THe last couple of question dealt with Adam's commandments in Eden. And it pushes me back to understand the very nature of a commandment:

Let's imagine a little kid that should be commanded not to cross the road on the red light. The commandment comes from his lack of understanding of the purpose of the road, pedestrains, order, physics of movement and impact, anatomy and physiology etc. But a grown-up man who knows it all should not be commanded at all, as he understands that on his own - it is self-evident.

THere's a seeming contradiction between Adam's infinite knowledge and the need to command him on something he doesn't know. If he was grown-up and all-knowing he would know the right and the wrong. And still, he's commanded.

Why is that? What he didn't know? Why did he need to be explicitly commanded to have kids or not to eat from the tree, didn't he understand the implications of his actions?

This question comes to explain a popular mental bias of projection, of trying to project ourselves and our mentality of "not knowing" to other times or circumstances. Therefore we need to let our understanding of the Mitzvos after the sin, and think fresh about a different reality.

  • -1. First of all, you don't provide any support for your claim that Adam was, as you put it, "all-knowing" with "infinite knowledge" — not even for the lesser claim, necessary for your question, that he knew at least that the tree of knowledge would be bad for him. Second, note that there are laws against crossing against the light. – msh210 Mar 21 at 20:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .