the hidden motives of biblical characters and their interpreters on the possibility of freudian...

7/27/2019 The Hidden Motives of Biblical Characters and Their Interpreters On The Possibility of Freudian Readings in R. Yaa

1/13

The Hidden Motives of Biblical Characters and Their Interpreters

On The Possibility of Freudian Readings in R. Yaakov Kamenetsky

By Akiva Weisinger

What makes R. Yaakov Kamenetsky so much fun, one of my rebbeim once said to me, is

that he is a closet maskil. While such a statement may be taken as slander by large portions of the

Orthodox world, and it is certainly true that R. Yaakov never denied Sinaitic Revelation and the binding

nature of the Oral Torah, it is readily apparent that R. Yaakov shared some interests with his heretical

brethren. In his commentary on Chumash,EmesL'Yaakov, itself an unusual kind of work to be released

by a 20th century Rosh Yeshiva, R. Yaakov frequently concerns himself with matters of Hebrew

grammar, historical and geographical investigation, and mathematics, areas that were frequently

explored by maskilim but rarely touched by good Lithuanian yeshiva bachurim. Furthermore, R.

Yaakov's biography relates numerous stories attesting to his broad intellectual reach. An accomplished

chess player, R. Yaakov, in his youth studied a non-religious relative's textbooks when he stayed at their

house. Upon becoming the rabbi of a small town without a doctor, R. Yaakov, remembering the

Rambam's advice to never move to a city without a doctor, sat down with a medical textbook and

memorized it. Similarly, based upon the statement that Rav knew the pathways of heaven like he knew

the streets of Nehardea, R. Yaakov memorized the subway map of New York City.1 R. Yaakov once

remarked that particular Evil Inclination was to know aspects of Torah others did not generally study.

While this may seem like a mere witty remark, the Alter of Slobodka, R. Yaakov's Rosh Yeshiva in

Slobodka, did in fact become worried about this tendency of R. Yaakov's, and took steps to rein him in.2

The fact that the Alter of Slobodka needed to rein in the broad interests of a young man who

would become one of Haredi Judaism's foremost leaders, may lead one to wonder how far did R.

1 The similarity of these two stories (R. Yaakov, based on an inference from a rabbinic text, decides to memorize a vastcorpus of useful knowledge) leads me to believe that this is the kind of thing he did for fun.

2 Rosenblum, Y., & Kamenetsky, N. (1993).Reb Yaakov: The life and times of HaGaon Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky.

Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications.


2/13

Yaakov actually roam off the path of typical Torah learning, and where that intellectual wanderlust led

him, whether it led him to any interesting destinations, or perhaps to cross paths with unlikely fellow

travelers. In other words, what kind of unique and unexpected ideas can we find inEmes L'Yaakov, and

where was he getting those ideas from, if he was not getting them from his Lithuanian yeshiva

education? While a systematic analysis of the ideas in and influences ofEmes L'Yaakov is both long

overdue and sorely necessary3, it is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we will take a look at one

instance of R. Yaakov appearing to use unusual sources and discuss what it tells us about his

intellectual profile

For this paper, we will focus on Emes L'Yaakov on Bamidbar 11:5. The text talks about B'nei

Yisrael remembering the fish they ate in Egypt for free, as well as the various fruits and vegetables not

available to them, in the context of their complaining about the manna. R. Yaakov comments:

" (') " ," , . ,

" ?,R. Yaakov notes that Rashi's explanation, based on Chazal, is that their pleas for fish and

various vegetables really meant that they were upset about the sexual restrictions placed on them. R.

Yaakov wants to know what forced Chazal into such a reading, being as it seems to lack any textual

basis. His answer:

"" ", , , , ", , . , , ,

" ,R. Yaakov sees Chazal's reading as arising from an understanding of human nature. Chazal,

3 Just like this paper!


3/13

either through divine inspiration or their knowledge of science, were aware that there are "dark forces"

that affect man's actions, even though the person is not necessarily aware he is affected by them. Thus,

Chazal sensed that such a dramatic complaint could not and did not arise merely from the desire for

garlic and onions, and really arose from the "dark forces" of sexual desire, even if B'nei Yisrael

themselves did not realize the dark origins of their complaint.

R. Yaakov's reading bears much superficial resembelance to the psychoanalytic theories of

Sigmund Freud, who, although Jewish, did not write anything that made its way onto the shelves of the

typical Beis Medrash, to say the least. Freud sees the human mind as divided into three different parts,

the ego, the super-ego, and the id. The ego can best be described as the person's sense of self, his "I"

that makes decisions. The id is the repository for all of the person's passions and desires, and is chiefly

motivated by "the pleasure principle", the hedonistic desire for satisfaction of instinctual appetites ,

disregarding notions of morality and possibility. The super-ego, on the other hand, is concerned with

establishing morality and enforcing norms of behavior. The ego's job is to attempt to work out a

compromise between the id and the super-ego, indulging in enough pleasurable activities to please the

id while establishing limits to obey the superego.While the ego makes up most of what we know as

conscious thought, and the super-ego is part of conscious processes as well, the id largely operates

unconsciously, influencing a person's decision without them being conscious of its influence, even

driving a person to a neurotic state. The psychoanalyst, by noticing irrational and neurotic behavior, can

detect the existence of such unconscious desires, and bring them to the awareness of the patient, thus

curing them4 Naturally, sexual desire makes up a large part of the desires of the id, and Freud grants

sexual urges a large role in the development of a human being5.

4 Sigmund Freud, The Anatomy of the Mental Personality, 1932

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htm

5 Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1920 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-

h/38219-h.htm#page_001
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htmhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-h/38219-h.htm#page_001http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-h/38219-h.htm#page_001http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud2.htmhttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-h/38219-h.htm#page_001http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-h/38219-h.htm#page_001


4/13

Similarly, R. Yaakov believes in unconscious mental processes, which influence man's actions

without his knowledge. His description of these processes, as dark forces which consist of mental

processes that have not taken form, but still leave an impression on man's thoughts, conforms with

Freud's conception of the id. B'nei Yisrael believe they are complaining about the lack of fish and

vegetables, influenced by but unaware of their id's desire for sexual gratification, which never makes it

to the level of conscious thought but still leaves its impression on their eventual action. Furthermore, it

can be argued that, like Freud, R. Yaakov believes that such desires lead to seemingly irrational action,

the appearance of which points to something awry on the unconscious level. Here, the unfulfilled

desire for fish and vegetables does not rationally lead to such dramatic consequences. As R. Yaakov

sees it , the appearance of such irrational behavior is what leads Chazal to deduce that the motivation

for their complaint runs deeper than that which appears on the surface. Also significant is the fact that

R. Yaakov sees these unconscious influences as sexual in nature, strengthening the similarities to

Freudian theories.

The most significant point in favor of this piece being influenced by Freudian theories,

however, is R. Yaakov's assertion that Chazal arrived to this conclusion by either divine inspiration or

knowledge of science. Such a claim necessarily implies that R. Yaakov is aware that what he is saying

is concurrent with the science of his day, which means that R. Yaakov is, at the very least, aware of

Freudian theories. Taken with the apparent overlap in ideas between this piece and Freudian theories, it

is natural to reach the rather remarkable conclusion that R. Yaakov knowingly used Freudian ideas

about unconscious desires to explain a passage in Chumash.

Our hypothesis can be further cemented by looking at the other places inEmes L'Yaakov where

R. Yaakov makes use of this device. Bereishis 13:10-12 poses a very similar challenge to that which R.

Yaakov faced in our piece in Bamidbar. In that text, Lot, enchanted by the fertile pastures of S'dom,

chooses to leave Avraham to go settle there, and Chazal explain that Lot chose to settle in S'dom

because they were "steeped in lust". Once again, R. Yaakov wants to know what force Chazal to put


5/13

such impure motives in the mouths of characters when there is no textual basis for doing so.

R. Yaakov makes use of the same idea he uses in Bamidbar, and in fact quotes that piece as an

illustrative example. Chazal, either through scientific knowledge or divine inspiration, deemed that the

stated motivations for Lot's actions were insufficient, and thus deduced that impure, sexual motivations

were afoot. To leave Avraham in pursuit of material wealth, at the very least, informs us of a

personality more concerned with physical pleasure than spiritual accomplishment. More damningly,

just five verses earlier, the text tells us that Lot was himself wealthy, in possesion of much sheep, cattle,

and tents, leading Chazal to conclude that money may not have been the sole factor in Lot's decision.

Here too we have R. Yaakov seeing an action as irrational, and deducing based on that conclusion that

there are deeper, unconscious motivations at play, motivations of a sexual nature which do not make it

to the level of conscious thought but nevertheless influence Lot's decision. And once again, R. Yaakov

asserts that Chazal arrived to this conclusion either through divine inspiration or scientific knowledge,

revealing that R. Yaakov is aware of the similarities between his explanation and the science of his day,

making it likely that such knowledge played a role in formulating his interpretation.

So far, we have enumerated three different ways in which these two pieces of R. Yaakov seem

to borrow from Freud. Number one, that there is a level of the human psyche which a person is not

conscious of, consisting of mental processes which do not rise to the level of conscious thought, that

nevertheless leaves an impression on human actions and decisions. Number two, that seemingly

irrational or improper behavior can point to the existence of such unconscious processes. Number three,

that sexual desire plays a large part in these processes. Taken all together, Freud's notion of the id

seems to match up well with R. Yaakov's notion of "dark forces". That, coupled with the fact that R.

Yaakov explicitly mentions that his interpretation has scientific basis, leads us to the conclusion that R.

Yaakov borrowed Freudian notions of unconscious desires influencing human actions and decisions

and used them to interpret Chumash.

There are, however, mitigating factors that will prevent us from making the above conclusions.


6/13

Let us first deal with our first proposed Freudian-influenced idea of R. Yaakov's, that of the

unconscious but influential level of the psyche. There is a danger in looking too hard for the possibility

of secular sources influencing biblical interpretation. Assuming that R. Yaakov got this idea from

Freud assumes that only secular, officially recognized personalities like Freud ever have anything valid

and original to say, and if R. Yaakov was talking about unconscious forces that influence man's actions,

he must have been borrowing Freud's theories. This assumption seems to find it inconcievable that a

religious person, especially one confined to his house of study with his religious texts, has anything

insightful to say about the human condition. Only recognized Personalities of Note like Freud have

valid theories, and anything which seems to be overlapping with that theory must have been influenced

by it.

Such a notion is not only insulting, it is, as it turns out, false. There is, first of all, ample

evidence that the idea of the unconscious mind existed before Freud. More importantly, there is a

mountain of evidence that this idea was part of the religious world to which R. Yaakov belonged. The

yeshiva which R. Yaakov attended, the Yeshiva of Slobodka, was a Mussar Yeshiva identifying itself

with the Mussar Movement founded by R. Yisrael Salanter. R. Salanter, in a number of his works refers

to an idea of an unconscious mind in ways that may lead someone to posit that he too, was influenced

by Freudian ideas of instinct and desire unconsciously influencing people's actions and decisions. Take

for instance, this selection from a letter written by R. Salanter, found in Ohr Yisrael:

, , , , . , , ..

....(As regards) the realm of the forces of the soul, there are forces that are clear and those that are

dark, the dark are much stronger and react powerfully to minimal stimulation. The love of man towards


7/13

his children are dark forces, and most of the time, they are not felt by man himself, but with little

provocation they will turn into a raging fire. Man's passions are dark, that without any stimulation, will

be imperceptible, and thus, their power to rule over man is great6

R. Salanter is saying that man's passions and desires are hidden from view (dark) and

imperceptible, but by no means inert. They are ever present, awaiting the slightest provocation, ready

to turn into a raging fire. The fact that such unconscious desires cannot normally be detected gives

them power over man and his decision making. This would seem to be in line with the first idea that we

thought R. Yaakov found in Freud, that of an unconscious level of thought that has the power to rule

over man through unconsciously influencing his decisions. We might thus conclude, based on our

methodology, that R. Salanter is also borrowing ideas from Freud.

We might also see our second idea, that irrational or improper actions stem from unconscious

desires and passions, in another quote, this time fromIggeret HaMussar.

, : , , .

: , -, , , .

Let us take heart and examine the nature of sin, for there are two types. The first comes about through

unbridled desire that loves momentary pleasure, without consideration of the results, which may be

bitter at the end. We find examples of this in daily life: A foolish man, particularly a sick man, whose

intellect is weak, who loves to scarf down that which pleases his palate, and forgets that this will bring

him to grave illness7

R. Salanter takes note of the fact that irrational action comes about when desire overpowers the

intellect, leading to situations in which a fool, his mind weakened by illness, partakes in the momentary

pleasure of sweet food and forgets about the dire consequences of said indulgence. It is not that he sat

6 Salanter, Ohr Yisrael, found at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=180

7 Salanter, Iggeret HaMussar, found athttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mahadurot/igeret-2.htm
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=180http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mahadurot/igeret-2.htmhttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mahadurot/igeret-2.htmhttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=180http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mahadurot/igeret-2.htm


8/13

down and did a cost-benefit analysis of eating this food; if he had done that, he would not have eaten it.

Rather the origin of such irrational action is the abandonment of one's intellect and embrace of pleasure

and instinct. This accords with the second principle we proposed that R. Yaakov borrowed from Freud.

We can tell that B'nei Yisrael's complaint about fish and vegetables had deeper roots in their psyche

because of its irrationality. So too here, we can tell that R. Salanter's fool made his decision based on

his desires because of the irrational and imprudent nature of the decision.

Thus, we have established that two of the factors which led us to believe R. Yaakov was a closet

Freudian are also to be found in R. Yisrael Salanter as well. Like Freud, R. Salanter believes in an

unconscious level of the human psyche which influences man without his knowledge, and also believes

that irrational action can only be explained due to man's desires for momentary pleasure. Does this

make R. Salanter a suspect for Freudian influence? Hardly. R. Salanter died in 1883, and completed

most of his writings a good time before that. Freud's first book, On Hysteria, was published twelve

years after R. Salanter's death. Assuming that R. Salanter was influenced by Freud is a complete

historical impossibility, and it is in fact much more reasonable to assert that Freud was influenced by R.

Salanter; even if that possibility is distant, it remains possible, something which cannot be said about

Freud influencing R' Salanter.

In any event, showing the overlap between Freudian ideas and R' Salanter's Mussar ideology

provides us with two important facts to take note of before we go ahead and assume that R. Yaakov got

his ideas from Freud. Number one, ideas advanced by religious authorities cannot be automatically

assumed to come from secular sources, as the secular do not have a monopoly on intelligence and

insight into the human condition. R. Salanter arrived to many of the same conclusions as Freud without

any of his help, and it is thus unwise to presume that similar ideas found in R. Yaakov necessarily

imply that he had Freud's help. Secondly, if we are to in fact assume that R. Yaakov arrived to these

ideas through some sort of influence, it makes much more sense to assume that influence is R. Salanter,


9/13

founder of the movement R. Yaakov identified strongly with, rather than Sigmund Freud, who R.

Yaakov would have found precious little common ground with. Indeed, the terminology used by R.

Yaakov, ,"" is not some type of hebraicization of Freudian terms, but is in fact lifted

wholesale from the piece by R. Salanter we cited above. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that

R. Yaakov did not take these ideas from Freud, as they formed a part of the religious world he grew up

in. In other words, learning about the idea of an unconscious level of the human psyche full of desires

for instantaneous pleasures, which affects human actions and decisions in imperceptible ways is not

something the Alter of Slobodka would have been concerned about.

As for our third area of overlap between these two pieces of R. Yaakov and Freudian psycho-

analysis, that of the predominantly sexual nature of these unconscious desires8, it is a rather weak point

in the absence of the other two factors we dismissed above. However, it is true that R. Yaakov might be

placing a larger emphasis on sexual unconscious motivations than his Mussar predecessors. While

further study is needed for this phenomenon, R. Salanter does not seem to give much importance to the

sexual drive. In the above cited passage about unconscious desires, his main example of unconscious

forces is a parent's love towards a child. InIggeret HaMussar, he only refers to sexual desire once, and

that is only to say how relatively few people it affects. Thus, if we are able to prove that every time R.

Yaakov uses similar notions of unconscious motivations those said motivations are sexual in nature, we

may have a better case for proving that he is using Freudian ideas, from the larger emphasis placed on

unconscious sexual desires.

To my knowledge, there are two other places inEmes L'Yaakov where R. Yaakov refers to the

notion of unconscious levels of the human mind. The first is in Bereishis 44:18, on Yehuda's statement

to Yosef, who is disguised as an Egyptian noble, that Yosef is . R. Yaakov takes note of the

8 Although Freud did not necessarily ascribe all human action to unconscious sexual desire, and his bookBeyond The

Pleasure Principle specifically argues against that notion, it is fair to say that it is the predominant unconscious desire in

Freud's thought.


10/13

various Rabbinic statements that see this as an aggressive, even threatening statement on Yehuda's part,

and asks why Chazal assume such negative intentions on Yehuda's part when in context, it appears to

be a routine attempt to flatter a powerful person. R. Yaakov answers by asking how Yehuda must have

perceived Yosef at this point in the story. This Egyptian nobleman who deftly controls the economy of

Egypt and the surrounding countries, who could have kept them in jail but chose to let them out and go

get their little brother because he fears God, should by all right be greater in Yehuda's eyes than a pagan

monarch. Yet, he deigns to describe him as like Pharaoh. It must have been an implied insult, which

is the basis for those Rabbinic readings which see this as an aggressive statement. He finishes off by

stating:

",,

,',"

"And this is a general idea in the learning ofmidrashim, that both are words of the living God, and just

as we findPaRDeS(multiple levels of interpretation), so too every person hasPaRDeS(multiple levels

of interpretation), which is each of the parts of his soul, and I explain this elsewhere, that there are parts

of the soul in everyone in multiple levels"

This seems to be implying that this implied insult from Yehuda had its origin in a different level

of his soul, and being as the other place in which he talks about the PaRDeSof human beings is in our

above cited passage dealing with Lot, it seems likely that this implied insult of Yehuda's comes from

his unconscious. If so, what we have is an example of a unconscious motivation which is not sexual in

nature, and makes it difficult to presume that R. Yaakov is stressing the sexual aspect any more than his

predecessors and the fact he has two passages in which he stresses that aspect could be merely random

fluctuations in a small sample size On the other hand, it could be that Yehuda consciously chose his

wording so as to stealthily insult, and this is not a good example of an unconscious motivator.


11/13

The other passage in which R. Yaakov hints at the idea of unconscious motivations in his

explanation of the death of Nadav and Avihu, in Vayikra 10:2. R. Yaakov is puzzled by the numerous

rabbinic explanations given for the death of Nadav and Avihu: that it was because they taught a halacha

in front of their teacher, that it was for acting improperly at Sinai, for not marrying, and so on and so

forth. Why do we need all these explanations when the text itself states that they died for bringing a

foreign fire, and why do we accuse them of such a varied array of sins when Moshe himself says about

them that " ", implying that they were holy people? R. Yaakov answers by explaining howeach of the sins mentioned stemmed from the same character trait, that of arrogance, and it was that

same trait that led them to do the sin they were eventually killed for. This passage thus ascribes an

underlying unconscious motivation, that of arrogance, to Nadav and Avihu's actions, which has nothing

to do with sex. In fact, in one of the sins Nadav and Avihu are faulted with, that of refusing to marry, R.

Yaakov sees their arrogance as overriding whatever sexual desire they may have had. This provides a

better example of R. Yaakov using the notion of unconscious desires in a way that does not concern

itself with sexual desire, and appears to be closer to R. Salanter than to Freud.

There is, however, one last consideration to be taken into account in evaluating the effect Freud

had on R. Yaakov. We mentioned previously that in both of our original passages, the ones dealing with

B'nei Yisrael and Lot, that R. Yaakov ascribes Chazal's knowledge of unconscious mental processes to

either divine inspiration or scientific knowledge, thus demonstrating that R. Yaakov is aware that the

idea he is presenting is consistent with current science. All the parallels with R. Yisrael Salanter do not

change the fact that he is very clearly aware that this idea exists outside of the Mussar Movement.

Furthermore a close look at the two other passages in which he deals with similar notions of different

levels of human thought will reveal that R. Yaakov only sees Chazal as possibly imbued with divine

inspiration or scientific knowledge when the unconscious motivations spoken of are sexual. In cases

where sexual desire is not a factor, like with Yehuda and Nadav and Avihu, the notion of Chazal's


12/13

scientific knowledge is conspicuously absent. It appears clear that R. Yaakov knew enough Freud to

distinguish between when he was supported by Freudian theories, and when he was not.

So, putting all this information together, what is the relationship between R. Yaakov and

Freudian thought? It would be inaccurate to state that R. Yaakov took ideas from Freud. Such a notion

would necessarily imply that R. Yaakov's positions were affected by an exposure to Freudian ideas. We

know that is not true, because R. Yaakov clearly got the idea of an unconscious level of human thought

from R. Yisrael Salanter and the Mussar Movement, evidenced by his use of R. Salanter's terminology.

At best, we might be able to say that there may be more of an emphasis on sexual desire in R. Yaakov's

thought, but that would require a full scale study of the concept as it occurs in the thought of the

Mussar Movement, and is beyond the scope of this paper.9 It would be equally inaccurate to state that

the similarities between R. Yaakov's comments and Freudian notions of sexual desires unconsciously

motivating human actions as a happy coincidence, as he himself notes the similarity, ascribing Chazal

scientific knowledge to explain the origin of their interpretation.

It thus appears that most evidence points to R. Yaakov being aware, but unaffected by Freudian

ideas. He knew about Freud, but it did not affect his worldview in a meaningful way. In that case, what

purpose did this awareness have, and why did he choose to even mention it? In both of the passages we

quoted in which the unconscious influence of sexual desire is discussed, R. Yaakov's main goal is to

defend a rabbinic reading of the text that seems farfetched, answering the question of why Chazal

chose to see lustful motivations when the text did not provide them. By using Freud in the formulation

of his answer, he has not only defended the reading as literarily acceptable, he has gone further and

stated that the reading is on sound scientific ground. Thus, not only were Chazal not illiterate idiots,

they were even scientific geniuses, if not prophets. This does not mean that he necessarily accepted all

Freud had to say, as evidenced by the places we mentioned in which the sexual drive does not play a

9 Which is late enough as it is.


13/13

role, and R. Yaakov, as a result, does not tout the scientific truth of his reading. In this case, however,

Chazal's reading could be supported by Freudian ideas, so he mentions it here for the purposes of

giving his answer added support. R. Yaakov's main purpose for his use of Freudian ideas was to serve

as confirmation of ideas he already had, and the prestige of Judaism in general.

the hidden motives of biblical characters and their interpreters on the possibility of freudian...

Documents