The Four Kinds
Torah comes in four dimensions known as Pardes, a delightful orchard. While we must know when and how to approach indulge, we must be prepared to master all of them.
The Four Opinions
The Rabbis of the Talmud disagree as to the identity of the fruit Adam and Eve partook of.
“The tree from which Adam ate from:
“Rabbi Meir says was a grapevine. For there is nothing that brings wailing upon man as wine, as it is stated: ‘And he drank from the wine and became drunk.’
“Rabbi Nechemyah says it was a fig tree. For through the very thing that caused them degradation corrected them, as it is stated, ‘and they sewed together fig leaves.’
Rabbi Yehudah says it was a wheat stalk, for an infant does not know how to say ‘father’ or ‘mother’ until he tastes the taste of grain.
The Midrash records a fourth opinion that it was an Esrog, the fruit that we take and make a blessing over during the Holiday of Sukkot. (See preceding essays.)
The Connection of Fruits to Knowledge
Since the forbidden tree is called the Tree of Knowledge, it stands to reason that all of the four fruits have some connection with knowledge. Yet, only the opinion that says that it was a wheat stalk makes a connection to knowledge.
It may be suggested that the four opinions correspond to the four levels of knowledge in which the Torah is divided: Pardes.
Pardes: The Orchard of Torah
The Torah can be understood on four general levels. These four levels are known as p’shat, remez, d’rush and sod, the initials of which form the Hebrew word pardes, which means an orchard.
P’shat is the simple and straightforward level of understanding a text. The word P’shat is related to the word pashut-simple and spread-out, meaning that this level can be understood by everyone.
Remez represents the allusions a word or verse may have to another concept. Often the hints embedded in a word are connected to the words numerical value (gematria) or the letters of the word may form the initials of an entire sentence (as we just did to the word pardes).
This level, while not the obvious meaning of the text, is more accessible than the next two levels. Even a simple person can relate to the way words can allude to other ideas. In fact, this approach is very popular because it adds spice to the text.
D’rush is the process of investigating beneath the surface of a word or idea; where deeper meanings and messages are derived from the text.
When we study a text and discover an anomaly, such as a repetitive phrase, or an apparent contradiction, it forces us to probe deeper into the text to discover a deeper meaning; one that is instructive and edifying.
Sod represents the mystical or esoteric dimension of the Torah, where words and verses contain allusions to mystical concepts.
The esoteric level deals with G-dly attributes, spiritual worlds, angels and other spiritual concepts.
Wheat and the Simple Level of Torah Interpretation
We can now attempt to show the correlation between these four levels of interpretation and the four opinions as to what fruit Adam and Eve partook.
Wheat the Talmud identifies with the most basic understanding that an infant has.
Wheat, from which bread is made, is the basic staple of life. It represents the straightforward and basic understanding of the Torah. Whatever else we do with a text, the Talmud declares: “No verse can be taken out of its simple meaning.” This does not preclude interpreting the text on other levels; it just negates ignoring the level of p’shat. While we can “survive” without the other levels of understanding, we cannot subsist without the “wheat” of Torah—p’shat.
Esrog and the Allusive Approach to Torah
The Esrog can be correlated to the allusive level of interpretation known as remez.
In Biblical language, an Esrog is called Hadar, beautiful. There is something very beautiful about the Esrog, its taste and aroma and appearance. This correlates to the level of remez, which is appealing to people; there is a certain elegance to the approach of remez, that makes it appealing to all levels of society. It spices our understanding of the text.
In addition, one of the distinctive features of the Esrog, the Talmud states, is that its tree has the same taste as the fruit.
This can also be an allusion to remez, where the “tree” (i.e., the words and letters themselves on which the meaning hangs) and the “fruit” (i.e., the allusive message) are the same. In other words, the message is reflected in the most intricate details of the word.
This is in contrast with the other three levels of interpretation:
In the level of p’shat the meaning (“fruit”) is reflected in the word (“tree”) in the most general way. It has nothing to do with the letters, and other details of the word.
In the level of d’rush, only the inside (i.e., the meaning and messages) is visible it does not fit snugly into the words themselves. In d’rush there is a leap from the words (the “tree”) to the interpretation (the “fruit” that hangs on the “tree”).
In sod, the connection between the words (i.e., the “tree”) and the mystical concepts (i.e., the “fruit”) is more tenuous. The gap between the words and the interpretation is even more remote. While an astute scholar can look at a text and figure out the meaning on the level of remez or d’rush, it is impossible to independently anticipate the level of sod.
A third connection of Esrog to remez is the saying in Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers) that gematria (numerology, one of the aspects of remez) is a “condiment to wisdom.” An Esrog is not a staple of one’s diet; it is a condiment.
Thus, the Esrog is most illustrative of the level of remez.
A Fig and the Level of Derush
The fig is a fruit that is nourishing. Although wheat nourishes more than a fig, the fig has the distinction that it is more tasty and enjoyable than bread. Fruits were generally used as deserts. This therefore alludes to d’rush that nourishes the person and provides intellectual enjoyment simultaneously. Unlike p’shat, which can be dry and uninspiring, d’rush is exciting and stimulating, even as it provides us with vital lessons that are needed for our spiritual wellbeing.
The fig is a unique fruit in that it has no waste. There is no peel to discard and not pit that is inedible. The fruit in its entirety is consumed. This is just like d’rush where there is no part of it that is elusive and esoteric as in sod that cannot be “eaten.”
It is also not like p’shat where one senses there is something more to the text, and leaves us wanting more, but we have no access to that deeper meaning.
Likewise remez, while it is accessible and enjoyable it is almost as if we are being teased because we are convinced there is more to the text than just that hint.
Certainly, when it comes to sod, even the greatest kabbalists will readily admit that there is more to the subject than he can possibly comprehend.
A Grape and the Level of Sod
A grape is associated with wine and wine is associated with the secrets of the Torahhence the esoteric dimension of Torah.
There is actually a twofold connection of the grape to the level of sod.
First, as mentioned, the Talmud states: “When the wine enters, the secrets emerge.” The Talmud states further that the numerical value of the Hebrew word for wine is the same as the word sod.
Second, the actual process in wine production is not just squeezing the grapes as we would an orange to produce orange juice. Part of the process involves allowing the juice embedded in the grape to come out. Some of the juice is “concealed” within the grape just as the mystical teachings are concealed within the text of the Torah.
The Four Lessons
If the above correlation between the four opinions as to which fruit Adam partook of and the four levels of interpretation is valid, the question that can be posed now is what was wrong with these fruits that Adam was commanded not to eat them? What can be wrong with these four levels of interpretation?
The general lesson about the Tree of Knowledge is that there can be danger in wisdom. When a person places his intellect above all else, one can degenerate into a lowly being. Witness the German nation’s advanced intellectual achievements and their behavior. Intellect must be preceded by submission to values that emanate from a Higher authority.
The specific lesson from the opinion that says it was wheat, is that there are some who limit their understanding of Torah to the most obvious layer of meaning, ignoring the deeper underlying meanings represented by remez, d’rush and sod. p’shat, as important as it is, must be augmented by the deeper layers of understanding that invest life and spirit into the p’shat.
Nachmanides writes that one can be a despicable human being with permission of the Torah. This means that if one takes the p’shat of Torah, and follows its dictates to the letter, but does not have any insight into the underlying dimension, they could still remain at the lowest level of humanity.
To be sure, one must begin with and never deviate one iota from the p’shat, the basic level of Torah, but one must go beyond that and access the soul of Judaism. And only then can we transform ourselves.
The lesson from the opinion that says that the knowledge he sought was the level of remez is that remez takes word that applies to a specific situation and interprets it as an allusion to a completely different situation. The danger inherent in having just a remez orientation is that people forget about the here and now in their pursuit of hints to the future.
An example of this is Korach the man who rebelled against Moses. According to the Midrash and Chassidic thought, Korach was misled by his vision of the future. While he was prescient, he lost sight of the p’shat, the simple reality of that moment that he was rebelling against Moses.
The lesson we can derive from the Tree of Knowledge identification with d’rush is that the person who uses deductive reasoning to discover an underlying concept can fall into a trap. Deductive reasoning can be dangerous when not protected by safeguards. The Talmud relates that there were certain brilliant scholars who can provide 150 logical arguments to show that a dead rodent is ritually pure, despite the fact that the Torah explicitly declares it to be ritually unclean.
If there is danger in the glorification of knowledge it is primarily in the area where one’s mental acuity is displayed.
The danger in sod is well documented throughout history. People who dabbled in the mystical teachings of Kabbalah without the proper preparation would suffer horrible consequences.
The Talmud relates the famous story of the four great sages who entered the “pardesorchard” (read: the mystical knowledge). One died, one became deranged, one became a heretic and only one (Rabbi Akiva), “entered in peace and left in peace.”
Adam and Eve clearly were not prepared for the excursion into the mysteries of the Torah and suffered negative consequences.
This insight might explain the Talmud’s statement that Adam when shown a vision of the future grieved for Rabbi Akiva death.
Why, of all people who suffered martyrdom did he grieve just for Rabbi Akiva?
Perhaps Adam’s empathy for Rabbi Akiva lies in the fact that he rectified that which Adam failed to accomplish—the safe entry into and emergence from the “orchard.”
The Rectification
The disastrous results of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge will finally be rectified in the Messianic Age.
The four problems associated with this Tree (i.e., having only the superficial level of understanding, having only the projected meaning but not seeing that which is in front of us, glorification of human reasoning and being ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the esoteric knowledge) will all be corrected.
This means that in the Messianic Age, all four levels will be complete.
We will not have a bifurcated Torah. But all the four levels will be mastered in a fully integrated way.
Our intellectual capacities (which drive us to the level of d’rush) and our penchant to look for tantalizing allusions (associated with remez) will be checked by our soul’s spiritual connection to G-d that will result from our exposure to the mystical dimension of Torah (the level of sod).
We will be fully prepared for that level, unlike Adam and others, because these mystical teachings have already been revealed to us in the last few centuries through the popularization of these teachings, through the Chassidic Masters. By studying these teachings we get a good taste and sampling of the future mysteries of Torah.
From the book Light from the Future: Parshas Breishis by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, published by the Jewish Discovery Center.
