R' Bachya starts his analysis of the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad with the observation that it would seem that we gained something from that meal. The simple reading of the text is that originally man did not comprehend how to discern between good and bad. The snake proposed that in so many words. If that were the case, though, then we would find that חוטא נשכר/the sinner would have benefited. Mankind would have a new level of understanding that he heretofore lacked. That, declares R' Bachya, is patently impossible. We must therefore re-evaluate how to understand what that tree had to offer. R' Bachya says that until this point, man had absolute clarity about his world: everything went into on of two buckets, (1) אמת/True and (2) שקר/False -- mutually exclusive and there was nothing that didn't fit into one of those buckets. Good and bad (note: it was with intention that I didn't use the usual translation of good and evil) ar...
This is a paraphrase of the pasuk in t'hillim 84:7 -- "mei'chayil el chayil" -- which means "from strength to strength". In this case, it is my thoughts and ideas to those who are strong enough to be interested :)