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

general.