The Genesis of Justice by Alan M. Dershowitz Page A

out of self-interest in denying to those He had created in His own image the
     most important aspect of that divine image, namely the continuing quest for greater knowledge. A midrash states that the serpent
     told Eve that God Himself “ate of this tree” and “hates to have a rival in His craft.” 23 The God who threatened Adam is Himself an ever-learning God, not a statically omniscient Being Who knows everything there
     is to know from the very beginning. Perhaps the command to forbear from eating the forbidden fruit was a test of Adam and
     Eve’s willingness to obtain knowledge even if it required transgression. Recall that God gave Adam and Eve an opportunity
     to explain their actions before imposing punishment: “What is this that you have done?” Some commentators point to this to
     support the idea that every person has the right to a defense. A midrash, however, notes that the serpent was given no opportunity
     to defend his actions and from this concludes that the wicked deserve no defense. Since “the wicked are good debaters,” the
     serpent would have argued: “Thou didst give them a command, and I did contradict it. Why did they obey me, and not Thee? Therefore
     God did not enter into argument with the serpent.” 24 Not a particularly compelling point, since the midrash seems to assume that God would lose the argument to a snake! I guess
     even the writers of this midrash had some doubts about God’s omniscience.
    In any event, if Adam and Eve had explained that they believed themselves entitled to knowledge, even at the risk of disobeying
     their Creator, God might have responded differently—perhaps more leniently, perhaps more harshly—to a principled act of disobedience.
     I recall a case at Harvard where a student altered his transcript in order to be admitted, claiming that he wanted to obtain
     the knowledge that comes with a Harvard education. The administration board was not sympathetic to his argument.
    The novelist Philip Roth wrote that “without transgression there is no knowledge”—suggesting that all true knowledge requires
     rule breaking. 25 Perhaps God was simply warning human beings of the double-edged nature of knowledge and of its potential—if misused—to destroy
     humankind. Maybe God decided to wait and see what Adam and Eve—and their descendants—
did
with that knowledge: whether they used it for good or for evil. Only then could God decide whether or not Adam and Eve did
     the right thing or—if they did the wrong thing—how serious their crime was and whether His initial punishments were sufficient.
     We know from contemporary experiences that knowledge itself is neutral, whether it be knowledge of nuclear physics, genetic
     engineering, computer science, or anything else. It is how we use this knowledge that really matters.
    The subsequent story of the Tower of Babel supports this interpretation. God saw nothing wrong with all people speaking the
     same language—and thus increasing their knowledge by communication—until they misused this important tool by working together
     to build a tower that reached the heavens. The midrash says that “the enterprise [of building the tower] was neither more
     nor less than rebellion against God.” 26 It was only then that God confounded their language, thus reducing their ability to share knowledge.
    As the builders of Babel learned, humans must not use their knowledge to break down the barriers between man and God. Adam
     and Eve were expelled from Eden to prevent them from becoming like God—knowledgeable
and
immortal. In building the Tower of Babel, their descendants were once again seeking to use their knowledge to close the distance
     between the human and the divine by ascending to the heavens. They were trying to circumvent God’s decision to deny humans
     access both to the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Eternal Life. God responded by making the sharing of information more
     difficult. From now on