So when the nachash persuaded chava to eat from Eitz Hadaas, he argued that Hashem doesn’t want them to eat from it and become like Him. As Rashi writes יוצרי עולמות. At this point it would seem to me as if Adam and chava had no choice but to eat from the tree leshem shamayim! Had the nachash not brought up that “reasoning” there would be no issue. But now that he has, if they hadn’t eaten from the tree, future generations could’ve said “see, the only reason we are only people with limited minds is because they didn’t eat from the tree, Hashem “scared” then into not eating from it in order for them to stay as they were”.
Can one argue that at that point adam and chava ate from the tree and rather made a Kiddush Hashem to protect Shem Shamayim to “prove” that the nachash was indeed wrong with his false reason and to show the greatness of Hashem אחד יחיד לבדו. Obviously there were repercussions but it was a situation in which they were Moser nefesh and for all generations to come. They ate from the tree and obviously did not become “gods”.
Don’t we see a similar argument in this week’s parshas shelach, where Moshe Rabbeinu pleaded with Hashem and argued that if Hashem destroys Bnei Yisrael, nations will say that He couldn’t bring them into Eretz Yisrael and battle other kings so he just destroyed them. And Hashem replied סלחתי כדברך,which Rashi writes כדברך, referring to “that reason you mentioned”.
Is this brought up anywhere?