm concerned with the serpent and the serpent seems very much to be working within a framework whereby there is no chapter 2. And I'm saying that again I've given you at this point multiple reasons why that is both in terms of what he says and how he frames it. So therefore, he does not accept this and he probably could not understand a god who nonetheless is transcendent and is compassionate at the end because he doesn't see a compassionate god. He he actually sees a god which is all connected to power and he actually thinks that that power is possibly uh accessible. So let's we we we have to already start to wind down. So what else can we do of uh of significance? One thing that I could tell you is now trying to figure out, you know, what exactly are the parameters of this tree in the first chapter. So, some are going to reconcile it and some are going to have a harder time. So, I'm going to look for one little phrasiology and say, "Oh, that didn't include for whatever reason what is said in chapter 2." On the other hand, we we we have an issue that we need to uh address. And that is what really happened between chapter one and chapter 2 specifically regarding the the trees. Um if you want you'll uh you'll follow up some of this if it interests you by looking at here for example in source number seven the Ezra on that verse which you realize why of course I have to go back to the Ezra here. The only thing which really interested him which by the way interests a lot of the commentaries. Oh, it didn't say anything about meat. There there are other discussions about that maybe they were not allowed to kill animals but if animal died they allowed to eat it. And all of that doesn't interest me all that much. If you look at the or in source 11 it says pre but was a special which means it's a special time. There is no other tree like that. It's not a kind of tree. It's a metaphysical tree not a physical tree or it's a physical tree with metaphysical properties. It's not a tree that if you went and found the data to and took one of its fruits and planted it someplace else you'd grow another one. the the orheim says no it's just a completely different category so therefore when it allowed all trees it allowed all trees but the atat is something else so so again that's the rec reconciliation that you were looking for and others are going to go along these same kind of lines others are going to make it more challenging I'm just going to say that but we're going to skip over that and maybe we'll look at um we'll look at one more thing in in source 13 there's an interesting toa because and I'm bringing this primarily because I'm calling him a philosopher So again, it's a middlewe it's talking about making vows talking about somebody denies something. So when would somebody deny? So it gets into deniability and it says philosopher. The philosopher asked this rabbiven who does who is hated in this world the person who the person who rejects the creator. So essentially saying is that if you only believe in a world which is a world of nature and you don't believe in a world that there is a creator and the creator therefore gives us rules and therefore those rules need to be challenged then you end up denying everything. So again I found it interesting the way that this tofta framed what a philosopher is because I felt that it very much can be read back into the philosophical outlook that we've now uncovered in terms of the serpent. So the serpent is coming from a very different perspective from Adam and Eve. Did he hear chapter 2? Does he know about chapter 2? Was he aware of it? Again, note Rashi. Rashi said that the serpent saw Adam and Eve in the last verse in last scene in chapter 2 frolicking about. And he says, "Oh, that's what I want." Which means he wants what he can't have. And then he tries to get Eve to want what she can't have. And then maybe he can get what he can't have. by in that way and I'm saying that that's the way that it works. Just to wrap up and the way we normally phrase this is the way that binar didn't like and that is by saying oh look at this this is this is the har this is the right the evil inclination and this is the malam and this is the satan all of that by the way can be true because of the impact that it has not because we have a literal satan which means you can have a good friend who's a human being who whispers really bad ideas in your ear and gets you to do really no again that was my term term self-destructive or not, he gets you to do self-destructive things. Why? Because he's a bad influence. So, does that make him into the Satan? Does that No, he's not the Satan. So, over here as well, our problems are this talking serpent. The easiest way to go, as you you saw, he went 7/8s there. It was standing, it was talking, it had intelligence, it had ability to speak. It can't be. He rejected all those other possibilities because they don't make sense. And essentially he's saying it becomes a serpent afterwards. But what is it before? It's something under man. Okay, it's something under man that seems to be again this is what we've added today. This is what we've noticed which makes it much sharper. It's something under man which has a perspective of chapter one. The easy part of this was noting that he uses the name Eloim. That was the easy part. The second part of this was that in chapter one every single tree is available and allowed. He's quoting that. He's saying you can't eat from every tree. But you'll counter and say, but there's something from chapter two that he knows. And that is is that you eat from this tree. It's going to somehow give ability in order to be godlike. So I'll add one more midrash on top of all of this. And hopefully this will help us. Let's just see where I put that midrash here. If you look at source number 18, very endu, he started to knock God, to say negative things about God. He goes, "The tree of knowledge and good and evil is how God created the world." which means he is aware of chapter 2 but he misreads chapter 2 and he says the reason for the only reason God said not to eat it so you won't become gods and create other worlds by the way that itself na would have loved this midrash to call that that people hate their competition so essentially his take on chapter two is not a transcendent God who creates everything. His take of chapter 2 is oh there's a special tree. Yeah, that special tree is and by the way I'll say it again. Rashi quotes this that that special tree is God's secret potion. Which means why does God not want you to have this tree is because then you too will become gods. Which means he's still reading from chapter 1. It's all about nature but there's some special tree there. There there is this special tree. You know, we've always believed that there are these special things out there. There is this special water, the special tree, a magic feather, whatever it is that you're going to attach to which is going to give special abilities. So, that was the read of the serpent about why you can't have it. He's still reading. He's still reading chapter 1. He still believes in power. He still believes in nature, but he believes that within nature there are these special things that you can have, which means when it comes to understanding chapter 2, absolutely not. understanding Yudke V a God who's full of compassion that despite everything that God chooses to make the death at a much much later date chooses in order to still engage us chooses to still accept us with all of our failures it's not because God is in this competition with us and doesn't want us to find the magic tree rather because God created us in his im in his image and gave us all kinds of capabilities and sometimes we misuse those capabilities and sometimes we have serpents whispering in our ears telling us how to misuse those capabilities and giving us really really bad advice. Even though I keep telling you everything he said could have been true at least, now we're going one step further. At least from his perspective, at least from a perspective of reading chapter one. Tough.