[Avodah] Yetzer HoRa Issues

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, December 15, 2006 8:28 am, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: Your initial words say that the YH is "a drive to do evil", but if
: you are presuming "an innate knowledge of good and evil", then it
: seems to me that what you really mean is that the YH is "a drive to
: do things that are evil, regardless of whether or not the person has
: been taught which things are evil and which are not."
: I agree that this is an untenable definition. It seems to require
: some sort of magically-acquired innate knowledge of what is good and
: what is bad.

This is what I was saying, but without invoking magic. After all, the soul
comes from a realm where good and evil are self-evident (at least to
mal'akhim). The knowledge could be buried down deep within the soul, without
considering it more mysterious than anything else about the soul.

After all, the concept of YH is simply another way of looking at the concept
of the Satan (and the mal'akh hamaves, to complete the triad), and the Satan
exists to challenge one away from doing good -- not just what one thinks is
good.

Add to that the complication that "doing what I think is evil" is itself an
absolute evil, even when I am wrong and doing something that would otherwise
be okay. But let's leave that in the back of our minds, lest this conversation
become impossible.

: I would prefer to say that the YH is a drive to do the things which
: one understands to be evil, regardless of whether or not they
: actually *are* evil.

: This solves your problem of the tinoq shenishba, because it is not
: the Yetzer Hara which drives him to do this aveira or that, but a
: simple lack of knowing these halachos.

I don't really have a problem with TS, I was using this to disprove the
literalness of YH. But your definition isn't even as non-literal as most.

:> Ever notice how we often end up teitching YH in ways
:> that don't make it inherently evil? Why?

: Because it's *not* inherently evil. In fact, the Medrash says that
: the YH is *very good*. (I could've sworn Rashi brought that Medrash.
: Good thing I checked before posting. It's in the Ramban on Bereshis
: 1:31.)

Which means it's not even an inclination to do evil which is then channeled by
my impressions of what evil is. That was the point I was setting out to prove.
Even if my TS question only makes half my point.

For example, early in this thread RDE suggested to RYGB that he speak about
dimyon vs seichel. Is dimyon inherently "ra"? A navi would clearly say
otherwise. (Although nevu'ah did end at the same time that the YH for avodah
zarah appeared as a dimyon of a burning lion emerging from the Qodesh
haQedashim and was trapped in a pot.)

So it would seem to me that people consistently define YH as a yeitzer whose
results tend to be evil: impulsivity, unbridled imagination (both in contrast
to seichel), hedonism (in contrast to sanctity), etc... Not one whose actions
are defined as a draw to evil itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter