[Avodah] FRUITFUL QUESTION

[Zev Sero]

On 8/07/2011 12:03 AM, Richard Wolberg wrote:
> All of the m'forshim agree that we don't know for sure what fruit was
> from the Eitz hadaas and that it was NOT an apple.

Not true. AFAIK not a single meforesh rejects the possibility that it
was an apple, or even considers that possibility in the first place,
because that idea had not yet been invented in their time. It's peculiar
to the English-speaking world, and arises from the fact that "apple" used
to be a generic term for all fruit except berries (this usage persisted
as late as the 17th century). Since none of the meforshim lived in post-
17th century English-speaking countries, they would have been completely
unaware that one day some people would think the fruit was an apple,
and thus they were in no position to either endorse or reject it.
*Could* it have been an apple? I suppose. I see no particular reason
to rule it out, except that we have various traditions for what it was,
and lich'ora *one* of those traditions should be correct.


On 8/07/2011 7:18 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The XIans have a similar confusion due to the shift in meaning of the
> word "kill". In those days "kill" meant what we now call murder, and
> "slay" was the more generic term. "Thou shalt not kill" was originally an
> accurate translation of "lo sirtzach", referring only to unlawful killing.

More accurately: extrajudicial killing, whether lawful or not.
"Veratzach goel hadam et harotzeach".

-- 
Zev Sero
zev at sero.name