Friday, October 20, 2006

eitz hada'as - assur to eat or assur b'hana'ah?

The gemara (Pesachim 21b) quotes R' Abahu that any time the Torah says "lo yochal", "lo tochal", or "lo tochlu" the prohibition bans not just eating, but deriving any hana'ah (benefit) from the item. When Hashem declared with respect to the eitz hada'as, "lo tochal mimenu", it seems reasonable to assume that this issur also banned having any hana'ah from the tree! The Netziv extends this reasoning further to explain Chava'as thinking. We find by chameitz, which is assur b'hana'ah, that Chazal went so far as to prohibit even touching chameitz lest it be eaten (MG"A siman 612). Here too, Chavah extended the issur of "lo tochal" and told the nachash that she was barred from even touching the eitz hada'as. Of course, now that Chavah's logic is clarified, the question becomes where did she go wrong, but for that you will have to see the Netziv : )

4 comments:

  1. In Avod D'Rabbi Nosson it says that Odom tried to make a syag l'torah by telling chava not to touch it, and the nachas convinced her to touch it, so she did which was muttar, and then the nachash said since you can touch it, you can eat it too, and she did and that's all Odom's fault for creating a fake chumrah and syag

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:05 PM

    teaser dvar torah inresting

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reb Chaim:

    Last night I perused the Tosefes Berocheh by the Baal Teyreh Temimeh. He asked how Odom HaRishen could have eaten from the Eitz HaDaas, provided by Chavah. He answers that Odom thought that the Eitz's fruit had a din hekdesh and the Gemoreh states that one is not guilty of being moy'il with hekdesh if someone else already used the hekdesh item - since Chavah ate from the Eitz already, that rendered the Eitz chullin. He was wrong, says the Tosefes Brocheh, because the fruit itself was assur and did not have a din of hekdesh. V'ayin shum.

    ReplyDelete