R' Micha Berger wrote:
> One problem I have with the concept of YH as literally being
> a drive to do evil is that it presumes an innate knowledge of
> good and evil. In which case, why be softer on the tinoq
> shenishba? So I'm perfectly fine with such shitos; as long as
> one can explain why then we misname it.

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.

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.

> 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.)

Akiva Miller