Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1976
Mythology of Evil in Judaism N O R M A N SAUL G O L D M A N T h e specific problem of e v i l - - h u m a n evil, "those evils which everyone causes to himself by his own actions," to use Maimonides' description of psychological e v i l - - h a s long been of concern to both theologian and psychologist. Long before Freud, the rabbis understood that m a n ' s psychic drives were largely responsible for the evil he commits. Of course, the rabbis did not achieve Freud's systematic and scientific level of research and observation; neither did they possess his knowledge of neurology and medicine. Yet they did share with him a mythology of evil that, as I shall demonstrate, is not only comparable in providing a functional m y t h for understanding evil or sin, but also serves as a theoretical basis for the rabbinic resolution of the problem of sin. Although m a n y of Freud's clinical techniques have now been surpassed by contemporary psychiatry, his philosophy is still very m u c h a part of our intellectual life. The works of H e r b e r t Marcuse and N o r m a n O. Brown serve as adequate examples of the metaphysical Freud. It is within the context of this Freud who t a u g h t us an appreciation for primitive and instinctual forces in our life t h a t we can come to appreciate the rabbinic formulation of the Yezer as the personification within man's soul identified with S a t a n and responsible for the commission of evil deeds. In talmudic theology, sin originates in man's soul. There is a factor or element of his personality responsible for generating an inclination to do evil. The rabbis referred to this aspect of man's psyche as Yezer ha-ra or sometimes in the abbreviated form of "Yezer'; usually translated as "evil inclination." However, rabbinic s t a t e m e n t s indicate t h a t often the adjective "evil" was merely attached as part of a technical phrase.~ Thus Yezer ha-ra can be construed, without too m u c h argument, as analogous to Freud's concept of the id as a source of instinctual energy. Like the id, which releases instinctual energy or libido, the Yezer ha-ra releases a powerful stream of energy. 2 This interesting but facile analogy between the rabbinic concepts and psychoanalytic thinking is merely a superficial similitude. T h e true correlation lies in the m y t h i c power of the Yezer and the mythological foundations of Freud's psychoanalysis. T h r o u g h Freud's writings on religion, one becomes aware of his deep appreciation for the " n u m i n o s i t y " of man's unconscious. As Christine Downing spoke of it: "Yet he, himself, in order to suggest the numinous power of Rabbi Norman Saul Goldman, M.H.L., is Rabbi of Congregation Beth Sholom of Dover, Delaware. He is a consultant on religion and psychotherapy to the Kent County Mental Hygiene Clinic in Dover and a member of the Institutes of Religion and Health. 230
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
231
these primal forces, finds it necessary to speak of Eros and Thanatos . . . . to use the names of gods. ''a This identification of primal forces with primordial beings and events indicates the interrelationship between them. Eros and Satan are invested with mythic and sacred dimensions. Just as there are mythic heroes, there are mythic antiheroes. Yet both exist within the dimensions of the holy because they are aspects of the created reality of our universe and represent the forces at work within the universe and within each of us. Perhaps that is why in Tractate Sanhedrin we find that the rabbis have created elaborate legends about the evil personalities of Ahab, Jeroboam, and Manasseh. Each of these kings was guilty of such evils that they were denied a share in the world to come. Furthermore, the rabbis identified themselves with these characters in ways through which they expressed the fact that they understood their own potential for committing evil and emphasized the element of evil as a part of their total and undeniable existence. In mythologizing Ahab or Jeroboam, the rabbis restated the utility of myth and its power to transform. They did not identify with the biblical character of Ahab, but chose the personality of the talmudic and legendary Ahab who more fully represented the complex psychological dynamic with the infinite human potential for both good and evil. In the words of Mircea Eliade: "Every myth shows how a reality came into existence, whether it be the total reality or only a fragment. ''4 The rabbinic myths about these kings helped the rabbis to comprehend and deal with the brutal reality of evil. As Judaism discovered later during the Sabbatian and Frankist episodes, powerful libidinal drives must also find their rightful place in the sacrality of our existence. The rabbis, as we have seen, were very much aware of the m y s t e r i u m t r e m e n d u m of the Yezer. Their depiction of the Yezer in terms of an instinctual concept rather than a divinity represents the Judaic monotheistic theme with its demythologizing tendency. However, rather than reduce the Yezer to a mere biologic function, they identify the Yezer with God's own handiwork, making it a direct product of God. The mythic powers residing in man are not ascribed to the gods; they are energized by the God. Thus the rabbinic elimination of myth does not preclude the utilization of the power and influence of mythopoeic forms. The rabbis translated these terms into a monotheistic de-mythologized vocabulary. The vocabulary may have been purified of pagan reminiscences, but the essential psychic power of myth was not reduced. While the Talmud continues the biblical crusade against mythological residues, the rabbis applied the psychic function of myth to their concept of man's soul. Man, then, composed of the Yezers (good and bad) is endowed with the capacity for unlimited imagination as well as unlimited evil. Although the rabbis were concerned with eradicating the pagan qualities of mythology, they were aware of the numinous reality of evil: "Who is the strange God that lives in man? This is the evil Yezer." s As one can see, the numinous dimension of evil represents a problem for rabbinic monotheism in terms of its struggle with Gnostic dualism. Nevertheless, the mythic forces that give birth to evil are recognized and appear in rabbinic references to
232
Journal of Religion and Health
man's personality and spiritual life. Thus rabbinic theology attributes the evil committed by man to the power of the Yezer that is personified in the figure of Satan--"Who is Satan? He is the Yezer ha-ra." ~ The portrayal of evil in the figure of Satan represents the rabbinic awareness of the cosmic power of the Yezer ha-ra. Although the Yezer ha-ra is the individual libidinal drive, it has collective implications. It is the cosmic extension of man's evil Yezer that develops into the anti-God just as the human element of the good Yezer is a microcosmic representation of the Divine. Thus the divine-human encounter and the struggle between good and evil are experienced on all levels of consciousness: intrapsychically, socially, and cosmically. Satan is described as a highly erotic and seductive character. He threatens one with involvement in overt sexual activity when he appears in the company of attractive women; he warns of homosexuality when he appears as a young boy. He embodies the primitive sexuality of the child wherein eroticism and aggression are fused together. Consequently, the rabbinic view of sin is tinged with sexual overtones. The M i d r a s h often refers to this erotic quality of sin by using sexual imagery in discussing Satan: "In the hour that a man goes to sin, Satan dances with him until he completes the transgression. ''7 The provocative imagery of the seductive dance highlights the sensual quality of sin. Sin is identified with sexuality. In addition, one perceives the ambivalent aspect of the concept of sin: either sin is not all bad, or sexuality is evil. For example, the M i d r a s h points to the satanic element in sexuality: "Everywhere that you find eating and drinking, there [you will find] Satan enticing. ''8 The symbolism of the feast evokes shades of the orgiastic festivities surrounding the Jews, which were condemned by the rabbis. For Judaism, the obscene indulgence of the orgy was the epitome of idolatry. Since sexuality was not always referred to as direct sexual intercourse, but was often manifested in various aspects such as the orality of eating, the orgy was then a ritualization of man's complete subjugation to the demand of the id or the Y e z e r ha-ra. The rabbis' awareness of the power of sexuality is continually reiterated in their statements about the strength and influence of the Yezer. Sexuality permeates every sphere of life engendering both creativity (eros) and raw sexuality expressed by the sex drive: "Even during the period of mourning man's Yezer can overcome him. ''9 It would appear strange that during a sad point in an individual's life--grieving for the dead--the power of sexuality could invade his psyche. Yet the rabbis were cognizant of this possibility. Freud, in his paper "Mourning and Melancholy," discussed the sexual component of depression, which is a form of grief or loss. He observed that there was a withdrawal of libidinous cathexes from the object during grief work and depression. Perhaps the rabbis noted this same withdrawal f r o m the object and its consequential overwhelming of the individual with the detached sexual energy that resulted in a preoccupation with sexual imagery. In turn, this reaction of sexual ruminations could have been intensified by the rabbinic prohibition against sexual intercourse during the period of mourning. Certainly, sexual energy is present during
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
233
the period of mourning; the manner of dealing with it becomes an important issue. The rabbis tended toward the suppression of it. Consequently we discover the paradoxical contemporaneity of eros and thanatos as reflected in the ambivalent reaction to loss and death. Aside from the juncture of sexuality in depression or grief, Freud and the rabbis shared an awe of sexuality. Freud read into sexuality a fundamental eroticization of life, endowing all life with the quality of intense feeling. The rabbis saw in sexuality the bipolar dimension of the Yezer: generative as well as destructive, passionate as well as pathogenic. Freud demonstrated that evil is highly eroticized. The basis for all neurosis is the oedipal conflict in which the individual struggles with incestuous fantasies. Neurosis is the psychoanalytic analogue to sin. Desiring to possess the mother is neurotic; actually, indulging in sexual relations with the mother is sinful. Freud has shown us how frustrated sexual drives are responsible for neurotic and antisocial behavior. Murder represents unresolved oedipal difficulties, theft represents the unconscious fantasy of stealing love and affection. A major theme of Freud's theory is the sexual quality of evil. This correlation between evil and sexuality was observed by the rabbis when they noted that the same force that encouraged man to marry and procreate was responsible for his wrongdoings. Not only was sin erotically charged (the very act of sin was exciting), but from the start of creation the possibility of sin was clearly established. The very source of life, the Yezer was also the source of sin or evil. Life was an intricate pattern of "dos" and "don'ts." The individual had to negotiate his way through a maze of prohibitions and commandments. Implicated in the very force for life was the potential for evildoing, which was the negation of life. One standard theological definition of sin views sin as a rebellion against God's will. The primal rebellion against the father culminating in the murder of the father and the assumption of his authority is also Freud's analysis of sin or neurosis. Whether the object negated is God or the primal father, the consequences result in a negation of life. The paradox of the fundamental life force being ultimately responsible for the brutalization of life reveals the very potent character of the Yezer. Not only have the rabbis conceived of a psychic force capable of distorting energy into sinful or inappropriate activity; they have also recognized the influence of the Yezer Toy in combating this evil inclination. "'I have created the evil Yezer and I have also created the Torah as a therapeutic. ''1~ The Torah is a remedy for the evil Yezer when the values of the Torah have been assimilated by the good Yezer and are used to suppress the strivings of the evil Yezer. Consequently, the Yezer Toy becomes the primary counter balance to the evil Yezer. When an individual is enmeshed in sinful preoccupations, a strengthening of the power of the Yezer Toy is the source of salvation from the evil concocted by the Yezer ha-ra. "A man should always incite his good Yezer to struggle against his evil Yezer. ''H The intrapsychic tension between the good Yezer and the evil Yezer is a constant element of personality. The rabbis were aware of the fact that ambivalence was an inevitable aspect of life. Indeed, this tension was created by God, himself. "T he
234
Journal of Religion and Health
Holy One, blessed be He, created two Yezers the good Yezer and the evil Yezer. ''12 The creation of these two powerful psychic elements represents more than the idea that God is responsible for evil or at least the potential for evil; the fact that God created two opposing inclinations reflects the rabbinic insight into the essential nature of man. Naturally, depth psychology has elucidated our comprehension of man's personality and behavior. The rabbis, however, were not naive about man's complex character. They exhibited not only a sympathetic understanding of man, but at times even a rough appreciation for psychotherapy. Thus, for example, there is a situation recorded in the Talmud that exemplifies the rudimentary psychotherapy of the rabbis. "If a man perceives that his Yezer [evil] is overwhelming him, he should dress in black and go to a place where he is unknown and do what his impulses require him to do. ''Is "A man's Yezer constantly renews itself [or conquers the individual]. T M The advice to dress in black clothing and go to a place where the individual is unknown implies a therapeutic approach. Instead of indicating an outright condemnation of the Yezer as evil, the rabbis understood its instinctual power and sought to neutralize it. Rather than being understood as rabbinic permission for indulgence in the desires of the Yezer, this statement reflects the rabbinic recognition of the power of the Yezer ha-ra. Thus black clothing symbolizes grief or mourning. The individual dressed in black must experience sadness over his indulgence in the desires of the Yezer. The significance of a place where he is unknown represents the shame or embarrassment in the performance of an inappropriate deed. Together, there is enough of a negative connotation in these actions to insure that the individual will experience guilt over his behavior. Guilt, for the rabbis, does not evoke the reaction that it does in psychoanalysis. Guilt is a theologically viable mechanism that indicates that the individual recognizes the inappropriateness of his behavior. Whereas Freud wrote of the pathogenic influences of oedipal guilt, the rabbis recognized the constructive implications of existential guilt. Guilt, in essence, led the individual to repentance, which constituted a corrective over the inappropriate behavior. To repent or return implied a return to the Halacha, the divinely ordained way of life. Consequently, the therapy applied by the rabbis to the individual suffering from "uncontrollable impulses" was the evocation of guilt as a recognition of the wrongfulness of the act and the possibility that guilt would lead to repentance. It is worth while to note that the rabbis did not condemn the individual outright. The element of repentance is perhaps the most significant aspect of our comprehension of the mythology of evil. Repentance represents the divine intervention in the conflict between good and evil. Repentance is God's established system for breaking out of the negative cycle of sin and guilt. Repentance, then, is a complex spiritual process whereby the individual engages in serious introspection and confession and makes the firm determination not to commit the same sin again. He is reinforced and supported in his psychological stance by the conviction that God accepts him and forgives him. 15In this sense, repentance assumes therapeutic proportions within the theological framework. In the situation in which the demand of the evil Yezer is overwhelming, suppression
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
235
of it will cause an inverted flow of the pent-up psychic energies. Yet a total abandoned release of these forces would be tantamount to unmitigated evil. As a result, the compromise of controlled release of these tensions, along with the mechanism appropriate to the inculcation of guilt, provides the circumstances for the desired resolution of this situation through the act of repentance. Although repentance is primarily an intrapsychic phenomenon, atonement is a physical act. The sacrificial system consisted of cultic acts of reparation designed to expiate the guilt of the sinner. The experience of atonement allowed the individual to work through the unconscious feelings of anger and hostility accompanying the sacrifice. In slaughtering the sacrificial animal, the penitent experienced vicariously the release of these unconscious libidinal forces. In addition, the reparative aspect of atoning allowed the individual to come away feeling whole again. The atonement ritual, much like the ritual of repetition and working through in psychoanalysis, had the effect of making whole again. Consequently, the violence perpetrated against God and against the individual's own soul, resulting in the destruction of spiritual we!l-being, is ameliorated by repentance. The ambivalent personality is healed by the very act of repenting and "repeating" that violence. David Bakan demonstrated that Freud's methodology of penetrating into the psychic depths can be traced to the Midrashic procedure of the rabbis. Free association and primary process thinking have their analogues in the nonlogical "organic thinking" of the rabbis. Whereas Freud was scientist and poet, physician and metaphysician, the rabbis were primarily religionists observing and analyzing man's soul in their delineation of habit and ritual, prohibition and command. The Halacha ascribed to man's conscious life the duties and regulations of Judaism that facilitated the processes of sublimation and repression. The Aggadah was the creation of the limitless inner world of man. In Aggadah there is nothing profane; all is infused with the power of the holy as God touches man in intimate and mysterious ways. As Richard Rubenstein indicates, both the rabbis and Freud perceive the origins of religion in primordial motives, such as patricide.The urge to replace the father is merely one aspect of man's attempt at apotheosis. Both the rabbis and Freud agree that true idolatry is not the worship of the pagan gods. Idolatry is the self-aggrandizement of egotism. The rabbis, commenting upon a verse from Ecclesiastes: "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy y o u t h . . , but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment?" (Ecclesiastes 11:9) distinguish between the enticing demands of the evil Yezer and sober reflections of the good Yezer. It is the confusion between the two Yezers and the result of perceiving the evil Yezer as the good Yezer that leads to idolatry. The Yezer is subtle and ambivalent; its demands progress gradually until it requires total obedience. Man's subjugation to his instincts and impulses condemns him to idolatry. In response to this threat, man is constantly struggling to liberate himself from this tension. There is an uncanny parallel between Freud's therapy of liberation and the rabbinic ritual of liberation. Both the rabbis and Freud sought spiritual freedom
236
Journal of Religion and Health
as the ultimate goal. For Freud, freedom was ego-directed living; for the rabbis, liberation implied God-directed living. Interestingly, both required degrees of responsibility and reality awareness, and both questioned the ultimate rule of reason. No matter how strong and irrefutable reason was to Freud the scientist, Freud the romantic realized its limitation. Likewise, although the rabbis relied upon reason as a source of guidance in determining law and ethics, ultimately God's will transcended the reasoning process. God was not at the end of a logical argument; he was the commanding presupposition of all argument and of all life. Thus both the rabbis and Freud, in their agreement upon the power of eros or Yezer to transcend all other aspects of life, held on to a strikingly similar weltanschauung. Freud had compared the psychic life of neurotics to the life of primitive man. In a very like manner, both psychoanalysis and Judaism perceived the psychic reality of the wish as equivalent to the act. The belief that the wish was comparable to the act expressed by neurotics reflects the theological view that even the thought of sin is wrong. Indeed, in this case the neurotic develops his identification of thought and deed out of the mythology of evil promulgated by religion. The neurotic requires the authority of a value system and his disorder expresses his inability to live without a value system. In this vein, it may be interesting to note the deeply felt need for such a hierarchy of values. Contemporary social science and medicine have attempted to supplant the value system of good and evil with the system of illness and health. In this system, what is healthy is "good" and what is sickness is "evil" or wrong. Ostensibly, the neurotic is " t r e a t e d " for his inappropriate actions or thoughts instead of being judged. However, as we have come to realize, the determination of sickness or health is in itself a judgment based upon contemporary societal values, prohibitions, and requirements. Modern psychology has merely exchanged one technical term for another; "sin" has been replaced by "sickness." The confusion of thought and action is the essential malfunction that plagues the neurotic, as it is an element in primitive magic. The individual feels guilty for his evil thoughts even if they never materialize into action. That same confusion is reflected in the Yezer that operates on the psychic level mythically "acting out" the primitive and urgent emotions of man. It is the Yezer that struggles to overcome man and to dominate him. 1~ The Yezer animated by anger rears its head at every opportunity. However, its counterpart, of equal valence, exerts its energy with the objective of subduing the evil Yezer. Consequently, we see played out the inherent ambivalence of emotions that Freud described as the psychic consequences of the primal crime, which was the murder of the father motivated by the wish to replace him. The primal sin of Judaism, suggests Rubenstein, is the fantasy of apotheosis and the real efforts to actualize that fantasy, or in paraphrase of Sartre, to be a man means to try to be God. Judaism rejects the ancient thesis that man can become God; yet man in his ascent from son to father fantasizes the further ascent to Godhood. The ultimate sin of Judaism is idolatry, which is the philosophic counterpart to the spiritual victory of the evil Yezer. Idolatry is the rule of the Yezer ha-ra over the
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
237
personality in which the individuals' narcissistic drives take prime consideration. Thus instinctual gratification, indulgence in sensual experience, and egocentrism supercede the needs of others in the community and the requisites of God. The real problem of idolatry is not the fetishism of worshipping stone and images, but the assertion of the self, the ego, beyond all else. To make the self one's ultimate concern, then, is avodah zara (idolatry). It was this primordial effort to become God that Freud interpreted in the attempt of the sons to murder the father and take his place. The rabbis saw in the attempt of the evil Yezer to rule over the personality this same primitive urge to destroy the authority figure and replace him with the self. Thus the drama of our atavistic urges is recreated in the dynamic tensions of our intrapsychic life, which for Freud appeared in the neurosis of man and for the rabbis was manifested in the tension of the good Yezer in conflict with the evil Yezer. The mythology of evil represented in Freud's libido theory makes the id the repository of man's basic--often considered base--needs. Religion viewed the instincts of man as animalistic and sinful, while only the refined or sublimated transformation of these drives was considered acceptable. Thus sexuality as such was regarded as sinful. Only the sexuality transformed into Eros, into love, marriage, and procreation, to use the rabbinic idiom, was accepted. Pure sexuality was taboo. For example, the prostitute or Kadeshah, who personified raw sexuality, lust, and gratification for its own sake, was originally viewed as belonging to the sacred and taboo spheres of deity and kingship. It is clear that the raw form of sensuality evokes the ambivalent reaction of attraction and love, hate and repulsion. The rabbis demonstrated their awareness of the ambivalent powers of the Yezer when they saw the Yezer as the primordial force for creation. 17 The rabbis suggested that the most effective manner of dealing with these libidinal drives was through sublimation and in allowing the individual to transcend himself, as Abraham Joshua Heschel spoke of it: "To live beyond his needs." Thus, the value of a mythology of evil is appreciated as a meaningful way of living with and living in man's total being. It is through the mythic representation of God in our psychic life, in combat against the anti-God or Satan, that we carry on the battle against our primitive drives. To deny the full power of the Y e z e r is tantamount to denying a fundamental element of man. To repress the strivings of the Yezer would be the genesis of neurosis. However, to live with this awesome power by directing it into a meaningful mythology, by allowing it to infuse man with a dimension of reality beyond his conscious ego-reality, is to accomplish a total existence. Thus, in paraphrase of the rabbis: to serve God even with the evil Yezer implies that all life was to be lived in the service of God. Any possible or hypothetical phenomenology of sin that one could conjure up would fall short of the vivid systematic theology of evil constructed by the Sabbatian and Frankist movements. Gershom Scholem, in his essay "Redemption Through Sin," provides us with a thorough analysis of Sabbatian theology. 18 Although Scholem is aware of the underlying psychological currents of Sabbatian
238
Journal of Religion and Health
ideology, he is careful not to fall into the trap of reducing the Sabbatian movement into mass psychosis. Placing the Sabbatian movement in the context of "Pre-messianic" historical events--great catastrophes such as the Spanish Inquisition, which called forth the Kabbalist responses, a metaphysical retreat and finally a counterattack on the part of Judaism--with the desire of Jews for social change, suggests that the tremendous psychic forces buried deeply within the Jewish soul were directed inward. This internalization of powerful social and psychological forces resulted in the distortion of Judaism found in Sabbatian doctrine. Scholem identifies the "libidinal forces" at work in the Sabbatian psyche.l~ The various concepts of Sabbatian nihilism reflect the basic drive of what we have come to label as Yezer and the subsequent capitulation to the demands of the Yezer. When Scholem refers to the apostasy of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, he makes us aware of their surrender to idolatry, to the ideology of the Yezer ha-ra, or the id. That is, the formalized apostasy of the Sabbatian movement was the culmination of their precept of "commandments fulfilled by means of transgressions." In the inverted world of Sabbatian theology, the Torah was to be negated because it was merely one aspect of the divine revelation, an aspect already superceded in the progress toward redemption. In the Sabbatian heresy all was permitted and the motto of the "holiness of sin" reflected their belief in redemption being achieved by the Messiah going down into the abyss of the "gates of impurity" and rescuing the divine sparks. The redemption process was seen as a fundamental transformation of the entire creation leading to a rectification of the primordial catastrophe. This transformation involved the change of even the most fundamental aspects of life. Thus it was of primary significance that sexuality be re-evaluated. A new emphasis was given to sensuality and to the demands of the Yezer. This new importance can be seen in Sabbatai Zevi's violation of the commandments, especially those dealing with sensuality. For example, he permitted the eating of the fat of the animal, cancellation of the fast days, and even the rite of the paschal sacrifice to be performed outside of the Land of Israel. The sacrifice is, perhaps, the best illustration of Sabbatai Zevi's emphasis upon releasing the basic sexual and aggressive drives of the Yezer. One obviously sees the Gnostic and Kabbalistic influence upon Sabbatian theology. In S a b b a t i a n i s m , the sexuality of Gnosticism and Kabbalism is translated into concrete behavioral modalities. The Kabbalistic theogony describes the divine sexual union. Sabbatianism and Frankist ritual include the orgy not only as a distorted translation of Kabbalism, but as a reflection of its ambivalent attitude toward sexuality. Perceiving sexuality as both sin and the sexual aspect of sin, the Frankists acted out the precept of the "sacred sin." The very notion of "sacred sin" itself indicates this basic paradox: the erotic component of evil and the sanctity of sexuality as a manifestation of the union of Shekhinah and the Godhead and the union of man and God. Although the Sabbatians spoke of the "holiness of sin," they saw the task of the Messiah as his descent into the depths of impurity. Therefore, many of the followers of Sabbatai Zevi considered it their duty to imitate their leader.
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
239
Ultimately, a radical nihilistic ideology developed. It was nurtured by the powerful forces of antinomianism and sexuality that lie beneath the surfaces of the individual. In Scholem's words: "A yawning chasm had appeared between the inner and outer realities and once it was decided that the former was the truer of the two, it was only to be expected that the value of the latter would increasingly come to be rejected." 20 The early and hopeful Messianism of the Sabbatians was distorted into Nihilism when the political and historical outlets it had originally anticipated were denied. Therefore, the power and tension built up sought release and a new sense of freedom in the area of morality. To rephrase it in our idiom of the Yezer, the tremendous drive and energy of the Yezer ha-ra penetrated the Yezer Toy, permeating the original value system with the demands of the Yezer ha-ra. What had been prohibited and enforced by the Yezer Toy in terms of sexual relations was now permitted, as the pent-up power of the Yezer ha-ra burst upon the Yezer Toy. Sabbatai Zevi, punning on a traditional blessing, composed the following benediction: "Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord Our God, King of the Universe, who permits the forbidden." Intuitively, Sabbatai Zevi endowed the profane and the evil with an aura of sanctity. This reversal of morality, however, is not entirely incomprehensible, even the prohibited is endowed with numinosity. One stands in the presence of Satan with great trepidation. The entire movement resulting from the Sabbatian ideology is an example of the power of the forces residing deep within the human soul. The Sabbatians, desiring liberation and mobilized by this awesome spiritual power, found themselves overwhelmed by unrestrained primordial urges and demands. This phenomenon clearly shows the reality of the demonic aspect of libido and the titanic powers of the id or the evilYezer. Observing the historic development of Sabbatianism helps us to appreciate the mythic power of the Yezer. Sabbatian theology recreates the mythology of evil that is so necessary for our grasp of the potential destructiveness that lies within us and that was symbolically m a n a g e d by the rabbinic comprehension of the Yezer. The rabbis who viewed man in the light of civilization and in the image of God--as opposed to psychology's view of God in the image of man--saw man's basic urges as evil. Whereas Freud saw man's basic urges as the wellsprings of civilization, the rabbis observed the Yezer in the light of its own culmination as social and cosmic evil, and therefore condemned it. Realizing that the logical end of the Yezer drive is the libidinous overindulgence of the individual, the rabbis sought to suppress that drive. Freud also recognized the need for suppression of the id. He conceived of the superego as the metaphoric expression of the values of mature society and in movement against the urges of the id. The combat between good and evil is equally appreciated by both Freud and the rabbis. Indeed both agree that the victory of the id or the evil Yezer results in sin. For Judaism as well as for psychoanalysis, sin is conceived as the damage done to the individual by his own psychic processes. Neurosis is the result of man in conflict with himself and the sin committed by man against himself is the sin of self-negating behavior. As Rubenstein suggests, the denigration of the self is as abhorrent to
240
Journal of Religion and Health
J u d a i s m as to psychoanalysis. Rubenstein refers to the concept of the "onticd i m i n u t i o n " of m a n as p u n i s h m e n t for m a n ' s hubris. 21 Freud, in a similar vein, saw hubris as the unrestricted reign of the id or the narcissism of the i m m a t u r e and neurotic individual. J u d a i s m saw hubris as the unfettered reign of the Y e z e r ha-ra and its a t t e m p t at encouraging m a n to play God. The consequence for psychoanalysis was to view narcissism as destructive; the parallel in rabbinic theology was to c o n d e m n self-aggrandizement, or what R u b e n s t e i n called "ontica g g r a n d i z e m e n t , " as sinful. M a n y students of m a n k i n d have suggested t h a t the individual derives strength from his traditional myths. Freud himself was immersed in the ancient Greek m y t h s from which he derived not only personal meaning but the very material upon which he founded his psychological studies. As Christine Downing contends, Freud continued the tradition as a m y t h - m a k e r , bequeathing to us the power of his imagination. If we can gather from Freud's mythology new ways of m a n a g i n g classic anxieties and frustrations, then we can draw from the talmudic mythology of the Y e z e r equally useful techniques for coping with the eternal conflicts of good and evil resounding on the cosmic battleground upon which God confronts S a t a n and m a n confronts himself. It m a y be worth while for us to reach back beyond F r e u d ' s translation of this cosmic drama. Reaching back to our J u d a i c sources in t a l m u d i c times, we find t h a t the rabbis constructed a theologically viable system t h a t encompassed the totality of h u m a n needs. T h e y perceived this system in a m a n n e r t h a t directed us aloft and beyond ourselves in the most basic and yet the most spiritual drive of m a n : to seek out and relate to the God of creation. References
1. See Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927, p. 480; Schechter, S., Aspects o[Rabbinic Theology. New York, Schocken Books, 1961, p. 242. 2. Cf. Rubenstein, R., The Religious Imagination. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1968, p. 153. 3. Downing, C., "Sigmund Freud and the Greek Mythological Tradition," J. American Academy of Religion, March, 1975, p. 6. 4. Eliade, M., The Sacred and the Profane. New York, Harper & Row, 1957, p. 97. 5. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah, 105 b. 6. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Batra, 15 b. 7. Midrash, Bemidbar Rabbah, 20:10. 8. Midrash, Bereshith Rabbah, 38:7. 9. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 80 b. 10. Ibid., 30 b. 11. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot, 5 a. 12. Ibid., 61 a. 13. Babylonian Talmud,. Tractate Mo'ed Katan, 17 a. Cf. Rubenstein, op. cit., p. 165. Rubenstein discusses the therapeutic value of honesty. 14. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sukkah, 52 a. 15. Moore, op. cit., p. 520 ft. 16. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah, 13 b. 17. See, for example, Genesis Rabbah 9:7. 18. See Scholem, G., The Messianic Idea in Judaism. New York, Schocken Books, 1971. 19. Ibid., p. 112. 20. Ibid., p. 109. 21. Rubenstein, op. cit., p. 107.
Mythology of Evil in Judaism N O R M A N SAUL G O L D M A N T h e specific problem of e v i l - - h u m a n evil, "those evils which everyone causes to himself by his own actions," to use Maimonides' description of psychological e v i l - - h a s long been of concern to both theologian and psychologist. Long before Freud, the rabbis understood that m a n ' s psychic drives were largely responsible for the evil he commits. Of course, the rabbis did not achieve Freud's systematic and scientific level of research and observation; neither did they possess his knowledge of neurology and medicine. Yet they did share with him a mythology of evil that, as I shall demonstrate, is not only comparable in providing a functional m y t h for understanding evil or sin, but also serves as a theoretical basis for the rabbinic resolution of the problem of sin. Although m a n y of Freud's clinical techniques have now been surpassed by contemporary psychiatry, his philosophy is still very m u c h a part of our intellectual life. The works of H e r b e r t Marcuse and N o r m a n O. Brown serve as adequate examples of the metaphysical Freud. It is within the context of this Freud who t a u g h t us an appreciation for primitive and instinctual forces in our life t h a t we can come to appreciate the rabbinic formulation of the Yezer as the personification within man's soul identified with S a t a n and responsible for the commission of evil deeds. In talmudic theology, sin originates in man's soul. There is a factor or element of his personality responsible for generating an inclination to do evil. The rabbis referred to this aspect of man's psyche as Yezer ha-ra or sometimes in the abbreviated form of "Yezer'; usually translated as "evil inclination." However, rabbinic s t a t e m e n t s indicate t h a t often the adjective "evil" was merely attached as part of a technical phrase.~ Thus Yezer ha-ra can be construed, without too m u c h argument, as analogous to Freud's concept of the id as a source of instinctual energy. Like the id, which releases instinctual energy or libido, the Yezer ha-ra releases a powerful stream of energy. 2 This interesting but facile analogy between the rabbinic concepts and psychoanalytic thinking is merely a superficial similitude. T h e true correlation lies in the m y t h i c power of the Yezer and the mythological foundations of Freud's psychoanalysis. T h r o u g h Freud's writings on religion, one becomes aware of his deep appreciation for the " n u m i n o s i t y " of man's unconscious. As Christine Downing spoke of it: "Yet he, himself, in order to suggest the numinous power of Rabbi Norman Saul Goldman, M.H.L., is Rabbi of Congregation Beth Sholom of Dover, Delaware. He is a consultant on religion and psychotherapy to the Kent County Mental Hygiene Clinic in Dover and a member of the Institutes of Religion and Health. 230
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
231
these primal forces, finds it necessary to speak of Eros and Thanatos . . . . to use the names of gods. ''a This identification of primal forces with primordial beings and events indicates the interrelationship between them. Eros and Satan are invested with mythic and sacred dimensions. Just as there are mythic heroes, there are mythic antiheroes. Yet both exist within the dimensions of the holy because they are aspects of the created reality of our universe and represent the forces at work within the universe and within each of us. Perhaps that is why in Tractate Sanhedrin we find that the rabbis have created elaborate legends about the evil personalities of Ahab, Jeroboam, and Manasseh. Each of these kings was guilty of such evils that they were denied a share in the world to come. Furthermore, the rabbis identified themselves with these characters in ways through which they expressed the fact that they understood their own potential for committing evil and emphasized the element of evil as a part of their total and undeniable existence. In mythologizing Ahab or Jeroboam, the rabbis restated the utility of myth and its power to transform. They did not identify with the biblical character of Ahab, but chose the personality of the talmudic and legendary Ahab who more fully represented the complex psychological dynamic with the infinite human potential for both good and evil. In the words of Mircea Eliade: "Every myth shows how a reality came into existence, whether it be the total reality or only a fragment. ''4 The rabbinic myths about these kings helped the rabbis to comprehend and deal with the brutal reality of evil. As Judaism discovered later during the Sabbatian and Frankist episodes, powerful libidinal drives must also find their rightful place in the sacrality of our existence. The rabbis, as we have seen, were very much aware of the m y s t e r i u m t r e m e n d u m of the Yezer. Their depiction of the Yezer in terms of an instinctual concept rather than a divinity represents the Judaic monotheistic theme with its demythologizing tendency. However, rather than reduce the Yezer to a mere biologic function, they identify the Yezer with God's own handiwork, making it a direct product of God. The mythic powers residing in man are not ascribed to the gods; they are energized by the God. Thus the rabbinic elimination of myth does not preclude the utilization of the power and influence of mythopoeic forms. The rabbis translated these terms into a monotheistic de-mythologized vocabulary. The vocabulary may have been purified of pagan reminiscences, but the essential psychic power of myth was not reduced. While the Talmud continues the biblical crusade against mythological residues, the rabbis applied the psychic function of myth to their concept of man's soul. Man, then, composed of the Yezers (good and bad) is endowed with the capacity for unlimited imagination as well as unlimited evil. Although the rabbis were concerned with eradicating the pagan qualities of mythology, they were aware of the numinous reality of evil: "Who is the strange God that lives in man? This is the evil Yezer." s As one can see, the numinous dimension of evil represents a problem for rabbinic monotheism in terms of its struggle with Gnostic dualism. Nevertheless, the mythic forces that give birth to evil are recognized and appear in rabbinic references to
232
Journal of Religion and Health
man's personality and spiritual life. Thus rabbinic theology attributes the evil committed by man to the power of the Yezer that is personified in the figure of Satan--"Who is Satan? He is the Yezer ha-ra." ~ The portrayal of evil in the figure of Satan represents the rabbinic awareness of the cosmic power of the Yezer ha-ra. Although the Yezer ha-ra is the individual libidinal drive, it has collective implications. It is the cosmic extension of man's evil Yezer that develops into the anti-God just as the human element of the good Yezer is a microcosmic representation of the Divine. Thus the divine-human encounter and the struggle between good and evil are experienced on all levels of consciousness: intrapsychically, socially, and cosmically. Satan is described as a highly erotic and seductive character. He threatens one with involvement in overt sexual activity when he appears in the company of attractive women; he warns of homosexuality when he appears as a young boy. He embodies the primitive sexuality of the child wherein eroticism and aggression are fused together. Consequently, the rabbinic view of sin is tinged with sexual overtones. The M i d r a s h often refers to this erotic quality of sin by using sexual imagery in discussing Satan: "In the hour that a man goes to sin, Satan dances with him until he completes the transgression. ''7 The provocative imagery of the seductive dance highlights the sensual quality of sin. Sin is identified with sexuality. In addition, one perceives the ambivalent aspect of the concept of sin: either sin is not all bad, or sexuality is evil. For example, the M i d r a s h points to the satanic element in sexuality: "Everywhere that you find eating and drinking, there [you will find] Satan enticing. ''8 The symbolism of the feast evokes shades of the orgiastic festivities surrounding the Jews, which were condemned by the rabbis. For Judaism, the obscene indulgence of the orgy was the epitome of idolatry. Since sexuality was not always referred to as direct sexual intercourse, but was often manifested in various aspects such as the orality of eating, the orgy was then a ritualization of man's complete subjugation to the demand of the id or the Y e z e r ha-ra. The rabbis' awareness of the power of sexuality is continually reiterated in their statements about the strength and influence of the Yezer. Sexuality permeates every sphere of life engendering both creativity (eros) and raw sexuality expressed by the sex drive: "Even during the period of mourning man's Yezer can overcome him. ''9 It would appear strange that during a sad point in an individual's life--grieving for the dead--the power of sexuality could invade his psyche. Yet the rabbis were cognizant of this possibility. Freud, in his paper "Mourning and Melancholy," discussed the sexual component of depression, which is a form of grief or loss. He observed that there was a withdrawal of libidinous cathexes from the object during grief work and depression. Perhaps the rabbis noted this same withdrawal f r o m the object and its consequential overwhelming of the individual with the detached sexual energy that resulted in a preoccupation with sexual imagery. In turn, this reaction of sexual ruminations could have been intensified by the rabbinic prohibition against sexual intercourse during the period of mourning. Certainly, sexual energy is present during
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
233
the period of mourning; the manner of dealing with it becomes an important issue. The rabbis tended toward the suppression of it. Consequently we discover the paradoxical contemporaneity of eros and thanatos as reflected in the ambivalent reaction to loss and death. Aside from the juncture of sexuality in depression or grief, Freud and the rabbis shared an awe of sexuality. Freud read into sexuality a fundamental eroticization of life, endowing all life with the quality of intense feeling. The rabbis saw in sexuality the bipolar dimension of the Yezer: generative as well as destructive, passionate as well as pathogenic. Freud demonstrated that evil is highly eroticized. The basis for all neurosis is the oedipal conflict in which the individual struggles with incestuous fantasies. Neurosis is the psychoanalytic analogue to sin. Desiring to possess the mother is neurotic; actually, indulging in sexual relations with the mother is sinful. Freud has shown us how frustrated sexual drives are responsible for neurotic and antisocial behavior. Murder represents unresolved oedipal difficulties, theft represents the unconscious fantasy of stealing love and affection. A major theme of Freud's theory is the sexual quality of evil. This correlation between evil and sexuality was observed by the rabbis when they noted that the same force that encouraged man to marry and procreate was responsible for his wrongdoings. Not only was sin erotically charged (the very act of sin was exciting), but from the start of creation the possibility of sin was clearly established. The very source of life, the Yezer was also the source of sin or evil. Life was an intricate pattern of "dos" and "don'ts." The individual had to negotiate his way through a maze of prohibitions and commandments. Implicated in the very force for life was the potential for evildoing, which was the negation of life. One standard theological definition of sin views sin as a rebellion against God's will. The primal rebellion against the father culminating in the murder of the father and the assumption of his authority is also Freud's analysis of sin or neurosis. Whether the object negated is God or the primal father, the consequences result in a negation of life. The paradox of the fundamental life force being ultimately responsible for the brutalization of life reveals the very potent character of the Yezer. Not only have the rabbis conceived of a psychic force capable of distorting energy into sinful or inappropriate activity; they have also recognized the influence of the Yezer Toy in combating this evil inclination. "'I have created the evil Yezer and I have also created the Torah as a therapeutic. ''1~ The Torah is a remedy for the evil Yezer when the values of the Torah have been assimilated by the good Yezer and are used to suppress the strivings of the evil Yezer. Consequently, the Yezer Toy becomes the primary counter balance to the evil Yezer. When an individual is enmeshed in sinful preoccupations, a strengthening of the power of the Yezer Toy is the source of salvation from the evil concocted by the Yezer ha-ra. "A man should always incite his good Yezer to struggle against his evil Yezer. ''H The intrapsychic tension between the good Yezer and the evil Yezer is a constant element of personality. The rabbis were aware of the fact that ambivalence was an inevitable aspect of life. Indeed, this tension was created by God, himself. "T he
234
Journal of Religion and Health
Holy One, blessed be He, created two Yezers the good Yezer and the evil Yezer. ''12 The creation of these two powerful psychic elements represents more than the idea that God is responsible for evil or at least the potential for evil; the fact that God created two opposing inclinations reflects the rabbinic insight into the essential nature of man. Naturally, depth psychology has elucidated our comprehension of man's personality and behavior. The rabbis, however, were not naive about man's complex character. They exhibited not only a sympathetic understanding of man, but at times even a rough appreciation for psychotherapy. Thus, for example, there is a situation recorded in the Talmud that exemplifies the rudimentary psychotherapy of the rabbis. "If a man perceives that his Yezer [evil] is overwhelming him, he should dress in black and go to a place where he is unknown and do what his impulses require him to do. ''Is "A man's Yezer constantly renews itself [or conquers the individual]. T M The advice to dress in black clothing and go to a place where the individual is unknown implies a therapeutic approach. Instead of indicating an outright condemnation of the Yezer as evil, the rabbis understood its instinctual power and sought to neutralize it. Rather than being understood as rabbinic permission for indulgence in the desires of the Yezer, this statement reflects the rabbinic recognition of the power of the Yezer ha-ra. Thus black clothing symbolizes grief or mourning. The individual dressed in black must experience sadness over his indulgence in the desires of the Yezer. The significance of a place where he is unknown represents the shame or embarrassment in the performance of an inappropriate deed. Together, there is enough of a negative connotation in these actions to insure that the individual will experience guilt over his behavior. Guilt, for the rabbis, does not evoke the reaction that it does in psychoanalysis. Guilt is a theologically viable mechanism that indicates that the individual recognizes the inappropriateness of his behavior. Whereas Freud wrote of the pathogenic influences of oedipal guilt, the rabbis recognized the constructive implications of existential guilt. Guilt, in essence, led the individual to repentance, which constituted a corrective over the inappropriate behavior. To repent or return implied a return to the Halacha, the divinely ordained way of life. Consequently, the therapy applied by the rabbis to the individual suffering from "uncontrollable impulses" was the evocation of guilt as a recognition of the wrongfulness of the act and the possibility that guilt would lead to repentance. It is worth while to note that the rabbis did not condemn the individual outright. The element of repentance is perhaps the most significant aspect of our comprehension of the mythology of evil. Repentance represents the divine intervention in the conflict between good and evil. Repentance is God's established system for breaking out of the negative cycle of sin and guilt. Repentance, then, is a complex spiritual process whereby the individual engages in serious introspection and confession and makes the firm determination not to commit the same sin again. He is reinforced and supported in his psychological stance by the conviction that God accepts him and forgives him. 15In this sense, repentance assumes therapeutic proportions within the theological framework. In the situation in which the demand of the evil Yezer is overwhelming, suppression
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
235
of it will cause an inverted flow of the pent-up psychic energies. Yet a total abandoned release of these forces would be tantamount to unmitigated evil. As a result, the compromise of controlled release of these tensions, along with the mechanism appropriate to the inculcation of guilt, provides the circumstances for the desired resolution of this situation through the act of repentance. Although repentance is primarily an intrapsychic phenomenon, atonement is a physical act. The sacrificial system consisted of cultic acts of reparation designed to expiate the guilt of the sinner. The experience of atonement allowed the individual to work through the unconscious feelings of anger and hostility accompanying the sacrifice. In slaughtering the sacrificial animal, the penitent experienced vicariously the release of these unconscious libidinal forces. In addition, the reparative aspect of atoning allowed the individual to come away feeling whole again. The atonement ritual, much like the ritual of repetition and working through in psychoanalysis, had the effect of making whole again. Consequently, the violence perpetrated against God and against the individual's own soul, resulting in the destruction of spiritual we!l-being, is ameliorated by repentance. The ambivalent personality is healed by the very act of repenting and "repeating" that violence. David Bakan demonstrated that Freud's methodology of penetrating into the psychic depths can be traced to the Midrashic procedure of the rabbis. Free association and primary process thinking have their analogues in the nonlogical "organic thinking" of the rabbis. Whereas Freud was scientist and poet, physician and metaphysician, the rabbis were primarily religionists observing and analyzing man's soul in their delineation of habit and ritual, prohibition and command. The Halacha ascribed to man's conscious life the duties and regulations of Judaism that facilitated the processes of sublimation and repression. The Aggadah was the creation of the limitless inner world of man. In Aggadah there is nothing profane; all is infused with the power of the holy as God touches man in intimate and mysterious ways. As Richard Rubenstein indicates, both the rabbis and Freud perceive the origins of religion in primordial motives, such as patricide.The urge to replace the father is merely one aspect of man's attempt at apotheosis. Both the rabbis and Freud agree that true idolatry is not the worship of the pagan gods. Idolatry is the self-aggrandizement of egotism. The rabbis, commenting upon a verse from Ecclesiastes: "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy y o u t h . . , but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment?" (Ecclesiastes 11:9) distinguish between the enticing demands of the evil Yezer and sober reflections of the good Yezer. It is the confusion between the two Yezers and the result of perceiving the evil Yezer as the good Yezer that leads to idolatry. The Yezer is subtle and ambivalent; its demands progress gradually until it requires total obedience. Man's subjugation to his instincts and impulses condemns him to idolatry. In response to this threat, man is constantly struggling to liberate himself from this tension. There is an uncanny parallel between Freud's therapy of liberation and the rabbinic ritual of liberation. Both the rabbis and Freud sought spiritual freedom
236
Journal of Religion and Health
as the ultimate goal. For Freud, freedom was ego-directed living; for the rabbis, liberation implied God-directed living. Interestingly, both required degrees of responsibility and reality awareness, and both questioned the ultimate rule of reason. No matter how strong and irrefutable reason was to Freud the scientist, Freud the romantic realized its limitation. Likewise, although the rabbis relied upon reason as a source of guidance in determining law and ethics, ultimately God's will transcended the reasoning process. God was not at the end of a logical argument; he was the commanding presupposition of all argument and of all life. Thus both the rabbis and Freud, in their agreement upon the power of eros or Yezer to transcend all other aspects of life, held on to a strikingly similar weltanschauung. Freud had compared the psychic life of neurotics to the life of primitive man. In a very like manner, both psychoanalysis and Judaism perceived the psychic reality of the wish as equivalent to the act. The belief that the wish was comparable to the act expressed by neurotics reflects the theological view that even the thought of sin is wrong. Indeed, in this case the neurotic develops his identification of thought and deed out of the mythology of evil promulgated by religion. The neurotic requires the authority of a value system and his disorder expresses his inability to live without a value system. In this vein, it may be interesting to note the deeply felt need for such a hierarchy of values. Contemporary social science and medicine have attempted to supplant the value system of good and evil with the system of illness and health. In this system, what is healthy is "good" and what is sickness is "evil" or wrong. Ostensibly, the neurotic is " t r e a t e d " for his inappropriate actions or thoughts instead of being judged. However, as we have come to realize, the determination of sickness or health is in itself a judgment based upon contemporary societal values, prohibitions, and requirements. Modern psychology has merely exchanged one technical term for another; "sin" has been replaced by "sickness." The confusion of thought and action is the essential malfunction that plagues the neurotic, as it is an element in primitive magic. The individual feels guilty for his evil thoughts even if they never materialize into action. That same confusion is reflected in the Yezer that operates on the psychic level mythically "acting out" the primitive and urgent emotions of man. It is the Yezer that struggles to overcome man and to dominate him. 1~ The Yezer animated by anger rears its head at every opportunity. However, its counterpart, of equal valence, exerts its energy with the objective of subduing the evil Yezer. Consequently, we see played out the inherent ambivalence of emotions that Freud described as the psychic consequences of the primal crime, which was the murder of the father motivated by the wish to replace him. The primal sin of Judaism, suggests Rubenstein, is the fantasy of apotheosis and the real efforts to actualize that fantasy, or in paraphrase of Sartre, to be a man means to try to be God. Judaism rejects the ancient thesis that man can become God; yet man in his ascent from son to father fantasizes the further ascent to Godhood. The ultimate sin of Judaism is idolatry, which is the philosophic counterpart to the spiritual victory of the evil Yezer. Idolatry is the rule of the Yezer ha-ra over the
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
237
personality in which the individuals' narcissistic drives take prime consideration. Thus instinctual gratification, indulgence in sensual experience, and egocentrism supercede the needs of others in the community and the requisites of God. The real problem of idolatry is not the fetishism of worshipping stone and images, but the assertion of the self, the ego, beyond all else. To make the self one's ultimate concern, then, is avodah zara (idolatry). It was this primordial effort to become God that Freud interpreted in the attempt of the sons to murder the father and take his place. The rabbis saw in the attempt of the evil Yezer to rule over the personality this same primitive urge to destroy the authority figure and replace him with the self. Thus the drama of our atavistic urges is recreated in the dynamic tensions of our intrapsychic life, which for Freud appeared in the neurosis of man and for the rabbis was manifested in the tension of the good Yezer in conflict with the evil Yezer. The mythology of evil represented in Freud's libido theory makes the id the repository of man's basic--often considered base--needs. Religion viewed the instincts of man as animalistic and sinful, while only the refined or sublimated transformation of these drives was considered acceptable. Thus sexuality as such was regarded as sinful. Only the sexuality transformed into Eros, into love, marriage, and procreation, to use the rabbinic idiom, was accepted. Pure sexuality was taboo. For example, the prostitute or Kadeshah, who personified raw sexuality, lust, and gratification for its own sake, was originally viewed as belonging to the sacred and taboo spheres of deity and kingship. It is clear that the raw form of sensuality evokes the ambivalent reaction of attraction and love, hate and repulsion. The rabbis demonstrated their awareness of the ambivalent powers of the Yezer when they saw the Yezer as the primordial force for creation. 17 The rabbis suggested that the most effective manner of dealing with these libidinal drives was through sublimation and in allowing the individual to transcend himself, as Abraham Joshua Heschel spoke of it: "To live beyond his needs." Thus, the value of a mythology of evil is appreciated as a meaningful way of living with and living in man's total being. It is through the mythic representation of God in our psychic life, in combat against the anti-God or Satan, that we carry on the battle against our primitive drives. To deny the full power of the Y e z e r is tantamount to denying a fundamental element of man. To repress the strivings of the Yezer would be the genesis of neurosis. However, to live with this awesome power by directing it into a meaningful mythology, by allowing it to infuse man with a dimension of reality beyond his conscious ego-reality, is to accomplish a total existence. Thus, in paraphrase of the rabbis: to serve God even with the evil Yezer implies that all life was to be lived in the service of God. Any possible or hypothetical phenomenology of sin that one could conjure up would fall short of the vivid systematic theology of evil constructed by the Sabbatian and Frankist movements. Gershom Scholem, in his essay "Redemption Through Sin," provides us with a thorough analysis of Sabbatian theology. 18 Although Scholem is aware of the underlying psychological currents of Sabbatian
238
Journal of Religion and Health
ideology, he is careful not to fall into the trap of reducing the Sabbatian movement into mass psychosis. Placing the Sabbatian movement in the context of "Pre-messianic" historical events--great catastrophes such as the Spanish Inquisition, which called forth the Kabbalist responses, a metaphysical retreat and finally a counterattack on the part of Judaism--with the desire of Jews for social change, suggests that the tremendous psychic forces buried deeply within the Jewish soul were directed inward. This internalization of powerful social and psychological forces resulted in the distortion of Judaism found in Sabbatian doctrine. Scholem identifies the "libidinal forces" at work in the Sabbatian psyche.l~ The various concepts of Sabbatian nihilism reflect the basic drive of what we have come to label as Yezer and the subsequent capitulation to the demands of the Yezer. When Scholem refers to the apostasy of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, he makes us aware of their surrender to idolatry, to the ideology of the Yezer ha-ra, or the id. That is, the formalized apostasy of the Sabbatian movement was the culmination of their precept of "commandments fulfilled by means of transgressions." In the inverted world of Sabbatian theology, the Torah was to be negated because it was merely one aspect of the divine revelation, an aspect already superceded in the progress toward redemption. In the Sabbatian heresy all was permitted and the motto of the "holiness of sin" reflected their belief in redemption being achieved by the Messiah going down into the abyss of the "gates of impurity" and rescuing the divine sparks. The redemption process was seen as a fundamental transformation of the entire creation leading to a rectification of the primordial catastrophe. This transformation involved the change of even the most fundamental aspects of life. Thus it was of primary significance that sexuality be re-evaluated. A new emphasis was given to sensuality and to the demands of the Yezer. This new importance can be seen in Sabbatai Zevi's violation of the commandments, especially those dealing with sensuality. For example, he permitted the eating of the fat of the animal, cancellation of the fast days, and even the rite of the paschal sacrifice to be performed outside of the Land of Israel. The sacrifice is, perhaps, the best illustration of Sabbatai Zevi's emphasis upon releasing the basic sexual and aggressive drives of the Yezer. One obviously sees the Gnostic and Kabbalistic influence upon Sabbatian theology. In S a b b a t i a n i s m , the sexuality of Gnosticism and Kabbalism is translated into concrete behavioral modalities. The Kabbalistic theogony describes the divine sexual union. Sabbatianism and Frankist ritual include the orgy not only as a distorted translation of Kabbalism, but as a reflection of its ambivalent attitude toward sexuality. Perceiving sexuality as both sin and the sexual aspect of sin, the Frankists acted out the precept of the "sacred sin." The very notion of "sacred sin" itself indicates this basic paradox: the erotic component of evil and the sanctity of sexuality as a manifestation of the union of Shekhinah and the Godhead and the union of man and God. Although the Sabbatians spoke of the "holiness of sin," they saw the task of the Messiah as his descent into the depths of impurity. Therefore, many of the followers of Sabbatai Zevi considered it their duty to imitate their leader.
Mythology of Evil in Judaism
239
Ultimately, a radical nihilistic ideology developed. It was nurtured by the powerful forces of antinomianism and sexuality that lie beneath the surfaces of the individual. In Scholem's words: "A yawning chasm had appeared between the inner and outer realities and once it was decided that the former was the truer of the two, it was only to be expected that the value of the latter would increasingly come to be rejected." 20 The early and hopeful Messianism of the Sabbatians was distorted into Nihilism when the political and historical outlets it had originally anticipated were denied. Therefore, the power and tension built up sought release and a new sense of freedom in the area of morality. To rephrase it in our idiom of the Yezer, the tremendous drive and energy of the Yezer ha-ra penetrated the Yezer Toy, permeating the original value system with the demands of the Yezer ha-ra. What had been prohibited and enforced by the Yezer Toy in terms of sexual relations was now permitted, as the pent-up power of the Yezer ha-ra burst upon the Yezer Toy. Sabbatai Zevi, punning on a traditional blessing, composed the following benediction: "Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord Our God, King of the Universe, who permits the forbidden." Intuitively, Sabbatai Zevi endowed the profane and the evil with an aura of sanctity. This reversal of morality, however, is not entirely incomprehensible, even the prohibited is endowed with numinosity. One stands in the presence of Satan with great trepidation. The entire movement resulting from the Sabbatian ideology is an example of the power of the forces residing deep within the human soul. The Sabbatians, desiring liberation and mobilized by this awesome spiritual power, found themselves overwhelmed by unrestrained primordial urges and demands. This phenomenon clearly shows the reality of the demonic aspect of libido and the titanic powers of the id or the evilYezer. Observing the historic development of Sabbatianism helps us to appreciate the mythic power of the Yezer. Sabbatian theology recreates the mythology of evil that is so necessary for our grasp of the potential destructiveness that lies within us and that was symbolically m a n a g e d by the rabbinic comprehension of the Yezer. The rabbis who viewed man in the light of civilization and in the image of God--as opposed to psychology's view of God in the image of man--saw man's basic urges as evil. Whereas Freud saw man's basic urges as the wellsprings of civilization, the rabbis observed the Yezer in the light of its own culmination as social and cosmic evil, and therefore condemned it. Realizing that the logical end of the Yezer drive is the libidinous overindulgence of the individual, the rabbis sought to suppress that drive. Freud also recognized the need for suppression of the id. He conceived of the superego as the metaphoric expression of the values of mature society and in movement against the urges of the id. The combat between good and evil is equally appreciated by both Freud and the rabbis. Indeed both agree that the victory of the id or the evil Yezer results in sin. For Judaism as well as for psychoanalysis, sin is conceived as the damage done to the individual by his own psychic processes. Neurosis is the result of man in conflict with himself and the sin committed by man against himself is the sin of self-negating behavior. As Rubenstein suggests, the denigration of the self is as abhorrent to
240
Journal of Religion and Health
J u d a i s m as to psychoanalysis. Rubenstein refers to the concept of the "onticd i m i n u t i o n " of m a n as p u n i s h m e n t for m a n ' s hubris. 21 Freud, in a similar vein, saw hubris as the unrestricted reign of the id or the narcissism of the i m m a t u r e and neurotic individual. J u d a i s m saw hubris as the unfettered reign of the Y e z e r ha-ra and its a t t e m p t at encouraging m a n to play God. The consequence for psychoanalysis was to view narcissism as destructive; the parallel in rabbinic theology was to c o n d e m n self-aggrandizement, or what R u b e n s t e i n called "ontica g g r a n d i z e m e n t , " as sinful. M a n y students of m a n k i n d have suggested t h a t the individual derives strength from his traditional myths. Freud himself was immersed in the ancient Greek m y t h s from which he derived not only personal meaning but the very material upon which he founded his psychological studies. As Christine Downing contends, Freud continued the tradition as a m y t h - m a k e r , bequeathing to us the power of his imagination. If we can gather from Freud's mythology new ways of m a n a g i n g classic anxieties and frustrations, then we can draw from the talmudic mythology of the Y e z e r equally useful techniques for coping with the eternal conflicts of good and evil resounding on the cosmic battleground upon which God confronts S a t a n and m a n confronts himself. It m a y be worth while for us to reach back beyond F r e u d ' s translation of this cosmic drama. Reaching back to our J u d a i c sources in t a l m u d i c times, we find t h a t the rabbis constructed a theologically viable system t h a t encompassed the totality of h u m a n needs. T h e y perceived this system in a m a n n e r t h a t directed us aloft and beyond ourselves in the most basic and yet the most spiritual drive of m a n : to seek out and relate to the God of creation. References
1. See Moore, G. F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927, p. 480; Schechter, S., Aspects o[Rabbinic Theology. New York, Schocken Books, 1961, p. 242. 2. Cf. Rubenstein, R., The Religious Imagination. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1968, p. 153. 3. Downing, C., "Sigmund Freud and the Greek Mythological Tradition," J. American Academy of Religion, March, 1975, p. 6. 4. Eliade, M., The Sacred and the Profane. New York, Harper & Row, 1957, p. 97. 5. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah, 105 b. 6. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Batra, 15 b. 7. Midrash, Bemidbar Rabbah, 20:10. 8. Midrash, Bereshith Rabbah, 38:7. 9. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 80 b. 10. Ibid., 30 b. 11. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot, 5 a. 12. Ibid., 61 a. 13. Babylonian Talmud,. Tractate Mo'ed Katan, 17 a. Cf. Rubenstein, op. cit., p. 165. Rubenstein discusses the therapeutic value of honesty. 14. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sukkah, 52 a. 15. Moore, op. cit., p. 520 ft. 16. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah, 13 b. 17. See, for example, Genesis Rabbah 9:7. 18. See Scholem, G., The Messianic Idea in Judaism. New York, Schocken Books, 1971. 19. Ibid., p. 112. 20. Ibid., p. 109. 21. Rubenstein, op. cit., p. 107.
