Carnal Isræl: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (168 page)

Read Carnal Isræl: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture Online

Authors: Daniel Boyarin

Tags: #Religion, #Judaism, #General

< previous page
page_63
next page >
Page 63
need to be controlled, and can be, but only with difficulty. Desire itself is referred to as the "Evil Desire" because of this admixture of destructiveness and lawlessness that it necessarily carries, not because licit sexual desire and expression are evil in any way according to the Rabbis. This interpretation gives us important clues for the understanding of several seemingly mysterious rabbinic dicta.
Several rabbinic sayings seem paradoxically to identify the "Evil Desire" with good. The most explicit is perhaps the following:
Nahman in the name of Shmuel [said]:
Behold it was good
[Gen. 1:31].
This is the Good Desire.
Behold it was very good
[ibid.]. This is the Evil Desire!
Is the Evil Desire indeed good? Incredible!
Rather, without the Evil Desire a man would not build a house or marry a woman or beget children.
(Theodor and Albeck 1965, 73)
This is an unambiguous rejection of ethical dualism, that is, of the doctrine that two forces contend within a human being, one for evil and one for good. In contrast to other religious formations around and among the Rabbis (including Jewish ones), which held that there were opposing forces of good and evil in the world, the Rabbis insisted that everything came from God, and since everything came from God, then everything was good. This interpretation of the passage is supported from parallel texts in its context, in which suffering, punishment, and even hell are identified as "very good." We must then interpret the Evil Desire in these Rabbis dialectically, as itself composed of constructive and destructive forces within its own singular existence and essence. My hypothesis is that the Rabbis inherited the
term
"Evil Instinct" from a first-century Judaism much more averse to sexuality than they were, and unable to dispense with it, they ironized the term"The Evil Instinct is very good" and rendered the concept itself dialecticalblind in one eye, as it were. Sexuality, according to them, neither is itself evil (as apparently many first-century Jews held), nor is it an uncomplicated good, despite the fact that it leads to building houses, marrying, procreation, and eggs! It is called the Evil Desire solely because of its destructive side,
from which it cannot escape,
but at the same time there is full recognition not only of the necessity for desire but of its very positive overtones.
This interpretation is supported from the following text: "Rabbi Meir said:
You shall worship God with all of your heart
[Deut. 11:13]The word 'heart' is written with an extra letter, to teach that one should
 
< previous page
page_63
next page >
< previous page
page_64
next page >
Page 64
worship God with both of his Desires, with the Good Desire and the Evil Desire" (Mishna Berakhot 9:5). Both of these midrashim have about them a touch of the provocative and the paradoxical. In both of them, the term "evil" in "evil desire" is turned on its head, from that which is condemned to that which is praised above all. These paradoxical texts can only be understood on the basis of the interpretation that I have given above, namely, that the Evil Desire is called thus because desire itself has within itself the necessary potential for evil, not because desire is essentially evil, for it would be impossible to worship God with that which is essentially evil or for God to have referred to it as "very good." In other words, just as the term ''Evil Desire" is turned on its head by midrashic manipulations, so can its very evil be turned to good by psychological-spiritual manipulations. One text resists the unambiguous evil of the Evil Desire because God is its source, and the other insists that this very force can be turned for worship.
Questions remain, however. If the role and the possibility of the Evil Desire can be good, then what is the Good Desire? And more: since the Rabbis obviously consider Desire itself to be positive and important, why do they continue to refer to it as the Evil Desire and not as something neutral which can be turned to good or to evil?
Two Views of the Evil Desire
I wish to suggest that there were two partially conflicting psychologies within rabbinic culture. One was more straightforwardly dualistic,
2
considering the human will to be composed of good and evil instincts at war with each other; the other psychology, the one to which I have been relating up until now, regarded the human being as having a singly monistic nature, which is, however, dialectical in structure.
3
The force within the human being that causes him or her to create is precisely the same force that causes human beings to do evil and destroy. Good is
2. Porter (1901, 115 and especially 120) already perceived that there were two different ideologies on the
yeçer.
3. Note that by "dualist" here I do
not
mean the dualism of body and and soul or matter and spirit. Porter (1901, 98105 and especially 133) already demonstrated very elegantly that the good and evil desires are not to be located in the soul and body respectively, against earlier interpretations which had held that they are. Gammie (1974) is especially useful in distinguishing different modes of dualism, a multi-variate phenomenon, which I am using here for taxonomic convenience.
 
< previous page
page_64
next page >

Other books

Dating A Cougar by Donna McDonald
Red Light Wives by Mary Monroe
Cuff Master by Frances Stockton
The Case of the Singing Skirt by Erle Stanley Gardner
Queen of Denial by Selina Rosen