In “Serving God with One’s Evil Inclination” I discussed a particular perspective appearing in HaKetav VeHaKabbala’s commentary on Devarim 6:5, all stemming from the Talmud’s assertion in Berachot 54a, that one should serve HaShem both with the Good as well as, and even, the Evil Inclination. The dualism within man suggested by positing that each person has within him these two tendencies, i.e., good vs. evil, is reflected in Rabbinic literature down through the ages. The biblical statements, (Beraishit 6:5) “…every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” and (Ibid. 8:21) “…for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth…” bear ample testimony to the existence of a “Yetzer HaRa,” while the postulate that man has been Created in God’s Image (e.g. Ibid. 1:26-7 “26 And God said: “Let us Make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness… 27 And God Created man in His Own Image, in the Image of God Created He him; male and female Created He them”) bears witness to as aspect of the Divine which could be simply depicted as the “Yetzer HaTov.”

Several years ago, at a meeting where participants shared various papers on Jewish thought, a presentation was made applying the existence of these two “Yetzer”’s to various contemporary situations in the interest of not only explaining, but developing approaches to dealing with certain human difficulties. I remember asking during the discussion of the paper, that since we appear to be much more sophisticated psychologically than people were in the ancient world, just as direct medical advice in the Talmud, from the medieval period as well as from earlier times in general has been discredited, and someone living today is encouraged to seek out the best directives currently available regarding his personal health, shouldn’t the same be true with respect to the “Yetzer HaRa/Yetzer Tov” dichotomy when attempting to understand the motivations for human behavior. The presenter responded that if this is the manner in which ChaZaL decided to formulate what goes on in a person’s mind, that an observant individual is required to maintain such an approach even today. It is possible that the difference between us was not only the question of the extent to which Emunat Chachamim (belief in the scholars) should apply not only to Halachic matters, but also aspects of medical and scientific areas of research and advancement, but also whether admittedly complex human behavior can be reduced to a relatively simple, black-and white dialectic involving good and evil. Just because for heuristic purposes, it is simpler to understand and consequently more direct to grapple with only two opposite forces when trying to account for why people undertake certain actions, does that mean that such a frame-of-reference will always be helpful in accounting for what and why people act in the manner that they do?

One of the latest iterations of the Mosaic electronic magazine contained an essay by Philologus (the penname of a Jewishly-knowledgeable individual, who for years, first in The Forward, and now in Mosaic questions regarding Hebrew and Yiddish expressions and concepts), entitled, “The Tree of Knowledge of Postivity and Negativity” (http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/11/the-tree-of-knowledge-of-positivity-and-negativity/ ) The author is responding to a translation of the well-known statement by Ben Zoma in Pirkei Avot: “Who is brave? The one who subdues ‘Et Yitzro’” which was translated in a recent edition of The Forward as “his negative inclination.” As Philologus duly notes, Ben Zoma only spoke of one’s “Yetzer” in a generic sense, without the clarifying adjective of either “good” or “evil”. So even though the translator was not overtly rendering “Ra” as “negative,” equating the term “Yetzer” with the evil, rather than “negative”, inclination is the manner in which the term is understood according to classical commentators.

After demonstrating that the “Yetzer HaRa” is associated in Rabbinic literature in turn with sexual desire, the drive to engage in idolatry and a focus upon enlarging one’s material possessions, Philologus presents an intriguing Rabbinic source that, at least according to him, clarifies the meaning of and relationship between the “Yetzer HaRa” and the “Yetzer HaTov”:

Avot D’Rabbi Natan, Version 1, Chapter 16

It is said that the “Yetzer HaRa” is thirteen years older than the “Yetzer HaTov.” It is there in the womb and grows with one. If one desecrates the Shabbat, one is not culpable. If one kills someone, one is not culpable. If one commits any other sin, one is not culpable. After thirteen years, the “Yetzer HaTov” is born. Now if he desecrates Shabbat, it says, “You villain! The bible says, (Shemot 31:15) ‘Its desecrators shall be put to death.’” If he kills someone, it says, “You Villain! The bible says, (Beraishit 9:6) “Whoever sheds men’s blood, his blood shall be shed.’” If he is on his way to sin sexually, it says, “You Villain! The bible says, (VaYikra 20:10) ‘The adulterer and the adulteree will surely die.’” When an individual lusts to sin sexually, all of his limbs are attentive to his desires because the “Yetzer HaRa” rules over 248 limbs/organs. And when he is on his way to do a Mitzva, all of his limbs make themselves lazy because the “Yetzer HaRa” in his innards rules over 248 limbs/organs, while the “Yetzer Tov” is comparable to someone imprisoned in a dungeon…

Philologus suggests that whereas “Yetzer HaRa” should be associated with the full range of human instincts, it would be more consistent were we to understand the “Yetzer Hatov” to be synonymous with the human conscience. Consequently, these two aspects of the human experience are not polar opposite manifestations of the same quality, with their respective identities being defined exclusively by what they desire to achieve rather than the means by which they go about achieving such goals; rather the “Milchemet HaYetzer” (war of the inclination) is between one’s instincts vs. one’s conscience. Therefore when the Rabbis state: (Beraishit Rabba 9:7) “…for without it (the “Yetzer HaRa”), one would not build a house, marry, beget children, or engage in business,” the challenge is not the defeat and destruction of one’s instincts, because that would literally put an end to human civilization, but rather channeling them constructively, and in this way, the individual will come to “worship God” either directly or perhaps indirectly, utilizing not only his “Yetzer Tov,” but also his “Yetzer HaRa,” so to speak. Philologus’ interpretation also casts light on what God Says to Kayin following his becoming distraught due to the Divine Rejection of his sacrifice in favor of that of his younger brother, Hevel: (Beraishit 4:7) “If thou doest well, shall it (your ‘Yetzer HaRa’?) not be lifted up…”, with “doing well” in this context meaning directing your instincts to positive activities and behaviors.

It seems to me that the dichotomy suggested by Philologus regarding the “Yetzer HaTov” and “Yetzer HaRa” in light of Rabbinic sources, digresses from the ostensible parallel that Freud suggests when he posits that one’s ego is the result of the struggle between the id and the superego. If anything, the Rabbinic conception implies that man’s instinctual impulses are, at least initially, significantly stronger and more deeply-seated than one’s conscience. Rather than simply being at loggerheads with one another, the Rabbinic perspective would maintain that at least initially, there is a struggle for control over an individual’s instinctual impulses, whether they will go literally “unbridled” or they will be reined-in. As opposed to those with a more ascetic bent, this conception would maintain that the “Yetzer HaRa” is not intrinsically evil when directed and controlled properly. On the contrary, the “Yetzer HaRa” can become the “Yetzer HaTov” under the right conditions and circumstances dependent upon how it is applied!