Some Qs About Bereschit

[Rival]

These are just some of the questions that I asked myself as I was reading; wondering if you could could help out

1. It may just be my translation (AS) but I'm led to read it as G-d planting two trees 'in the mist of the garden':
"Also the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad." However, when Chava talks to the serpent (admittedly making an addition of her own) she says:
"Of the fruit of the tree that is in the centre of the garden..." as if there is only one? Maybe I'm missing something in the English version.

2. Man is commanded to 'guard' the garden - from what? (2:15)

3. Was the ground somehow guilty along with Cain for admitting Abel's blood?

4. Of Noach, Lamech says, "And he named him Noah, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ground, which the Lord has cursed."" He's referencing Noach's name, but in what way does Noach bring these things?

5. What did it mean to be 'righteous' (a la Noach) pre-flood? I refer to the argument that Noach was only righteous when compared to his contemporaries - what does this mean exactly?

Thanks

 

[rosends]

These are just some of the questions that I asked myself as I was reading; wondering if you could could help out

1. It may just be my translation (AS) but I'm led to read it as G-d planting two trees 'in the mist of the garden':
"Also the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad." However, when Chava talks to the serpent (admittedly making an addition of her own) she says:
"Of the fruit of the tree that is in the centre of the garden..." as if there is only one? Maybe I'm missing something in the English version.

Excellent question. Three possibilities:
1. The Ramban on 2:9 makes a point about the physical placement of the two but I'm not sure I get his point

2. The Rabbeinu Bahya writes, "A closer examination of the text which placed the two words בתוך הגן exactly between the words עץ החיים and עץ הדעת טוב ורע, makes it clear that both these trees stood next to one another. Although there were two trees, and it is physically impossible for both trees to be precisely in the centre of the garden, we must assume that they had a single trunk and that the two trees branched out at a certain point above the ground, one side becoming the עץ החיים, the other the עץ הדעת."

3. The Kli Yakar makes a point which I find intriguing -- he says that the tree of life had no fruit that would have interested anyone so there was no reason to forbid it so when Eve talks about the tree in the middle from which she was forbidden to eat, it can only mean the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

2. Man is commanded to 'guard' the garden - from what? (2:15)

The Ibn Ezra writes, "To keep it means to guard the garden so that no animals enter therein and befoul it."

I'm skipping number 3 right now because, off the top of my head, I don't have a glib answer and, knowig that the land was rewarded for protecting Moshe, I would have to ee if the land was cursed here.

4. Of Noach, Lamech says, "And he named him Noah, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ground, which the Lord has cursed."" He's referencing Noach's name, but in what way does Noach bring these things?

Rashi on 2:29, "For until Noah came people had no agricultural instruments and he prepared such for them. The earth had brought forth thorns and thistles when they sowed wheat in consequence of the curse imposed upon Adam Harishon: in the days of Noah, however, this ceased (Tanchuma 1:1:11). This is what is meant by the word ינחמנו (viz., ינח מנו). If, however, you do not explain it in this manner, but from the root נחם “to comfort”, then the meaning you give to this expression (connecting it with the idea of “comfort”) will have no application to the name נח, and you would have to call him מנחם “Comforter”."

5. What did it mean to be 'righteous' (a la Noach) pre-flood? I refer to the argument that Noach was only righteous when compared to his contemporaries - what does this mean exactly?

On the most textual level, the Ramban establishes a distinction between Noach and everything the other people of the generation did that made God angry,
"The meaning thereof is that all his deeds were pleasing and sweet before Him. Similarly: For thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name.518Exodus 33:17. This is like the verses: And He gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison;519Genesis 39:21. And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all of them that looked upon her.520Esther 2:15. Scripture mentions this in contrast to what it said concerning his [Noah’s] generation, namely, that all their deeds brought grief before Him, blessed be He. But of Noah it says that he found grace in His eyes, and afterwards it tells521In the following Seder Noach. why he was pleasing before G-d: because he was a perfectly righteous man."

I think you would also like what the Sforno says,
"But Noach found favor (chen). Chen implies groundless favor. Because Noach did not actively spread knowledge of Hashem he was not worthy that others should be saved on his account. Thus it was an act of groundless favor to him that his sons and daughters-in-law were spared."

 

[Rival]

I think you would also like what the Sforno says,
"But Noach found favor (chen). Chen implies groundless favor. Because Noach did not actively spread knowledge of Hashem he was not worthy that others should be saved on his account. Thus it was an act of groundless favor to him that his sons and daughters-in-law were spared."

I do have Sforno and should have checked, but these were just some Qs that had come to mind on a quick reading

Thanks for these.

 

[Rival]

3. The Kli Yakar makes a point which I find intriguing -- he says that the tree of life had no fruit that would have interested anyone so there was no reason to forbid it so when Eve talks about the tree in the middle from which she was forbidden to eat, it can only mean the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I guess this would have changed after they were driven from the garden, otherwise G-d wouldn't be worried about them 'reaching out and taking' from it?

 

[rosends]

I guess this would have changed after they were driven from the garden, otherwise G-d wouldn't be worried about them 'reaching out and taking' from it?

There was nothing inherently desirous (nor was there the concept of desire). Once the need arose, the desire developed with it.