Daf Yomi, Marriage Counseling, Psychotherapy, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Torah and Psychology
Our Gemara on Amud Beis famously discusses that every forbidden item in the Torah has an analogue that is permitted. For example, a certain fish that tasted like pork, or fats from a wild animal which is permitted, though similar in taste to cattle fats that are prohibited.
What is the theological significance of this? Be’er Mayim Chaim (Bereishis 2:16 & 3:6) sees this in a straightforward manner. It would be too much temptation and an unreasonable expectation for people to resist desires if there was not a permitted form. In fact, he takes this so far, that he asks why were Adam and Chava punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Since there was no permitted similar fruit, how could they be expected to resist? He answers cleverly that they were only forbidden to eat the fruit - but not any other part of the tree. And the Tree of Knowledge retained the original blueprint of creation, in that the bark had the same taste as the fruit. Therefore, they could have eaten from the bark and experienced the same taste, so they did not have an excuse. (The other trees were also supposed to follow that plan, but they disobeyed. See Rashi Bereishis 1:12.)
Be’er Mayim Chaim also emphasizes the importance of not overestimating one’s piety. He says, while technically abstention and not indulging is a good thing, it also can be the tool of the yetzer hara. A person may reach a point where he feels despair in receiving no pleasure from the world, and he then will commit all kinds of sins. Yet, he could have enjoyed himself with moderation.
Returning to the metaphor, what does it mean that these trees were supposed to have bark that tasted like the fruit? And how could the trees disobey God? I believe this Midrash is an allegory for the problem of entropy and material existence. Many things in the world do not operate on an ideal, because if they were not subject to any type of decay and degradation, that is imperfection, they would not be subject to change. Something that is not subject to change does not really exist outside of God, independently and autonomously. In effect, the purpose of creation would be thwarted. We may not like that there is sin in the world or poverty or birth defects, but the very fact that our neurons and wiring can go wrong is exactly what gives us the freedom for it to go right. Without it, we do not have freedom. This is symbolically represented in the trees “disobeying” God. The bark is the foundation, and the fruit is the product. Ultimately, the foundation must “disobey”, that is to have free choice and be autonomous and subject to chaos, in order for it to produce the “fruit,” the purpose of creation, which is the voluntarily choosing to obey God.
If so, it makes perfect sense that the tree of knowledge, which represents an unattainable perfection in this material world, would have the bark taste the same as the fruit.
sponsored by https://empowermentaftertrauma.com/
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com