Post on 08-Jan-2023
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, Emes L'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. 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 in Emes L'Yaakov, and where was he getting those ideas
from, if he was not getting them from his Lithuanian yeshiva
1 The similarity of these two stories (R. Yaakov, based on an inference from a rabbinic text, decides to memorize a vast corpus 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.
education? While a systematic analysis of the ideas in and influences
of Emes 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:
ייי ייייי ייייי ייי ייייייי יי יי יייי ייי יייי יייי ייי ייייייי, יייי יי"י
יייי (ייי י') יייי ייי"י ייייי ייייי ייייייי ייי יי יייי יייייי, ייייי יי
ייייייי יייייי ייי. ייי ייייי יי יי, יייי ייי ייי"י ייי ייייי ייייי ייי
?יייייי יי ייייי, ייי ייי ייי ייי ייי"י ייייייי יייייי ייי ייייי
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:
ייי יייי יייי יייי יי"י ייייי ייי יייי, יייייי ייייי יייי "יייייי ייייי"
3 Just like this paper!
ייי יייייי יייי יייייי יייי יייי ייי ייייייי ייייי, ייי יייייי יייייי יי
ייי, יייי יי יייייי יי יייייי יייי יייי ייי יייייי ייייי ייי יי ייייייי יי
ייייי ייייי ייייי יי ייי. יייייי יייי ייי, ייי"י, יייי יייי יייי, ייי ייי
יייי יייייי יייייי יייי יייי יייייי, יייי יי יייי ייייי ייי יייייי יייי יי
ייי יייייי ייי ייייי יייייי יי יייי יייי יייי יי ייי יייי יי יי יייי
יייייי, ייי יייי ייי ייי ייייי ייי יי ייי יייייי ייייייי ייייי ייי, ייי ייי
יייי יייייי ייייי יייי ייייי יייי י יייי ייייי, ייי"י יייי ייי
R. Yaakov sees Chazal's reading as arising from an understanding
of human nature. Chazal, 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
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.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38219/38219-h/38219-h.htm#page_001
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 in Emes 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 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. 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:
ייייי ייייייי ייייי, יייי ייייי יייייי ייייי, ייייי ייי יייי ייייי יייייייי
יייייי יייייייי ייי ייייי יי. יייי יייי ייייייי יייי ייי, ייייי יייי ייייי
יייי יייייי יי ייייי יייי, ייייייייי יייי ייייי ייי ייייי. יייי יייי ייי
.ייייי ייי ייי ייייייי יי, יייי יייי יייייי, ייייי יייי ייי ייייי יייי
“....(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 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
6 Salanter, Ohr Yisrael, found at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=180
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 from Iggeret HaMussar.
:ייייי יי ייייייי יייייי ייייייי ייייי, יי יייי ייי ייייייי
יייי ייייי ייייייי יייייי ייייי יייי ייייי, יייי ייייי ייייי, יי ייייי יייי ייייייי. יייי יייייי יי יי ייייייי ייייי: יייי יייי, ייייי
ייייי, יייייי-יייי, יייי ייייי ייייי יי יייי יייי, ייייי יי יי יייייי .ייייי ייייי
“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 illness”7
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
7 Salanter, “Iggeret HaMussar”, found at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mahadurot/igeret-2.htm
said indulgence. It is not that he sat 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, 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, "יייייי ייייי", 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. In Iggeret HaMussar, he only refers to
sexual desire once, and that is only to say how relatively few people8 Although Freud did not necessarily ascribe all human action to unconscious
sexual desire, and his book Beyond The Pleasure Principle specifically argues against that notion, it is fair to say that it is the predominant unconscious desire in Freud's thought.
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 in Emes 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 יייי
R. Yaakov takes note of the various Rabbinic statements that .ייייי
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:
ייי ייי, יייי יייייי יייי יייי יייי, יייייי יייייי ייייי ייייי ייי
,יייי ייייי' י ייי יייייי, י"ייי יי ייי ייי יי ייי י"ייי ייייי ייייי
יייייי יייי יייי ייי ייי ייייי יייי ייי ייי ייייי יייייי ייי
"And this is a general idea in the learning of midrashim, that both are
words of the living God, and just as we find PaRDeS (multiple levels
of interpretation), so too every person has PaRDeS (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 PaRDeS of 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.
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 "ייי ייייייייי ?implying that they were holy people ," ייייייי
R. Yaakov answers by explaining how each 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 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.
9 Which is late enough as it is.
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 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