Why did Adam eat?

[Mount_Carmel]

Please,
What exactly is this parable of which you speak?

I refer to my post. -And yes, it was not an apple - the ‘apple’ is a later ‘Europeanised’ adoption.

In Judaism, yetzer hara (Hebrew: יֵצֶר הַרַע‎, for the definite “the evil inclination”), or yetzer ra (Hebrew: יֵצֶר רַע‎, for the indefinite “an evil inclination”) refers to the inclination to do evil, by violating the will of God. The term is drawn from the phrase “the imagination of the heart of man [is] evil” (Hebrew: יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע, yetzer lev-ha-adam ra), which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, at Genesis 6:5 and 8:21.

The yetzer hara is not a demonic force, but rather man’s misuse of things the physical body needs to survive.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

God told Adam not to eat the apple, before Eve was created.

God said they would die as a consequence of eating the apple. It was Satan who lied and told them they would gain in knowledge. If you look at the world, do you see people filled with the knowledge of good and evil? I see what I see in myself - profound ignorance. We do have a conscience, but It is through revelation that it is educated. What we did gain from eating of the “apple” is the knowledge of how deeply God loves us, that He would send His Son as a sacrifice to redeem us.

Evil can be understood as a privation of good and not existing as something in itself. This is part of the death that followed their ingesting the fruit. Their wholeness was destroyed. What happens when we are embarrassed? - we blush; our natural exuberance and sense of goodness is crushed. Their eyes were opened to the fact that they were now diminished, and they sought to hide that truth.

Why did Adam eat? Why do you and I sin?

 

[ellzeena]

Please,
What exactly is this parable of which you speak?

:takethat:

OH NO OH NO OH NO!

Now this question belongs in on_the_Hill’s thread…where’d I put the advil?

 

[grannymh]

An excerpt from post 16.

Yes of course I understood your discussing it in that matter, rather like reading a fairy tale or watching a morality play, all the while understanding there is an important underlying statement of truth being made. And my confusion is just as you state: why would God create/bring to fruition two Hominids (becoming Homo Sapiens, and it must have been such if they lived far apart and never even met one another, as science suggests) when He knew, all along, what would happen and that they would fall from grace and then be subject to death and eternal punishment? As for “all their descendants”, the concept of “original sin” came from the philosophy of St. Augustine.

Emphasis in bold is mine.

At my first reading of post 16, it appeared to be full of interesting speculations.
However, I wondered if the answer to – “what exactly is this parable of which you speak?” asked in post 20 – was in post 16.

So, I now have post 16 in hand. Up front it says: “As for “all their descendants”, the concept of “original sin” came from the philosophy of St. Augustine.” As a speculation, this “Augustine idea” is a day late and a dollar short when it comes to understanding the one and only Original Sin, named original because it was committed by the one and only original human.

Whoever composed the first three chapters of Genesis knew that Original Sin was at the dawn of history. That is why creation of the pinnacle of creation (humans) follows in order from Genesis 1:1. The creation ladder begins with the earth, a formless wasteland, and tops out at the crown of creation, you and me. After all the great works of the Creator in whatever manner was proper to the material/physical universe, it is only when the humans Adam and Eve appear that human history could begin. And since the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man (CCC 404), humans had to have a unified beginning and not just popping up here and there.

Catholics do not have to wait until St. Augustine in order to learn about the Original Sin concept.

Original Sin is right there in the first three chapters of Genesis. In addition, St. Paul, inspired by the promised Holy Spirit, clearly recognized the importance of the Original Sin in relationship to Jesus Christ. The truth of Original Sin is found in Romans 5: 12-21 which is a tad earlier than St. Augustine.

 

[Robert_Sock]

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” Genesis 3:6

Why did Adam eat of the fruit, after Eve had ate it? Didn’t he observe a change in Eve since she ate first; which would have given him pause to not eat?

Not everything in the bible needs to be taken literally; the fruit could easily have been spiritual. We likewise have no real reason to not believe that that Adam and Eve were spiritual creatures, and did not become fully human until they were clothed in garments of skin.

 

[grannymh]

Not everything in the bible needs to be taken literally; the fruit could easily have been spiritual. We likewise have no real reason to not believe that that Adam and Eve were spiritual creatures, and did not become fully human until they were clothed in garments of skin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-367.

CCC 355 and CCC 365 describe Adam, Eve, you, and me, because Catholicism teaches that Adam and Eve had a fully complete human nature (soul and body, intellect and will) before the Fall. This original human nature was transmitted in a wounded state to us. (CCC 404-405)

 

[fhansen]

WHAT was it? A need to “know more” in direct contradiction to what God has made available for us to know? But aren’t we STILL doing that via “science” and technology? WHAT is the “sin”, the original sin (as named by St. Augustine, by the way, not the Lord Jesus). Anyone have any well thought out ideas? I’ve just begun to think on this, so far not any real guesstimate.

The sin was disobedience of God, rejection of His will in favor of Adam’s will. The desire of Adam was to be like God, determining right and wrong for himself, without regard to God’s will. Adam presumably considered that he would benefit from such an act, that he’d be better off without God, so to speak, that he didn’t need God. All further human sin is related to and flows from this first act of disobedience according to the Catechism. The result, a life of pain, struggle, suffering and death, along with the good that we all experience, or know, everyday, constitutes the knowledge of good and evil which was a natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience, not unlike the natural consequence of “disobeying” the law of gravity by jumping off a cliff. All of creation must be in accordance with God’s will, or else evil has entered upon the scene. This natural consequence of being exiled from the Garden has a purpose, though, or else God would never have created us to begin with, let alone created us and allowed us to fall by an abuse of our free will. The purpose is to educate us as to one truth: we need Him after all. “Apart from Me you can do nothing”, Jesus tells us in John 15. With time, the knowledge of good and evil, revelation, and grace we have the opportunity to choose the Good, alone, turning back to God like the Prodigal to his father who’s always been waiting with open arms for His beloved wayward creation to make their way back home.

 

[ellzeena]

An excerpt from post 16.

Emphasis in bold is mine.

At my first reading of post 16, it appeared to be full of interesting speculations.
However, I wondered if the answer to – “what exactly is this parable of which you speak?” asked in post 20 – was in post 16.

So, I now have post 16 in hand. Up front it says: “As for “all their descendants”, the concept of “original sin” came from the philosophy of St. Augustine.” As a speculation, this “Augustine idea” is a day late and a dollar short when it comes to understanding the one and only Original Sin, named original because it was committed by the one and only original human.

Whoever composed the first three chapters of Genesis knew that Original Sin was at the dawn of history. That is why creation of the pinnacle of creation (humans) follows in order from Genesis 1:1. The creation ladder begins with the earth, a formless wasteland, and tops out at the crown of creation, you and me. After all the great works of the Creator in whatever manner was proper to the material/physical universe, it is only when the humans Adam and Eve appear that human history could begin. And since the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man (CCC 404), humans had to have a unified beginning and not just popping up here and there.

Catholics do not have to wait until St. Augustine in order to learn about the Original Sin concept.

Original Sin is right there in the first three chapters of Genesis. In addition, St. Paul, inspired by the promised Holy Spirit, clearly recognized the importance of the Original Sin in relationship to Jesus Christ. The truth of Original Sin is found in Romans 5: 12-21 which is a tad earlier than St. Augustine.

I refer you to Mt. Carmel’s post which explains the profound (and ongoing) analysis of Human relationship to God as found in Orthodox Judaism. Romans 5 12:21 reiterates that teaching which would have been passed down (they memorized the Torah in those days and recited it from memory) and this is what is being spoken of: that teaching. Nowhere is “original” used, nowhere is a specific “act” or “choice” explained, "Sin existed in the world long before the Law was given (Jerusalem Bible, Romans 5:13, a translation I don’t much like by the way). What “sin”? We’ve already concluded (and with Mt. Carmel’s scholarly contribution) that this was not eating any apple or any other such thing. It appears that Human being(s) (and remember the genome study which said that “Adam” and “Eve” lived at the same time but most likely did not know each other!) made a choice that so offended God as to cause Him to regret His creation and change its substance. That “sin” - choice, thought, determination, etc. - thereby poisoned the entire creation, not just Humanity. So it must have been profound. Julian Jaynes proposed that “consciousness” occurred when the brain became one cohesive whole (although I believe him to have been greatly flawed in his thesis and was not well accepted at the time of his writing). Prior to that, “thoughts” were “heard”, literally, as originating from left or right hemisphere. Now this flies in the face of what little we know about the brain and consciousness, but just for a moment: suppose that God did communicate, directly and audibly, and that these first Human(s) chose to ignore Him. That would then be the first “sin” because it would be in direct disobedience/disagreement with God.

 

[ellzeena]

I refer to my post. -And yes, it was not an apple - the ‘apple’ is a later ‘Europeanised’ adoption.

In Judaism, yetzer hara (Hebrew: יֵצֶר הַרַע‎, for the definite “the evil inclination”), or yetzer ra (Hebrew: יֵצֶר רַע‎, for the indefinite “an evil inclination”) refers to the inclination to do evil, by violating the will of God. The term is drawn from the phrase “the imagination of the heart of man [is] evil” (Hebrew: יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע, yetzer lev-ha-adam ra), which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, at Genesis 6:5 and 8:21.

The yetzer hara is not a demonic force, but rather man’s misuse of things the physical body needs to survive.

Yes and now we finally get to the place I so wanted to go: scholarly understanding of Judaism which is the foundation of Christianity and from which Jesus, his Apostles and all His followers extrapolated what they knew (literally by heart) into the revisions of faith made by Jesus in His instructions. It seems to me (repeating myself here) that He came to “set the record straight”. How can God not know that His people (the Jews) were constantly (and still are) attempting to make sense of creation, of its Creator, and of our (Human) relationship to Him and to the creation itself? So when they began to go astray, despite all His efforts to the contrary, He had two choices (not actually but for the sake of this discussion): Leave His creation to itself (and that would have been hell on earth, think about it) or intervene. Intervention required something SO huge that it could not be denied (although, of course, Humans have succeeded in denying it). Incarnating, becoming part of the Creation, and telling us Himself, directly, the simple (yet not easy) formula to follow God’s purpose for us and for all things.

So: this “inclination to do evil”, of which you speak, appears to have arisen universally in the population of Homo Sapiens. How? What? In the Talmud, is anything said of this?

 

[ellzeena]

The sin was disobedience of God, rejection of His will in favor of Adam’s will. The desire of Adam was to be like God, determining right and wrong for himself, without regard to God’s will. Adam presumably considered that he would benefit from such an act, that he’d be better off without God, so to speak, that he didn’t need God. All further human sin is related to and flows from this first act of disobedience according to the Catechism. The result, a life of pain, struggle, suffering and death, along with the good that we all experience, or know, everyday, constitutes the knowledge of good and evil which was a natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience, not unlike the natural consequence of “disobeying” the law of gravity by jumping off a cliff. All of creation must be in accordance with God’s will, or else evil has entered upon the scene. This natural consequence of being exiled from the Garden has a purpose, though, or else God would never have created us to begin with, let alone created us and allowed us to fall by an abuse of our free will. The purpose is to educate us as to one truth: we need Him after all. “Apart from Me you can do nothing”, Jesus tells us in John 15. With time, the knowledge of good and evil, revelation, and grace we have the opportunity to choose the Good, alone, turning back to God like the Prodigal to his father who’s always been waiting with open arms for His beloved wayward creation to make their way back home.

How do you know? Is it because the Church teaches this? How do we really know what choice, what thought, what act, what determination, how and when it occurred, was made or not made? No it was certainly not an apple. Yes it appears to have been a direct decision to ignore something clearly spoken by God. How was it “spoken”? In the heart, audibly, in the mind (such as the Holy Spirit does speak to us today)? I think if we could really get to the bottom of this we would fully understand God’s will and the intention of His great love and sacrifice by incarnating and joining us here in the Personhood of Jesus. But then, that would be paradise, wouldn’t it!

 

[Aloysium]

Yes and now we finally get to the place I so wanted to go: scholarly understanding of Judaism which is the foundation of Christianity and from which Jesus, his Apostles and all His followers extrapolated what they knew (literally by heart) into the revisions of faith made by Jesus in His instructions. It seems to me (repeating myself here) that He came to “set the record straight”. How can God not know that His people (the Jews) were constantly (and still are) attempting to make sense of creation, of its Creator, and of our (Human) relationship to Him and to the creation itself? So when they began to go astray, despite all His efforts to the contrary, He had two choices (not actually but for the sake of this discussion): Leave His creation to itself (and that would have been hell on earth, think about it) or intervene. Intervention required something SO huge that it could not be denied (although, of course, Humans have succeeded in denying it). Incarnating, becoming part of the Creation, and telling us Himself, directly, the simple (yet not easy) formula to follow God’s purpose for us and for all things.

So: this “inclination to do evil”, of which you speak, appears to have arisen universally in the population of Homo Sapiens. How? What? In the Talmud, is anything said of this?

Were you maybe looking for Chasidic Answers Forum?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-367.

CCC 355 and CCC 365 describe Adam, Eve, you, and me, because Catholicism teaches that Adam and Eve had a fully complete human nature (soul and body, intellect and will) before the Fall. This original human nature was transmitted in a wounded state to us. (CCC 404-405)

Yes, but I think that Jewish mystics would disagree with the CCC here.

 

[fhansen]

How do you know? Is it because the Church teaches this? How do we really know what choice, what thought, what act, what determination, how and when it occurred, was made or not made?

We know because evil simply cannot be the reality that it is unless for that choice. And we can see that choice echoed in our own thoughts and actions-and see the result in the world around us. The doctrine of OS is an answer for the 'mystery of evil", together with God’s own answer for it: the Atonement.

No it was certainly not an apple. Yes it appears to have been a direct decision to ignore something clearly spoken by God. How was it “spoken”? In the heart, audibly, in the mind (such as the Holy Spirit does speak to us today)?

We don’t know if the voice was audible or a whispered thought or knowledge-perhaps the voice of Adam’s own conscience. But why does it matter?-Genesis reveals to us the direct Source of that voice in any case, and that Adam walked with God, and was later exiled from His presence, so He would’ve enjoyed a much more immediate relationship than we have: God’s existence was not in doubt for Adam, and therefore for humankind, until the separation occurred at some point. If justice prevailed, if OS was not in some way operative in us now, then we’d be fully cognizant of God and His existence from birth. The existence of evil, the unreasonable, otherwise uncalled for harmful actions of humans placing lesser goods over greater ones (selfishness over love) in order to obtain some perceived benefit, itself points to the existence of God, of the ultimate source and standard of goodness, a goodness from which evil is simply a negation or detraction. If not for objective goodness, evil couldn’t exist-there’d be nothing to be abused-and everything God created is good.

I think if we could really get to the bottom of this we would fully understand God’s will and the intention of His great love and sacrifice by incarnating and joining us here in the Personhood of Jesus. But then, that would be paradise, wouldn’t it!

Catholicism teaches that our faith is a gift-and already constitutes a dim glimpse on earth of paradise that will only be fully realized via the Beatific Vision in heaven. We understand God’s intention to the extent that we recognize the reality of sin-contrasted with the reality of His love-an admittedly tall order since we prefer not to acknowledge our own unrighteousness-and, related to this-we don’t easily comprehend, recognize or value the love of God, we don’t value God as we should-and that’s the point of our life here, to come to that very awareness. It’s a work of grace, not without our cooperation, but it does happen: God reveals Himself to us more and more clearly as we answer the call and continue to seek Him. The “glimpse” of paradise can become extremely profound- at His discretion.

 

[vames]

Nowhere is “original” used, nowhere is a specific “act” or “choice” explained

See Jewish Encyclopedia - especially Adam in apocryphal and rabbinical literature:

The Jewish view concerning Adam’s sin is best expressed by [rabbi] Ammi (Shab. 55a, based upon Ezek. xviii. 20): “No man dies without a sin of his own. Accordingly, all the pious, being permitted to behold the Shekinah (glory of God) before their death, reproach Adam (as they pass him by at the gate) for having brought death upon them; to which he replies: ‘I died with but one sin, but you have committed many: on account of these you have died; not on my account’”.​

It is a beautiful and certainly an original idea of the rabbis that “Adam was created from the dust of the place where the sanctuary was to rise for the atonement of all human sin,” so that sin should never be a permanent or inherent part of man’s nature.​

While sin was of fatal consequence, and the effect of the poison of the serpent is still felt by all following generations, unless they should be released from it by the covenant of Sinai, the Jewish haggadists emphasize one point not mentioned in the Bible, but of great doctrinal importance in comparison with the teachings of Paul and his followers. The deadly effect of sin can be removed by repentance. Hence, Adam is represented as a type of a penitent sinner. Thus, he is described in Vita Adæ et Evæ, as well as by the rabbis of the second century as undergoing a terrible ordeal while fasting, praying, and bathing in the river for seven and forty days…

Notice also the more complicated relationship between man and angels in these legends (he was like them or above them, Satan was jealous and was punished by God for that) and the legends about God communicating with man even after the Fall, teaching him how to make fire and receiving his thanksgiving offerings.

Also:

A closer examination of the narrative will show that the word [Adam] is primarily used in a generic sense, and not as the name of an individual. In Gen. i. its use is wholly generic. In Gen. ii. and iii. the writer weaves together the generic and the personal senses of the word. In all that pertains to the first man as the passive subject of creative and providential action the reference is exclusively generic. Indeed, it is doubtful whether “Adam” as a proper name is used at all before Gen. iv. 25 (J) and v. 3 (P). Here the same usage is manifest: for in the two opening verses of chap. v. the word is used generically. It may also be observed that the writer in Gen. ii., iii. always says “the man” instead of “Adam,” even when the personal reference is intended, except after a preposition, where, however, a vowel has probably been dropped from the text. The explanation of the variation of usage apparently is that, as in the case of most of the early stories of Genesis, the material of popular tradition, which started with the forming of man out of the earth, was taken up and worked over for higher religious uses by thinkers of the prophetic school.

See also Sin and Original Sin

Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of this so-called “original sin”; some teach that it was due to Adam’s yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of mankind.

 

[vames]

And frankly, to insist upon the belief of an actual “couple”, together and created for that purpose, who ate an apple because of a snake…well, that renders the entire history that follows rather ridiculous.

I know, this sort of thinking is probably forbidden, seems an awful lot of things are forbidden, one wonders why. Hasn’t God allowed these thoughts to form in our minds and perhaps He wants us to come closer to the truth? Free will: yes He gave them that, and it lets Him “off the hook” in terms of cruelty (I think, although certainly others would argue differently) but maybe THIS is “IT”. Maybe our judgment of Him, based upon our limited understanding, BECAUSE bad things happen (and they always have), IS the “apple”. What do you think?

That’s why I said that one has to decide where to stop I mean: is only the fruit a metaphor? is the snake a metaphor too? maybe even the Garden of Eden with its glorious, perfect Adam? maybe even the dialogue between man and a totally anthropomorphized God? The stories of Creation in the OT are based on Oriental popular legends - every tribe or nation has such legends meant to explain the unexplainable basic facts of life: the origin of man, his relationship with nature and gods and his shock when he grows up and discovers that there is so much suffering in life. These legends were simple (why do we have to suffer and die? because our ancestors trespassed a divine command and were cursed; why the snake crawls on its belly? because it tempted our ancestors and was cursed). Then they were interpreted and invested with countless philosophical, theological and even political meanings, according to the fantasy (see here) and the cultural and religious background of each interpreter.

 

[Shin]

“And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.” Genesis 3:6

Why did Adam eat of the fruit, after Eve had ate it? Didn’t he observe a change in Eve since she ate first; which would have given him pause to not eat?

It certainly is a thought provoking question. I have read of a mix of motivations. One reason I heard once, was that he was too attached to Eve. Another, that he did not suspect God’s punishment would be so great, but presumed it would be far less, so he thought he could risk defying God for the sake of his wife.

He should have said to her, after she ate and offered him the apple, “You’re on your own in this.”

Another, that he like Eve, saw the fruit was good to eat, and so, inordinate desire for food.

All the sins Adam and Eve committed in that act, their various motivations, are now the particular failings or weaknesses of each gender today.

 

[grannymh]

Ah, one asks, how does one get to the real bottom of Original Sin?

By getting to the basic distinction between the Creator God and the creature human.
Hint: God is not a human. Jesus assumed human nature; He did not absorb it.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Yes and now we finally get to the place I so wanted to go: scholarly understanding of Judaism which is the foundation of Christianity and from which Jesus, his Apostles and all His followers extrapolated what they knew (literally by heart) into the revisions of faith made by Jesus in His instructions. It seems to me (repeating myself here) that He came to “set the record straight”. How can God not know that His people (the Jews) were constantly (and still are) attempting to make sense of creation, of its Creator, and of our (Human) relationship to Him and to the creation itself? So when they began to go astray, despite all His efforts to the contrary, He had two choices (not actually but for the sake of this discussion): Leave His creation to itself (and that would have been hell on earth, think about it) or intervene. Intervention required something SO huge that it could not be denied (although, of course, Humans have succeeded in denying it). Incarnating, becoming part of the Creation, and telling us Himself, directly, the simple (yet not easy) formula to follow God’s purpose for us and for all things.

So: this “inclination to do evil”, of which you speak, appears to have arisen universally in the population of Homo Sapiens. How? What? In the Talmud, is anything said of this?

Dare I use the ‘evolution’ word, or even the ‘Ah Ha moment of cognition/recognition/understanding or the concepts of Right and Wrong/Good and Bad/Good and Evil’?

 

[grannymh]

It certainly is a thought provoking question. I have read of a mix of motivations. One reason I heard once, was that he was too attached to Eve. Another, that he did not suspect God’s punishment would be so great, but presumed it would be far less, so he thought he could risk defying God for the sake of his wife.

He should have said to her, after she ate and offered him the apple, “You’re on your own in this.”

Another, that he like Eve, saw the fruit was good to eat, and so, inordinate desire for food.

All the sins Adam and Eve committed in that act, their various motivations, are now the particular failings or weaknesses of each gender today.

May I point out some Catholicism clarifications.

First. The Original Sin is only one sin committed by the original Adam who has this unique, individual distinction. "The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (CCC 404. Footnote 293. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1)

St. Paul expressed this clearly in his letter to the Romans, chapter 5, verses 12-21.

The correct interpretation of Original Sin is crucial in Catholicism. “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (CCC 389) The foundation for the correct interpretation is the basic distinction between the infinite Creator God and the finite creature human.

Adam’s nature was in the state of original holiness and justice. (CCC 404) God created Adam in His image and established him in direct friendship or relationship with Himself as the Divine Creator. Being a created spiritual human creature, Adam could remain in God’s friendship by living in free submission to his Creator. (CCC 396)

Regardless of how Original Sin is described, it is the shattering of humanity’s relationship with divinity.

Post 2 above referred to Adam’s original action or sin of preferring oneself over and above God. (CCC 396-400). Personally, I like knowing the background such as what exactly is human nature and what wounded the original human nature which was subsequently transmitted to all human descendants of Adam. It is comforting to know that God, out of love, did not abandon Adam and his descendants. (CCC 355-421)

Link to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[ellzeena]

See Jewish Encyclopedia - especially Adam in apocryphal and rabbinical literature

This is just one of several ways in which extreme Orthodox Judaism studies scripture, as explained here:
Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — “plain” (“simple”) or the direct meaning.[1]
Remez (רֶמֶז) — “hints” or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: “inquire” (“seek”) — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in ‘bone’) — “secret” (“mystery”) or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a “hint” is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.
Some thinkers, such as the Tolaat Yaakov, divide Pardes into Peshat, Remez, Din (law), and Sod. According to this understanding, Derash is divided into the homiletics, which are classified under Remez, and legal interpretations, which are classified under Din.

There are literal books written on Adam and Eve, tombs found in the Talmud. This is studied in the manner of face value right down to the intuitive knowledge. Someone teased that I should be looking for an Hasidim forum lol, perhaps so, but they deny Jesus and I would be immediately shunned.