>YALE«¥MI^IESIW"

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

"P >^'--3V-

THE YECER HARA
A STUDY IN THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF SIN

FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER, PH.D., D.D.,
Winkxey Professor op Biblical Theology in Yale University.

THE YEQER HARA
A STUDY IN THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF SIN
I
INTRODUCTORY
In the study of the Jewish background and environment
of New Testament theology no problem is more important
and difficult than that presented by the interaction between
Hebraic and Greek modes of thought which had gone on,
within Judaism, during the last three centuries before Christ.
The influence of Greek ideas upon the Jews was most diverse
both in degree and in kind, and is, not only because of this
variety and complexity, but also because of the nature of our
sources, very difficult to retrace. Yet the failure to recog
nize it where it is present, on the one side, and the unreflect
ing assumption of its presence where it does not exist, on the
other, lead to serious faults of interpretation, and prevent a
true understanding of the history of religious thought in
New Testament times.
Among the contrasts between Hebrew and Greek thought,
one, which has far-reaching consequences, relates to the nature
\ of man. Man was to the Hebrew a unity. Body and souT
i-were but the outer and inner sides of one being. Man's body
~ was of the dust, while the breath of God was the principle of
- ^ life within him ; but man himself was the single product of
^ these two factors. On the other hanr), fi-reek thinkers, influ-
/^\ enced especially by Plato, had developed a strongly dualigtic
conception of man. Body and soul were regarded as two
essentially contrasted and really unrelated things. The soul
is the man. It existed before its entrance into the body, and

94 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
"will continue to exist after its departure from the body at
death. The body is foreign to the soul's nature and even
hostile to the soul's purity and higher life. The resulting
eschatology, the conception of the immortality of the soul,
and the resulting ethics, the idea that virtue is to be at
tained by the conquest and subjugation of the body, in which
evil has its seat and its power, were each radically opposed
to Hebrew thought, yet each had a strong influence on cer
tain late Jewish and on Christian conceptions. The effort
to trace the interaction of Hebrew and Greek conceptions in
the region of eschatology sets one upon the right path through
the mazes of that fascinating and significant subject, and only
on this path can the history of late Jewish and early Chris
tian thought regarding future things be intelligently traced.
Less perhaps has been done to make clear the relations of
Hebrew and Greek thought in the region of ethics, and it is
to a corner of this field that the following study is given.
The interest of the problem has centered, so far as the New
Testament is concerned, in Paul's contrast of spirit and flesh.
Is this a Hebrew contrast, and therefore essentially moral and
religious in contents, or is it Greek, and so psychological or
metaphysical in nature? Is Paul's contrast of spirit and
flesh essentially the contrast between God and man, the holi
ness of God and the sinfulness of man; or is it essentially
the contrast between soul and body, the holiness of the soul,
and the sinfulness of the body; or is it some sort of union of
the Hebrew and the Greek dualisms ? It is not the purpose
of this essay to discuss these questions, but only to examine
a Jewish conception in which some have found a parallel to
Paul's doctrine, and a clue to its meaning. The conception
has, indeed, an interest of its own apart from its bearing
upon the interpretation of Paul.
Pfleiderer, revising his treatment of Pauline theology in
the light of Weber's well known book on the Doctrines of
the Talmud,1 based his interpretation of Paul's conception of
1 A posthumous work by Dr. Ferdinand Weber, published first by Delitzsch
and Schnedermann with the title, System der Altsynagogalen Palastinischen Theo-

THE YECER HARA 95
spirit and flesh upon the rabbinical doctrine of the good and
evil impulses.1 In a summary of Jewish Palestinian Theol
ogy, based on Weber, he says : " The natural ground of sin
lies in the fact that the soul, in itself pure by creation, is in
each man defiled by the impure body. The body, however,
is impure, not merely because it consists of perishable earthly
material, but especially because it is the seat and source of
the evil impulse. For from the beginning of the creation
God endowed man with a double impulse, the impulse to
good in the soul and the impulse to evil ( Yecer Hara), which
adheres to the body and expresses itself first in the form of
the impulse to sense enjoyment which man has in common
with all animals." This impulse, " because it belongs to the
nature of the body," was present in man from the first but
gained predominant power through the fall. " But man pos
sesses also the good impulse innate in his soul, and therewith
the possibility of withstanding the evil impulses of the body "
(Urehristenthum, pp. 166 f).2 Again, Jewish theology "as
cribed to human nature, corresponding to its two sides, body
and soul, a twofold impulse : the evil impulse, which has its
seat in the body, springing from impure earthly matter, and
the good impulse, which dwells in the rational soul, springing
from God " (p. 181). With this doctrine Pfleiderer finds Paul,
in Romans 7: 7-24, wholly in accord. The good impulse
dwells in the inner man (vou?) ; the evil impulse has its seat
in the body which consists of impure flesh-material. The
conflict is between "the sinful impulse in the flesh" and
"the good impulse of the reason " (p. 182 ff.). "The flesh is
the seat of a positive power antagonistic to spirit, the evil
impulse, or sin as a potency." "This vd/j,o$ r^y? d/u,apTia<; 6
a>v iv rots fieXeaiv pov (Rom. 7 : 23) is precisely the same as that
which Jewish theology calls ' the evil impulse which dwells
logie (1880), then with the title Die Lehren des Talmud (1886), and finally in a 2d
edition by Schnedermann, with corrections, under the title, Jiidische Theologie auf
Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (1897).
1 Das Urchristenthum (1887), Der Paulinismus, 2d ed. (1890).
2 So in Paulinismus,2 pp. 20-21, 57, 65, with reference to Weber §§ 40, 46, 48-50.

96 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
'in the body,' and the vo/j,o<; voo<; /j.ov is the same as 'the
good impulse which dwells in the soul.' "*
Later writers on Pauline theology have in part adopted
Pfleiderer's view. Those who have questioned or rejected
it have done so, as far as I have observed, on the ground
that the sources of Weber's book are post-Christian, and that
the doctrine of the good and evil impulses belongs only to
post-Christian Judaism, and is itself due to Greek influence.
So Gunkel 2 simply refuses to use Weber's material for the
pre-Pauline period. Holtzmann3 regards the analogy offered
by the rabbinical yeper hara as " only very general and weak,
also questionable in respect to contemporaneity, and perhaps
already testifying to Greek influences." Schmiedel4 agrees
that Paul thinks of sin as a power bound by nature with the
material of the body, but says that at this point Paul stands
on the ground of Greek philosophy, with its metaphysical
dualism between the spirit springing from God and matter
evil in itself. Against Pfleiderer's appeal to the Jewish doc
trine of the evil impulse stands the "pressing suspicion" that
this also is derived from Greek philosophy. "If this doc
trine, provable only from post-Pauline sources, is pre-Paul
ine, then the indirect way through this for the explanation
of the Greek element in Paul's conception of the adp^ would
certainly be preferable, since the direct points of contact
with Philo are not significant."
But is it true that the Jewish doctrine of the two impulses
has this dualistic character, which, in its contrast to the Old
Testament view, we must regard as of Greek origin ? Does
the good impulse inhere in the soul, the evil impulse in the
body? It appears to me clear that Pfleiderer is responsible
for a certain misrepresentation of Weber at this point, and
also that Weber himself has fallen into a serious misuse of
his sources, giving a Greek coloring to a conception which
1 Paulinismus 2, pp. 66-67.
2 Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, p. 107 (2 ed., p. 98).
8 Neutestamentliche Theologie, ii. p. 39 n. 1.
* Hand-Commeni.ar zum Neuen Testament2, II. i. p. 255.

THE YECER HARA 97
was and remained genuinely Hebraic in character. The im
portance of Weber's treatise and the fact that his fault in
this matter is not without parallel at other points in his book
may justify a somewhat detailed criticism before we turn to
a more positive treatment of the rabbinical doctrine of the
yeper, and finally raise the question whether it is, as Holtz-
mann and Schmiedel affirm, attested only by post-Christian
sources.

98 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES

II
CRITICISM OF WEBER'S TREATMENT OF THE YEQER
Against Pfleiderer's summary of Weber it is to be noticed
that Weber nowhere says that the good impulse has its seat
in the soul. On the contrary he says, " God created also in
the human body a good impulse Qyeper tob')," and "the body
is called the seat of a yeper ra and a yeper tob " (p. 204
[2211]). The accuracy of this expression will be questioned
hereafter, but in any case Pfleiderer should not have put the
expression " the good impulse which dwells in the soul " in
quotation marks, for it is his own invention, lt is essential
to his parallelism (Rom. 7 : 23 ) but it is not in his only author
ity. The impression which Weber's discussion makes at this
point (§§ 46, 47) is that the soul, the free moral agent, comes
into a body endowed by nature with good and evil tenden
cies, and has the task of suppressing the evil and making the
good prevail.
It must, however, be acknowledged that Weber has made
such an interpretation as Pfleiderer's possible by the emphasis
with which, especially in §§ 48, 49, he connects the evil im
pulse with the body. When he argues that while the soul is
pure by nature the body is impure, "not only because it is
perishable, but because it is the seat of the evil impulse "
(220 f. [2228f.]), the inference is natural, though it is not
expressed, that the good impulse has its seat in the soul.
Weber in one passage seems inclined to identify the soul
with the good impulse. He says that it is the soul which
keeps the Law, and holds communion with God, while "it
is the yeper hara of the body which desires and effects sin."

THE YECER HARA 99
"Yet," he continues, "there exists a close relation between
body and soul. The soul is called, with the powers of wis
dom that dwell in it, to be yeper tob against the yeper ra, to
further goodness, and thereby to weaken the yeper ra " (p.
222). An effort is made to clarify this awkward sentence
in the 2d ed. (p. 230), but the meaning remains the same.
The language is Weber's own and is supported by no
reference. But though he wavers in regard to the seat of the good
impulse, there is no obscurity in regard to the evil. It is
defined as " the impulse inherent in the body to fulfil bodily
functions which are directed to maintenance and propaga
tion" (p. 204 p211] ). Let us, then, examine the references
which Weber cites to_4ns±ify_±he--view ihat th,e--43od.y, in dis
tinction from the soul, is the seat of the evil impulse..1
We read : —
"That the yeger hara dwells in the body according to its
nature by creation is shown by Genesis rabba, ch. 34.2 Here the
question whether this impulse arises in man before or after birth
is decided in the former sense ; but of the soul it is said that it
unites itself with the body only after birth" (p. 204 [2211]).
This would seem indeed to be conclusive proof that the evil
impulse belongs to the body and not to the soul,3 but unfortu-
1 The haggadic parts of the rabbinical literature, which here concern us, have
been made in considerable measure accessible to those who are not rabbinical
scholars, by translations. See especially Wiinsche's Der jerusalemische Talmud in
seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen, 1880 ; Der babylonische Talmud in seinen hagga-
dischen Bestandtheilen 1886-89; Bibhotheca Rabbinica, 1880-1885; and Gold-
sehmidt's Der babylonische Talmud (text and translation) 1897 + [jiot yet com
plete]. The chronological and critical study of the teachings of the rabbis has
been greatly advanced by W. Bacher's Die Agada der babylonischen Amoraer, 1878 ;
Die Agada der Tannaiten [from Hillel to the conclusion of the Mishna, 30 B. c.
-220 a. d.], 1884-90; and Die Agada der palastinensischen Amoraer [from the
close of the Mishna to the beginning of the fifth century], 1892-99. Many of
the citations made in this article are from Wiinsche or Bacher ; some are from
other translations, though the intention has been to consult the original at all
points of doubt or of critical importance.
2 See Wiinsche, p. 152.
3 It is cited, from Weber, in that sense by Clemen, Die christliche Lehre von der
Siinde, 1897, p. 185 f.

100 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
nately Weber has reversed the sense of the passage he cites.1
It is one of the reported conversations between Rabbi Juda I.
and (the emperor?) Antoninus, found also in the Talmud.2
Antoninus asked when the evil impulse begins to rule in
men, at conception or at birth. Rabbi answered, at concep
tion. Antoninus replied, In that case the child would vio
lently come forth out of the womb ; I say therefore rather,
at birth. Rabbi acknowledged that Antoninus was right, and
found proof of this view in Gen. 4:6, "Sin lurks at the door,"
i. e., of the womb. Antoninus then argued against Rabbi
that the soul is joined to the body not at birth but at concep
tion, since, as flesh cannot be preserved three days without
salt, so the body could not endure even before birth without
the soul. Rabbi yielded again, and found proof of this view
— to him new — in Job 10 : 12. It is interesting to notice
that these two questions are asked and answered independ
ently of each other, as if the coming in of the evil yeper had
nothing to do with the relation of body and soul; and also
that such questions are asked by a heathen, that the Jew has
no fixed view in regard to them but is ready to change his
first impression and to look for the necessary scriptural proof
of the position maintained on the grounds of common sense
by the heathen. The question when the soul enters the body
is discussed elsewhere and differently answered, but is brought
into no connection with the question of the yeper.
Weber proceeds : —
" God has, however, created in the human body, on the other
hand, a good impulse also. This is inferred, in Berachoth 60b,
from the two yods in l^*'") (G-en. 2:7). Man has two reins ; the
one counsels to the good, the other to the evil (Ps. 16:7)
Berach. 61a, 61b. Nedarim 32b therefore calls the body the seat
of an evil yeger and a good yeger."
Let us examine these references. In Berach. 60" [61a] we
find three answers to the question why there are two yods in
1 He cites it more correctly on p. 221 p 229], but there also with unjustified
inferences. 2 Sank. 91b, cf. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, II. 457-459.

THE YECER HARA 101
1VM1 (Gen. 2:7). R. Nachman b. R. Chisda said: Because
God created (N")2) two impulses (DH¥0> the good and the
evil. R. Nachman b. Isaac answered: In that case ani
mals would not possess the (evil) impulse, since only one
yod is used in their case (Gen. 2 : 19) ; but in fact they have
it, since they bite and kick. So the explanation of R. Simon
b. Pazzi is preferred: Woe to me before my creator, and
woe to me before my yeper (?*)¥'£ ^7 'itf! *"!5fVQ w HN)*1
Or also that of Jeremiah b. Eleasar: Two faces God created
in Adam, as is written: Thou hast formed me ('jm¥)
behind and before (Ps. 139 : 5). It is evident that the first
of these interpretations of Gen. 2 : 7, even if it had not been
set aside for others, would not justify the inference which
Weber seems to draw that because "1V1 refers to the body
before the breath of life had entered it, therefore the two
impulses were supposed to have their seat in the body in
distinction from the soul. The inference might indeed have
been made, but it was not. Still less does the passage justify
the statement which Hamburger strangely bases upon it, that
the two impulses were identified with the two parts of man's
nature, the evil with the dust of which he was formed, and
the good with the breath of life by which he became a living
soul. In fact the passage has nothing to do with the question
whether the impulses inhere in soul or body.
I have not noticed any other rabbinical sayings which
bring Gen. 2 : 7 into connection with the problem of the
yeger, and of these two the one which has a dualistic appear
ance is less acceptable than the other. This fact is in itself
significant, suggesting that the problem was one of ethics,
not of psychology ; for scarcely any other passage in the Old
Testament was so well adapted to form the foundation of a
theory that connects sin with the physical and good with the
psychical side of man's nature; and the use of the root "IV*,
and also the suggestion of Ps. 103 : 14, might have made
such a use of the passage the more natural.
1 Found also in Erubin, 18a. See Bacher, Amor., II. 441 f.
2 Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud, II. 1231.

102 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
The next citation {Berach. 61*-b) reads: The rabbis taught,
Two reins are in man, the one counsels him to good and the
other to evil, and it is probable that the good is on his right
and the evil on his left, for it is written, "A wise man's
heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left"
(Eccles. 10:2).
Here we have, of course, not a literal identification of the
impulses with the two kidneys. The word reins (fiV70) is
used in the Old Testament prevailingly, as the word heart
is used almost exclusively, not of the physical organ, but of
the inner man, the inmost self. In the saying before us the
two kidneys in the physical man suggest the two impulses
in man as a moral being. The word yeper is not used in this
sentence, but it is discussed in the context. The same inter
pretation of Ecclesiastes 10 : 2, with the use of the word
yeper, is found, in connection with several other interpreta
tions of the verse, in Num. rah. 22 (Wiinsche, p. 527). That
the two impulses reside in the body in distinction from the
soul the passage does not prove.
But what of Nedarim 32b, which " calls the body the seat
of an evil impulse and a good impulse ? " The passage is
R. Ammi b. Abba's interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9: 14, 15,^
and is found also, anonymously, after many other interpreta
tions, in Kohel. rah. 9 : 14, 15. The little city, he said, is the
body, the few men in it, the members; the great king who
comes against it, the evil yeper ; the bulwarks, sins ; the poor
wise man in it, the good yeper ; his wisdom which delivered
the city, penitence and good works. The passage contains
no justification for Weber's statement. If the figure were to
be pressed so as to yield any result as to the seat of the im
pulses it would be that the good impulse resides in the body
while the evil impulse comes against it from without. But
any such use of the passage is a misuse. That the city is
called the body rather than the soul or heart is perhaps to
provide for an easier explanation of the citizens. At all
events the passage does not "call the body the seat of an evil
impulse and a good impulse. "

THE YECER HARA 103
The next passage in Weber to be examined is as follows : —
" This sin [Adam's] in its final ground has God for its cause.
For he created the corporeity with the yeger Kara, without which
sin would not have been possible ( Gen. rab. 27 Jalkut Shim. Gen.
44, 47). In the latter passage we read: Repentance came upon
me that I had created man of earthly substance (fitDftyft); for
if I had created him of heavenly substance he would not have
become a rebel against me. And further: Repentance arose in
my heart, said God, that I created in him the yeger hara; for
if I had not done this he would not have become a rebel against
me (p. 214 [2 2211])." '
I have not verified the reference in the later source, Jalhut
(thirteenth century), but the earlier form of the sayings re
veals the serious misuse of them of which Weber is guilty.
The passage {G-en. rab., 27; Wiinsche, pp. 122, 565; Bacher,
Tan., II. 245) gives various interpretations of Genesis 6 : 6a
(and it repented [Dh^'l] Yahwci that he had made man on the
earth [t*1frO]). R- Juda b. Ilai interpreted thus: I repent
that I created man below (|£0JD7O, i.e., on the earth), for
if I had created him above (* 7^0 7ft, i.e., in heaven) he
would not have fallen away from me. R. Nehemiah an
swered: I console myself (»Jtf DfUfift) that I created him
below (nt3ft7ft)' f°r ^ I had created him above he would
have seduced those above (Q'^y /Vi"Ti *'¦ «•» the angels) to fall
away from me, as he has seduced those below. According
to R. Ibo the meaning was : I repent that I created in him
the yeper hara, for if I had not created it in him he would
not have risen up against me (Bacher, Amor. III. 68).
Weber's rendering of llftO/ft, "von irdischer Substanz,"
and of ilvPO/ft' "von himmlischer Substanz," is wholly un
justifiable; and so also is his blending of two distinct inter
pretations of Genesis 6 : 6, and his connection of the evil
impulse in one with the supposed earthly substance in the
other, and of the good impulse with the heavenly substance.
Of "corporeity " and any connection of the evil impulse with
the body the passage says absolutely nothing.

104 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
Again Weber says : —
" That the body is impure, not merely as perishable, but be
cause it is the seat of the evil impulse, we see from what is said
in Num. rab. 13 (Wiinsche, p. 312) : God knew before he created
man that the desire of his heart would be evil from his youth
(Gen. 8: 21). ' Woe to the dough of which the baker himself
must testify that it is bad. ' This Jewish proverb can be applied
to the Jewish doctrine of man. Then the dough is the body,
which God (the baker) worked and shaped, and the impurity
of the body is grounded in the fact that it is the seat of the
yeger hara, which is in the body that 'which leaven is in the
dough (nD'j^E' *TlNtJ,> cf- * Cor- 5 : 7f-)> a fermenting, im
pelling power (Berach. 11°)" (p. 221 [2229]).
Here the identification of the dough with the body, in
distinction from the soul, is mistaken. The dualistic psy
chology is supplied by Weber, not suggested by the source.
God's judgment upon man in Gen. 8 : 21 is likened to a
baker's condemnation of his own dough. The proverb is
found also in Gen. rah. 34 (Wiinsche, p. 152) as a saying of
R. Chija the Great (Bacher, Tan. , II. p. 530). Tbe compari
son of the evil impulse with leaven is an entirely distinct
saying which should not be connected with the other. But
in this case also the dough is man, human nature, not the
body. It is in the prayer of R. Alexander {Berach. 17a):
"It is revealed and known before thee that our will is to
do thy will. And what hinders ? The leaven that is in the
dough and servitude to the kingdoms. May it be thy will to
deliver us from their hand."1
There are only two sentences, so far as I have discovered,
in which Weber's connection of the yeger with the body is
confirmed by the text which he cites. In these cases, how
ever, the word fpj is not used of the body in contrast to the
soul, and Weber's view remains without proof.
1 Taylor's translation, in Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 2d ed. p. 128. See also
Bacher, Amor., I. p. 196; cf. Tan., I. p. 112.

THE YECER HARA 105
The passage begins:
"Prom the entrance of bodily maturity the yeger hara de
serves the name of a strange god (if 7}<{) in the body of man.
Sabbath 105 V
The passage gives no ground for the words "from the
entrance of bodily maturity. " It isa saying of R. Abin's:
"What means Ps. 81 : 10, Let there be in thee no strange
god? What is the strange God which is in the body of man
(DIN 1\& 151JQ J2"tJ>)? It is none other than the yeger
hara." The passage will meet us again in its connection.
Anger and idolatry, not bodily sins, are the effects of the
evil yeger which are discussed in the context. The expres
sion lfllJ3 is nothing but a paraphrase of the "in thee " ("O)
of Ps. 81 : 10.1 So Taylor (p. 130) translates "in a man's
body (or self)," and Levy {Worterbuch) "in dem innern des
Menschen." Nothing suggests that the body is specified in
distinction from the soul. The word here as in other in
stances is equivalent to " person " or " self ' ' (See Levy and
Jastrow's Dictionary). The same remark applies to the next
citation. Weber proceeds: —
" It occasions sins in the body, as Exod. rab. 15 says : Sins
spring from the evil impulse which is in their body (v]1J|)."
The passage (Wiinsche, p. 107) sets forth various points of
likeness between angels and Israel. Among them is this:
"The angels renew themselves daily and return, after they
have praised God, to the stream of fire out of which they
came (Dan. 7 : 10), and God renews them and makes them
as before (Lam. 3 : 23 [cf. Lam. rab. 3 : 23]); so Israel
smitten with sins from the evil yeger which is in their body,2
if they turn in repentance God every year forgives their sins
1 The same interpretation of Ps. 81 : 10 is ascribed to R. Jannai in Jer. Neda-
rim 41b (IX. 1), where the expression " within thee'' C|21p3) takes the place
of 12U3, with which it is wholly synonymous.
2 jaua urw ;nn -urn nuu>3 pypntre.

106 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
and renews their heart to fear him, as it is written in Ezek.
36:26." The Old Testament citation strikingly illustrates
the remoteness from Hebrew thought of the idea that sin
belongs to the flesh in contrast to the soul. The passage be
fore us does not prove that rabbinical Judaism had at this
point departed from its traditional mode of thought. Even
if the word fpj were used in its literal sense, these rare and
late occurrences would not justify Weber's repeated use of the
phrase "the evil impulse of the body," and the dualistic in
ferences which he draws from them. But it is altogether
probable that even in these instances the translation " body "
is misleading.1 Weber continues : —
"The angels are free from it [the yeger hara] because they
do not carry the earthly corporeity; their holiness is therefore
only single, that of man double, because gained in conflict with
evil lusts {Lev. rab. 24)."
Here again the words regarding earthly corporeity are
Weber's own. The passage says only that the evil impulse
is not found in the angels (D*jV/#n, "those on high "), but
it rules in men (D^IDPinn, "those below "). Of the bear
ing of this passage upon the doctrine more will be said
below. Weber is inclined throughout his discussion of the two
impulses to interpret them in terms of a dualistic psychology,
but the passages which he cites do not take us out of the
ethical region. They do not justify his definition of the evil
impulse as " the impulse inherent in the body to fulfil bodily
functions which are directed to maintenance and propaga
tion " (p. 204 [2211]), but rather support the simple defini
tion of Taylor (p. 37) : " The yeper ra is the evil nature or
j disposition in or of a man ; the yeper tob his good nature or
' disposition." It is difficult to excuse Weber's use of some
of the passages cited, and the suggestion of caution in the
use of his book is one that should be enforced before we
1 Cf. Aboth, 4 : 10 : Whosoever honors the law is himself (12U) held in honor.

THE YECER HARA 107
leave him. The vitally important question of the nature,
the stages, and the degree of Greek influence upon the con
ceptions of the Jewish rabbis is one that cannot be answered
by the help of one who is so inclined to put Hebraic ideas
into Greek and modern forms of expression. Nor is this the
only point at which this book, so often used as if it were
equivalent to the sources of rabbinical theology, needs to be
controlled by reference to the sources themselves.
It is unfortunate that Weber wrote with an apologetic
aim, and wished to set Jewish views over against Christian
in an unfavorable, though unexpressed, contrast. This may
explain his tendency to put the teaching of passages in lan
guage which the passage itself does not suggest. It is
furthermore a serious fault of method that he does not cite
the authors of the sayings by name, and so fails to give us
light on the relative age of different opinions, and that he
seldom informs us whether the opinion cited was contro
verted by others, and what opinion, if any, prevailed. With
all its undoubted learning and great value the book must
be said to be deficient in accuracy, and its method not well
adjusted to the nature of its sources.

108 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES

III
THE RABBINICAL CONCEPTION
In order to understand the Jewish doctrine of the yeper we
must remember that it is not at all a speculative but wholly
an exegetical product. It rests for its origin upon Genesis
6 : 5; 8 : 21 (J.). " Yahve saw that the wickedness of man
was great upon the earth and that every yeper of the thoughts
of his heart was only evil every day" ("Q/ J"DLJTfft ")Uw01
DVn~73 P"1 p*1); "the yeper of the heart qf man is evil from
his youth." The first of these verses gives the ground of
God's resolve to destroy man; the second, the ground of his
decision, after the flood, not to curse the ground and smite
the living again. So that we meet already the suggestion
that the " evil yeper (of the thoughts) of the heart of man "
is in part, or in one aspect, his fault and in part his misfor
tune ; that the evil yeper lies on the borderland between the
cboice and the nature of man. This prepares us to recog
nize the fact that in later discussions of the yeper the ques
tion at issue is not the speculative question of the relation
of body and soul to the fact of sin, but the religious question
of the relation of God and man to sin, and the practical
question of the way of escape and victory.
It is never doubted that God made the evil yeper, yet man
is responsible for controlling and subduing it. The word
itself suggested these two apparently contrary conceptions.
The verb *1S* means to form, or fashion, and also, to form
inwardly, to plan. It was used as the technical word for the
potter's work. It was frequently used of God's forming of
nature and of man, and also of his planning or purposing.
The "IV' of man could therefore suggest either his form, as

THE YECER HARA 109
God made him, his nature (so Ps. 103 : 14), or his own
formation of thought and purpose, "imagination " as the word
is rendered in several Old Testament passages (Gen. 6:5;
8 : 21; Deut. 31 : 21; Isa. 26 : 3; 1 Chr. 28 : 9; 29 : 18).
In Deuteronomy 31 : 21, and probably Isaiah 26 : 3, the word
is used without the further definition, "of the thoughts," "of
the heart, " which First Chronicles retains. The word had
gained therefore, already in the Old Testament, a certain in
dependence as meaning the nature or disposition of man, and
this could be regarded as something which God made (Ps. 103 :
14), or as something which man works (Deut. 31 : 21).
It is evident that the word was fitted by Old Testament
use for further development in discussions of the origin of
sin, and the responsibility of man. This development by
the rabbis was carried forward by exegetical processes,
through which many texts besides those in which the word
occurs were brought to bear upon the doctrine. In some
cases the explanation of a difficult text was found in some
characteristic of the yeper, and in other cases difficult facts
of experience with reference to the evil power of the yeper in
man were explained by appealing to some enlightening text.
The fundamental passages pronounce the yeper of man's
heart evil, and it is with the evil impulse that the rabbis
chiefly deal. The good impulse is rarely spoken of, and
probably cannot be traced so far back, and yeper frequently
stands unmodified and always in the evil sense. This in
itself suggests the error of connecting the evil yeper with the
body, the good with the soul, making them expressions of
the character of two equally essential parts of man. Rather
it is the nature of man as a whole that is in mind, and in it
the evil tendency, or disposition, dominates.
Without attempting completeness, I wish to state the teach
ings of the rabbis about the yeger somewhat fully in their
own words.1 It should be remembered that we have to do
1 Some of the passages in which a number of sayings regarding the yecer
are collected are Berach. 60-61, Succa 51b-52", Kiddushin 30", 81, Baba Bathra
16*, Yoma 69b-70b, Sanhed. 20% Gen. rab. 22, 34.
Taylor cites many passages, and makes interesting suggestions as to New

110 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
with a variety of individual opinions, and with the views of
rabbis of earlier and later times during a period of several
centuries;1 and also with a great mass of anonymous and
pseudonymous sayings; so that an elaborate rabbinical doc
trine is not to be looked for, but rather a rabbinical way of
thinking on this subject.
1. The iSggt of the Good and Evil Impulses
\ The seat of the good and evil impulses alike is neither
/body nor soul in distinction from each other, but rather, as
i Genesis 6 : 5 ; 8 : 21 suggest, the heart, — not, of course,
| the physical organ, but the thinking and willing subject,
i the moral person, the inner self. The close association of
ithe yeper with the heart is as abundantly attested as its
^pnnection with the body is meagerly. Heart is even used
in the sense of yeper, as in Gen. rab. 67 (Wiinsche, p. 324),
where Genesis 27 : 41 " Esau spoke in his heart " is inter
preted thus: The wicked are in the power of their heart,
as in Psalm 14 : 1, "The fool speaks in his heart," and here
" Esau spoke in his heart " ; also Jeroboam (1 Kings 12 : 26)
and Haman (Esther 7:6). But the righteous have their
heart in their power, as Hannah (1 Sam. 1 : 13), David
(27 : 1) and Daniel (Dan. 1 : 8).2 Often the word heart in
an Old Testament verse is interpreted of the yeper, and since
the word heart occurs in the two forms ^7 and ^^7' the
rabbis were not slow to see in the double heth a hint of the
two impulses, and in the single heth of the one. Here
belongs the ancient interpretation of the phrase "with all
thy heart" (*p27"7D2) in Deuteronomy 6 : 5. The two
Testament parallels. See his Sayings, 2d ed., pp. 37, 63 f., 70, 77, 82, 98, 140,
147-152, and cf. 128-130, 186-192.
1 On the rabbinical method of interpretation see, b. g., Mielziner, Introduction .
to the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1894; for the names and dates of famous scribes, also
Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, § 25 IV. ; Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud,
2d ed., 1894, ch. VI. ; and Bacher, cited above.
2 That is. the wicked speaks in his heart (laS^). the righteous speaks unto
or against his heart (ia1? 'jy, or ^x)-

THE YECER HARA 111
heths indicate the two impulses, and the meaning is that we
are to love God with our two yeparim, with the yeper tob and
with the yeper ra QSifrS and Mishna Berach. IX. 5).
Psalm 109 : 22 "my heart 0*37) is wounded within me " is
interpreted to mean that his evil yeper has been wounded, or
slain ; hence David is to be reckoned with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob over whom the evil yeper had no power {Baba
bathra, 16 a). The same interpretation of this verse is found
in a saying of Jose the Galilean (Bacher, Tan., I. p. 368).
Deuteronomy 6 : 6 is interpreted in Sifre : Let these words
be against thy heart ("pi 7/)?), that is against thy yeper.
Psalm 86 : 11 "unite my heart (4kj^7) to fear thy name"
means unite the evil to the good impulse that it may be con
trolled (R. Isaac, Bacher, Amor., II. 289). "The northern,"
or " the hidden " in Joel 2 : 20 is the yeger hara which is
hidden (Jlfii?) and stands in the heart of man (12/^ "IftlJTl
D1K h&) {Succa 52a). Rab said: The evil yeper is like
a fly and sits between the two openings of the heart, as it
says in Ecclesiastes 10 : 1 {Berach., 61a). "These my words
shall ye take to your heart " (Deut. 11 : 18), i. e., the law is
balm for the wound of the evil yeper {Kiddushin, 30b).
2. The Nature_ of the Evil Impulse
The question next arises, what sins are ascribed to the!
yeper? If it is the yeper of the heart we should expect all!
sins of the heart, i.e., all sins, to be attributed to it. No\
doubt sensual sins are with special emphasis ascribed to the I
yeper, but this appears to be not because these are sins of |
the body, but because they are conspicuous among the sins
that come upon man and overmaster him as if by an outside
force. Passion is often an accurate translation for yeper in
this connection. As such a power from without, in the form
of lust, the evil yeper can momentarily master even the best
of men. R. Akiba mocked at those who could not withstand
the yeper, but he was saved from falling before the tempter
in the form of a woman only by heavenly intercession. Of

112 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
R. Meir a similar story is told (Kiddushin, 81a). " The ten
dency of these legends is to show that the greatest moral
strength without divine protection is not enough to keep one
from the assaults of passion " (Bacher, Tan., I. p. 284).
A long collection of sayings about the yeper (Succa, 51b-
52b) is occasioned by the Mishnic rule that at the celebration
of the festival the women should sit in the gallery, the men
below. Rab justifies the rule by appealing to Zechariah
12 : 12. If even in mourning, when the evil yeper has no
power, it says, "the men apart and the women apart," how
much more in festal times, when the evil yeper has power.
In the saying of R. Jehoshua (Aboth, 2 : 15, Taylor's Say
ings), "An evil eye, and the evil yeper, and hatred of the
creatures put a man out of the world," the yeper as passion
seems to be coordinated with greed and hatred of men.1 It
is r^ot necessary, however, even here, to limit it to sensual
passion. See further the interpretation of Isaiah 3 : 16 in
Sabbath 62" (Bacher, Amor. III. 720).
LusiJu3_ certainly by no means- the only manifestation—of—
the evil yeper in men,. R. Josia interprets Deuteronomy 6 : 6
thus: Let these words be for an oath against thy heart, i. e.,
thy yeper. Man is to expel his yeper by an oath,2 (adjure it,
or bind himself to war against it), as did Abraham (Gen.
14 : 22 f.), Boaz (Ruth 3 : 13), David (1 Sam. 26 : 10) and
Elisha (2 Kings, 5 : 16); while the wicked by an oath
strengthen their evil yeper, as did Gehazi (2 Kings 5 : 20). 3
In these examples revenge and avarice appear by the side of
lust as deeds of the yeper. Jose b. Chalaftha said: Three
men fortified themselves by an oath against the yeper : Joseph
(Gen. 39 : 9), David (1 Sam. 26 : 10) and Boaz (Ruth 3 : 13)
to whom Proverbs 24 : 5 applies.4
1 Compare the similar saying in 4:30: jealousy and lust (niSfin) an|I
ambition put a man out of the world. And see First John, 2 : 16.
3 Sifre, Deut. 6 : 6, Bacher, Tan., II. 360.
4 Lev. rab., 23 ; Wiinsche, p. 158 ; Ruth rab., 3:13. A similar view as to David
is ascribed to R. Jochanan ; as to Boaz to R. Judan and R. Chanina. See
Bacher, Amor. III. 237, 249, 705.

THE YECER HARA 113
*
Anger is especially ascribed to the yeper in an interesting
saying in Sabbath 105". It is part of a discussion of the
Mishnic rule regarding the rending of one's clothes (when
this is commanded or allowed). The question has come up
whether this is sometimes justifiable in order to calm "the
spirit of one's yeper." x It is reported that Jochanan b. Nuri
said: Let one who in anger tears his garments, breaks
vessels, casts away money, be in thine eyes as one who prac
tises idolatry. For this is the craft of the yeper hara ; to-day
it says to him do this, to-morrow do that, till it says to him,
Go practise idolatry; and he goes and does it. R. Abin
said, What says Psalm 81 : 10 (i. e., How does this passage
prove this?), There shall be in thee no strange God, etc?
What is the strange god which is within [IfllJQ] man? It
is the evil yeper. It (tearing one's clothes) is allowed, how
ever, when it is meant to compel the respect of one's servants.
So R. Juda pulled the threads of his garment, R. Acha b.
Jacob shattered broken vessels, etc. In Ahoth di B. Nathan
26, Jochanan's saying is ascribed to R. Akiba (Bacher, Tan.,
I. 284); and in Jer. Nedarim, 41", R. Jannai is quoted as
saying : One who obeys his yeper practises as it were idolatry.
" Let there be no strange God within thee, " Psalm 81 : 10,
i. e., make not the stranger within thee (^Unpi&J' If) to be
ruler over thee (Bacher, Amor., I. 38).
From a rabbi of the same period, b. Zoma, comes the say
ing in Aboth, 4:2: Who is mighty? He that subdues his
yeper (1"1V DN KOIDIl, Taylor, nature); for it is said, He
that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that
ruleth his spirit (irn~D V&J'lft) *han he that taketh a city
(Prov. 16 : 32). The saying was probably applied not to
anger alone, but to the inner power of sin in general. In
the sense of anger it was even possible to speak of God's
yeper, and say: This is his strength, that he suppresses his
yeper, and grants forbearance.2
i yvfh nn nm -mypn
2 Yoma, 69b, reading "IX1 in the place of Dp3. See Rabbinovicz Variae Lec
tiones, IV. 202.

114 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
I It is not only bodily appetites and the more violent pas-
fsions that are ascribed to the yeger, but all other sins as well.
When the evil yeger sees a conceited man it says, He is
mine; as Proverbs 26 : 12 says, The fool (evil yeger) has
i hope of him.1 (It is the evil yeper that makes Jews object, as
j heathen do, to the irrational precepts of the law, such as the
I prohibition of swine's flesh, of wearing goods of linen and
\ wool mixed, the scape goat, the red cow.2 The yeper may
I cause disbelief in the judgment after deaths Let not thy
yeper assure thee that Sheol is a house of refuge ; for perforce
wast thou framed and born, perforce dost thou live and die,
and perforce thou art to give account and reckoning {Ahoth,
4 : 32).
Idolatry would have been the chief work of the yeper if it
had been a current sin. It was sometimes said that God
created two yeparim in his world, the yeger of idolatry and
the yeger of unchastity,3 but the former had long ago been
rooted out of Israel.
r But is it only sin of which the evil yeper is a cause ? Is it
j altogether .syi]JD> In explanation of the words, And behold it
was very good (Gen. 1 : 31), R. Samuel b. Nachman refers
"behold" to the good yeper, ""and behold" to the evil. Is
the_.eyil-#epe2: then, very-good ? Certainly, \{ or without it man
would not build a house, nor marry nor beget children nor
engage in trade, as it says (Eccles. 4 : 4i), Then I saw all
labor and every skilful work, that it is the zeal (rivalry) of
one against another.4 This passage does not justify the
definition which Weber bases in part upon it, that the evil
yeper is "the impulse innate in the body to the accom
plishment of bodily functions, directed to maintenance and
propagation " (p. 204 [2 211]), for the scripture appealed to,
1 R. Ammi, in Gen. rab., 22, Bacher, Amor., II. 156.
2 Tannaitic tradition, Sifre 86» ; Yoma, 67" ; Bacher, Tan., I. 42 ; cf . Amor.,
II. 317.
8 Hit mi3y IS- and flUT -)^. Cant. rab. 7 : 8. See Bacher, Tan., II. 541 ;
Amor., III. 212, 694; also Yoma, 69b, cited below.
4 Gen. rab., 9 ; Eccles. rab., 3:11; Bacher, Amor., I. 487 f.

THE YECER HARA 115
perhaps the source as well as the proof of the saying, does
not refer to bodily functions. The thought seems rather to
be that a certain self-seeking, the impulse not only to sensual
pleasure, but also to gain and power, evil though it may
easily become, is essential to the continuance of the world as
it is. This is an attempt to justify God (see further below)7|
with which not all would agree. The usual view was that!
the yeper was good only to be subdued, and that the best!
men were without it, or free from its rule. There is indeed >
a sense in which it is essential to the present world order,
but "this rests not upon the material nature of the present
world, but upon the place of the passions in human life.
The evil yeper belongs to men and not to angels, to this'"'
world and not to the world to come. We read of "the
higher beings in whom the evil yeper does not rule." : Why I
does death come upon the righteous? Because as long as
they live they have to fight with the evil yeper, but when
they have died they have rest, Job 3 : 17 {Gen. rab. 9).
Abraham said to the angels (Gen. 18 : 5), Comfort ye your
heart (Q337 not D3327)» hence, said R. Acha, it is known
that in angels the evil yeper does not rule. R. Chija adds,
Psalm 48 : 14, Set your heart [D3H7] to her bulwarks; from
which we see that in the world to come the evil yeper will
not rule {Gen. rah., 48). But this is not because that world
is incorporeal. It is true that the command, Be fruitful and
multiply (Gen. 1 : 28) is for this world only, and that angels
do not marry (cf. Enoch 15 : 3-7; Mark 12 : 25, etc.); but
it is not exclusively bodily functions that mark the differ
ence. "It was a commonplace in the mouth of Rab. that in
the world to come there is neither eating, nor drinking, nor
procreation, nor barter, nor envy, nor hatred, nor strife"
(Berach., 17a; Taylor, p. 60). Moses argues that the law is
needed on earth, not in heaven, for this among other reasons :
The law says, thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit
adultery; thou shalt not steal; is there then envy among
1 Lev. rab., 26 ; Bacher, Amor., II. 419.

116 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
you, is there an evil yeper among you? (Sabbath 89a).
Nowhere do the rabbis say what Philo says so emphatically
that it is the absence of the bodily nature that makes the
difference between the angelic and the human realms.
The rabbinical discussions in regard to the presence of the
svil yeper in children and animals prove still further that
/the yeper belongs to the moral, not to the physical nature.
I The Jews did not see in children types of virtue. The yeper
uwas evil from man's youth (Gen. 8 : 21). We have already
reported the discussion as to whether the yeper entered man
before or at birth.2 Reuben b. Aristobulus says: The evil
yeper in man arises at the moment of conception and lurks
continually at the door of the heart (Gen. 4:7). When a
child in the cradle puts his hand on a serpent and is bitten,
or on coals and is burned, it is the evil yeper already ruling
in the child which prevents caution before what is harmful;
and when a lamb or kid at sight of a pit avoids it, that is
due to the fact that in animals there rules no evil impulse.3
Eccles. rab. 4 : 13 ; 9 : 15 holds that the good yeper does not
arise in man until the thirteenth year, and is therefore thir
teen years younger than the evil yeper. It is therefore
exceptional when in Tanch., Gen. 3 : 22, it is said that a child
knows nothing of sin until it is nine years old; and then the
evil impulse awakens (Hamburger).
If bodily functions are the sphere of the activity of the
yeper, it must be present in animals, constituting though not
man's brute, inheritance yet the brute side of his nature.
Yet, as we have just seen, one rabbi denies that the yeper
rules in animals. Another, cited above p. (101), decides that
the yeper is in animals, not, however, because of their cor-
porealness, but because they kick and bite, giving evidence
of a bad disposition (Berach., 60").
1 R. Levi said (Lev. rab., 26 ; Bacher, Amor., II. 419) : The upper beings, in
whom the evil yecer does not rule, need only a single command hoKD> Dan.
4 : 14 [17]) ; the lower beings have never enough even of repeated commands
(mm, Lev. 21:1).
2 Gen. rab., 34 ; Sanh., 91b.
8 Aboth di R. Nathan, 16 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 384. See also Amor., II. 141, n. I.

THE YECER HARA 117

3. The Origin of the Evil Yeper
God is always regarded as the creator of the evil yeper.
This appears to be the most radical departure from the basal
texts, Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21, in which the yeper seems to be
a man's own shaping of his thoughts or character. Yet the
second of these texts suggests a certain innateness of the
yeper, and the belief that God made it agrees with the Old
Testament and Jewish view, which was opposed to a radical
dualism. We have already met (p. 101) Nachman b. Chisda's
interpretation of the two yods in ")V1 (Gen. 2 : 7), "God
created man with two yeparim, the good and the evil"
(Berach., 61a). Also that of Simeon b. Pazzi which follows,
and seems to be preferred : " Woe is me for my creator.
Woe is me for my yeper." 1 According to this the two yods
mean two woes ('1), one for the yoper, one for the yeper. The
God who made and will judge man and the evil impulse that
leads him to sin are his two fears. Only in Nachman's inter
pretation therefore is Genesis 2 : 7 cited to prove that God
created the evil yeper. It is, however, elsewhere stated, and
not, so far as I know, disputed. See the comment on Genesis
1 : 31, cited above (p. 114), and that on Genesis 6 : 6 (p. 103).
The rabbis did not grapple in a fundamental, philosophical
way with the difficulty involved in the goodness of God and
the evil disposition of man as God made him. Qod prd^l
nounced all good (Gen. 1 : 31), yet called the yeper of man's I
heart evil (6:5; 8 : 21), and repented that he had made
man, or that he had so made him!) Starts toward various
theoretical solutions of the problem are made by different
rabbis, without agreement or consistency. We cannot indeed
blame them for not solving a problem which no one has solved,
but their discussions of it often seem more like play than like
serious and worthy labor. The simplest way of escape from
the difficulty lay in the conception of the good yeper. This is
opposed to the suggestion of Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21, and indeed
1 Found also in Erubin, 18", in the reverse order.

118 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
most of the discussions of the yeper take no account of it.
pThe doctrine that God made man with both good and evil
instincts and dispositions, and that it is man, not God, who
made the evil prevail is sometimes expressed, though it cannot
be the original form of the doctrine, and never appears to
vbe accepted as a sufficient account of man's moral condition.
The interpretation which found the two impulses in the two
yods in "IS" 1, Genesis 2 : 7, gave way to one in which the
,-yeper, simply as evil, was contrasted with God. CThe idea that
| man is to bless God with the evil yeper as well as with the
j good (Berach., IX. 5) indicates that the problem of the evil
J yeper was not solved by the supposition of the good. The evil
[yeper must itself be explained and justified.
The Jews never regarded the idea that the yeper became
evil solely through man's sin as adequate. It does not appear
that its rise was traced to Adam's sin. It must rather have
explained his sin.; Hamburger cites, indeed, from a late
source {Tanch., Gen. 3 : 22) this answer to the question:
God calls the yeper evil (Gen. 8 : 21), who can make it good?
God did not make the yeper evil but only man, and since man
made it evil it is in his power to make it good. But it was
not the origin but the undue power and persistence of the
evil yeper that was generally ascribed to the fault of men.
Thus its continuance in Israel even after the giving of the
Law is due to Israel's want of religious courage or faith.
According to R. Juda, when the Israelites heard the first
word of the Decalogue, I am Yahwe, thy God, they received
an inner knowledge of the law, but lost it when they asked
Moses to mediate between them and God. It cannot be re
stored now but will be hereafter (Jer. 31 : 32) . R. Nehemiah
added, When the Israelites heard the second word, Thou shalt
have no other gods beside me, the evil yeper was rooted out of
their heart; but when they begged Moses to be a mediator,
the evil yeper returned to its place, not to be removed now
but only hereafter (Ezek. 36 : 26). 1 R. Meir interpreted
Canticles 2 : 4 ( Cant, rah.) thus : Israel said, By wine the evil
1 Canticles rab., 1:2; Bacher, Tan., II. 273.

THE YECER HARA 119
yeper overmastered me ; then I called the calf my god (Ex.
32 : 4).
Man is, however, not only responsible for making the]]
yeper more evil by submission to its power; he is also capable!
of putting it to good uses. Here we meet another theory of
the origin of the yeper which has been already hinted at in
the saying that men are to bless God with their evil yeper
as well as with the good. The evil yeper is in some sensed
good, or necessary to the existence of this world. God pro-j
nounced it very good, for without it men would not build, orl
marry, or trade (see above, p. 114). "The yeper, the child,
and the woman, the left hand shall reject while the right
hand draws them near," said Simon b. Eleazar.1 Other say
ings in which the possibility of turning the yeper to good
account is recognized are cited below (p. 125).
It is perhaps worth while to give with fulness the legend
which explains the continuance of the yeper under the second
temple as due no longer to Israel's fault, but to the neces
sities of this world. It is found in Yoma 69b and in part in
Sank 64a.
In Nehemiah 9 : 4 it says, And they cried with a loud voice
to the Lord their God. What did they say ? Rab [Sanh. R.
Juda], or as others say R. Jonathan said: They cried, Woe,
woe (fcf^ N"2), it is he that destroyed the sanctuary,
burned the temple, killed the righteous, drove the Israelites
out of their land, and still dances among us. Why hast
thou given him to us? Only that we may receive reward
(i. e., for conquering him). We wish him not and we wish
not the reward. Then there fell a leaf on which stood —
Truth (nON). From this, according to R. Chanina, it is
proved that the seal of the Holy One is Truth.2 They fasted
three days and three nights; then he was delivered up to
them. He came forth like a fiery lion out of the holy of
holies. Then spake the prophet to the Israelites: This is
the yeper of idolatry, for it is written, Zech. 5 : 8, And he
1 Sota, 47 ¦; Sanh., 107"; Bacher, Tan., II. 427.
2 On this saying see Bacher, Amor., I. 8 n. 3.

120 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
said, This is Wickedness (nyBHfi). When they seized
' him a hair went out of him and he lifted up his voice and
it went 400 parasangs. Then they said, What shall we do
that there may be no more pity for him in heaven? The
prophet said: Shut him up in a leaden vessel and stop its
mouth with lead, for lead does not let the sound through,
as it is written, This is Wickedness, and he cast her into the
Epha, and cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof.
Then they said, Since this is a favorable time we will pray
also against the yeper of sin.1 They prayed and it was de
livered up to them. Then said he (the prophet), Take
heed, for if you slay this one the world will cease. They
bound him three days, and when they searched for a fresh
egg in all the land of Israel they found none. Then they
said, What shall we do? If we kill him the world will
cease. If we pray that only a half be left us, halves are not
kept in heaven. Then they covered his eyes with eye-paint
[or put his eyes out], and let him go ; and that was at least
of this much good to them, that he did not inflame men
against their blood relations.
The meaning of this legend appears to be that the Israelites
from the time of the second temple were free from the temp
tation to idolatry, and from the grosser forms of unchastity,
though the yeper of sexual passion cannot be altogether
destroyed lest the world come to an end.
f Over against this theory, if it can be called such, that the
'yeger is good, or at least indispensable to the existence of
!'the world, as God made it, and becomes evil by man's fault,
we meet a different view, according to which God regrets
^having made it. R. Ibo's interpretation of Gen. 6 : 6 has
already been cited (p. 103). Our rabbis taught, It stands
ill with the evil yeger, since even its creator calls it evil
(Gen. 6:5; Kiddush., 30b). Woe to the dough of which the
baker himself testifies that it is bad (Gen. 8 : 21). Wretched
is the leaven which its maker calls bad (Ps. 103 : 14).
Wretched the plant which the planter himself calls bad
» HT3fl NIX'

THE YEqER HARA 121
(Jer. 11 : 17).1 According to Pinchas b. Jair, there are three
things which God repented having made: the Chaldeans
(Isa. 23 : 13), the Arabians (Job 12 : 6), and the evil yeger
(Mic. 4 : 6, "and what I have done ill " Win).2 He also
interpreted Isa. 46 : 4, "I have created, I will take away "
of the evil yeger.3 Abahu found the interpretation of Gen.
6 : 6 in the words, "was grieved at his heart," i. e., at man's
heart, the evil yeger. God lamented as one who had made
something that was not good: I am he that put the leaven
into the dough, for the yeger of man's heart is evil from his
youth.4 It is not so easy to determine whether the connection of)
the yeger with Satan is more than an isolated and perhaps;
figurative expression. The yeger is often spoken of as if ill
were an outside power. Although it is in man it is in soma
sense foreign to him, "a strange god within him," so thatj
yielding to it is a sort of idolatry (p. 113). "God made
man upright" (Eccles. 7 : 29), then rose up the evil yeger
and polluted him.5 The names applied to it in Succa 52a
by Joshua b. Levi 6 suggest an outside force. The evil yeger
has seven names : God called it evil (Gen. 8 : 21) ; Moses
called it uncircumcised (Deut. 10 : 16) ; David, unclean
(Ps. 51 : 12); Solomon, enemy (Prov. 25 : 31); Isaiah,
stumbling -block (Isa. 57 : 14); Ezekiel, stone (Ezek. 36 : 26);
Joel, hidden (Joel 2 : 20). In a number of passages in Psalms
and Proverbs "the wicked " or "the enemy " has this inter
pretation. Thus Ps. 13 : 5 in the Targum (Taylor, p. 130);
Ps. 37 : 32 by R. Simon b. Lakish (Succa 52", Kiddushin
30b) ; Ps. 91 : 10 by R. Chisda (Sanh. 103a) : The evil yeper
will not rule over thee. And finally we have the same
1 Num. rab., 13 ; Gen. rab., 34.
2 So J., Taanith, 66 ¦. In Succa, 52b, the saying is assigned to the school of
Rab. and the Exile (Isa. 52 : 5) is added.
» Bacher, Tan., II. 498 f.
* Tanch., Gen. 6:6; Bacher, Amor., II. 140. Bacher thinks Abahu may have
been influenced by Christian thought in his emphasis on man's depravity.
6 Tanch., Gen. 7 ; Weber, p. 206 (2 213).
6 Bacher, Amor., I. 132.

122 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
rabbi's saying : " Satan, evil yeper and the angel of death are
one." This is proved from Job 2 : 6 where Satan has power
to take Job's soul, like the angel of death, and from the
word p"), used in Job 1 : 12 of Satan, and in Gen. 6 : 5 of
the yeger.1 In Sifrd 86a it is the yeger that objects to cer
tain prescriptions of the law (p. 114), but in the Baraitha 2
and in Joma 67b, it is Satan. Jalhut unites the two. The
yeger seems to have taken to itself the chief function of
Satan, that of temptation. It is against its assaults that
the righteous man's efforts are directed. To be delivered
from it he prays. Taylor, after gathering rabbinical material
illustrative of the prayer, Deliver us from the evil, hesitates
whether to interpret it of the evil one, or of the evil yeper,
but thinks the latter should at least be included.3 Evil
(\)"X) is its original designation, the name given it by God.
Some of the prayers against it will be cited below. From
R. Jonathan a striking saying is reported in which fully
Satanic deeds are ascribed to the yeper : It misleads men in
this world and testifies against them in the world to come
(based on Prov. 29 : 21).4
r^\i the yeger in a measure displaces Satan in the rabbinical
account of sin it must be regarded as a movement in the
direction of a more ethical and rational conception. For
the yeper, however vividly it is personified, always remains
the tendency and disposition of a man's own heart. Satan
cannot be appealed to for the purpose of explaining the origin
,of the yeper.
As to God's responsibility for the evil yeper, then, opin
ions waver between various explanations. God made the
good yeger also, and man is responsible for the evil, or at
least for its persistence in Israel and for its power over the
good ; or the evil yeger itself is good, or at least inevitable in
1 Baba bathra, 16"; Bacher, Amor., I. 324.
2 Bacher, Tan., I. 42, u. 3.
3 Sayings, pp. 128-130, 186-192.
4 Succa, 52 b. See Bacher, Amor., I. 61, and note by Goldschmidt explaining
the exegesis according to which ]UD is made equivalent to mnD.

THE YECER HARA 123
this world, and men are to turn it to good uses; or it is
essentially evil, a mistake or miscarriage in creation, which
God regrets and will hereafter remedy. It is noteworthy that'
among the various efforts to explain God's responsibility forf
the evil yeper it is never said that it inheres in an eternal
matter by whose properties God was limited when he made i
the world, that is, the Hebrew never gives place to the
Greek explanation which Philo adopts. The important ques- ,,
tion to a Jew was not how it came to be, but how men are to ¦
master it, and how God is at the end to destroy it. It is
as true of rabbinical as of Old Testament theology that it
is weak in theories of the origin of sin, but strong both in
effort and in hope for its conquest. ^^
4. The Conquest of the Yeger hy Man
The conquest of the evil yeper is a hard task because of I
its power, but is possible because of man's moral freedom/
and especially because of Israel's possession of the Law andi
the help of God given in answer to prayer.
a. The power of the yeper is often set forth. Though it
is in man from his youth, it increases in strength as manj
grows to maturity, and it persists in its hold even to old age.i
The power of the evil yeger is set forth by various sayings
in Succa, 52" b. Of the "hidden one," Joel 2 : 20, it is said,
"because he hath done great things," Abaji said, Most of all
to the scribes. Then as he grieved because the evil yeger in
the form of lust had greater power over him than over some
common man, an old man came and taught him, One who
is greater than his neighbor, his yeper is also greater (cf.
Kiddushin, 36").1 In its connection this cannot refer merely
to native energy, but must be understood of sensuous pas
sions. The greater the man the harder his moral struggles.
1 The saying reminds one of Sir, 28 : 10: According to the fuel of the fire,
so will it burn ; . . . according to the might of the man will be his wrath (& Bv/xos) ;
which, however, may mean that men measure their anger by their capacity to
give it effect.

124 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
R. Isaac said: A man's yeger overmasters [or, renews it
self in] him every day (Gen. 6 : 5). R. Simon b. Lakish,
Man's yeger overmasters him daily and strives to kill him
(Ps. 37 : 32) ; and if the Holy One did not help him he
could do nothing against it (Ps. 37 : 33). 1 R. Huna said,
At first the evil yeger befools men (Hos. 4 : 12), then it
dwells in them (5 : 4). Raba said, At first it is called
traveller, then guest, then man [i. e., the man of the house]
(2 Sam. 12 : 4). The same thing is said, in Gen. rab. 22, of
sin by R. Isaac. There we find also Akiba's interpreta
tion of Isa. 5 : 18 as applied to sin, which in Succa 52a is
ascribed to R. Asi and applied to the yeger : At the begin
ning it is like a thread of the spinning web, but at the end it
is like a cart rope. Gen. rah., 22, gives us also this inference
from the fact that the word " sin " in Genesis 4 : 7 is mascu
line, elsewhere feminine: In the beginning sin is weak as a
woman, but afterward it becomes strong as a man.2
According to Gen. rab., 54, R. Josua b. Levi based on
Proverbs 16 : 7 the saying : If one lives with his neighbor two
or three years they become friends ; but the evil yeger lives
with man from his earliest youth and will destroy him even
in his seventieth or eightieth year if it finds opportunity.3
Ecclesiastes 4 : 13 is interpreted of the two impulses. The
poor, wise youth is the good yeger ; a youth, because it does
not stir in man until he is thirteen years old ; poor, because
not all obey him; wise, because he teaches man the right
way. The old, foolish king is the evil yeger ; king, because
all obey him ; old, because he has to do with man from youth
to age; foolish, because he teaches men the bad way and
will not be warned of the suffering that is coming upon him
CEkeZes. raJ. 4 : 13, cf. 9 : 14-15).
Bn±_thQUgh in one sense the yeger belongs to thejiature ijf,
1 The two last sayings are found also in Kiddushin, 30 b.
2 Cf. R. Abin's interpretation of "lT\ in Deut. 7 : 15 : It is the evil yecer which
is sweet in the beginning and bitter at the end (J. Sabb. 14 °, Lev. rab. 16, Bacher,
Amor. III. 408.)
8 Bacher, Amor., I. 132 n. 5.

THE YECER HARA 125
man,. .and though its evil power is great, yet it is not -such as
(to dominate over man against his will, and there are those
[in whom it has no ruling power. All men, says Jose the
Galilean, are divided into three classes, the righteous, who
are under the rule of the good impulse (proved from Ps.
109 : 22, My heart is wounded in me, i. e., my evil yeger is
slain); tljejvjcJaacLwho are ruled only by the evil yeper (Ps.
36 : 2, Sin speaks to the wicked, etc.); and__a middle class,
ruled now by one, now by the other (Ps. 109 : 31, " Those
who judge his soul" are the two yepers).1 Or, according to
Eccles. rah. 4 : 15, 16, there are two classes; those who walk
with the good yeger are the righteous, and those who submit
to the evil yeper are the wicked. — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
were free from the evil yeper, and in David also it was slain
(above, p. 111).
This mastery of the righteous over their yeper is described
in two ways, according to the varying conception of the
yeper itself. Regarded as in some sense a good and indis
pensable part of creation, it is to be turned to good uses;
regarded as the impulse to sin, it is to be suppressed. The
latter is the prevailing point of view. The former is ex
pressed in the saying already quoted: Yeper, child and
woman, the left hand shall reject while the right hand draws
them near. The same rabbi, Simon b. Eleazar, says : ^TEe]
evil yeper is like iron. From iron one may make all sorts ofi
vessels if only he cast it into the fire. So one can make the
evil yeper useful by the words of the Law. This is provedl
by Proverbs 25 : 21 f . : If thou soothe • thine enemy (the
yeger) with bread and water (the Law), God will make it
thy friend (Bacher, Tan., II. 436). 2 R. Isaac said: A man
had two cows, one meant for ploughing, the other not.
If he wants the latter to plough he puts the yoke on both.
Should you not also join the evil impulse to the good, and
so be able to turn it whither you will? So David prays
(Ps. 86 : 11), Unite the double yeger of my heart ('^^7)
1 Ab. di R. Nathan, 32, and in variant form, Berach., 61 b, Bacher, Tan., I. 368.
2 The same saying is ascribed to R. Berachiah, Bacher, Amor., III. 381 f.

126 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
to fear thy name (Bacher, Amor., II. 289 f.). We are to
praise God with the evil yeper as well as with the good.
"~But the evil yeger, regarded simply as sin, it is man's moral
task to subdue. " Thou hast given it to us that we may by
it (by conquering it) receive reward " (Yoma, 69 : 6). The
passage most quoted in proof of man's power to master his
yeger is Gen. 4:7. It lurks at the door of thy heart, a con
stant menace, and toward thee is its desire, but thou shalt
rule over it (e. g., Kiddushin 30b). "Who is mighty? He
that subdues his yeger " (Prov. 16: 32; Ahoth, 4 : 2, Taylor).
It is only one who delicately brings up his evil yeger in his
youth who will have to lament it in his age (R. Abin on Prov.
29 : 21, Gen. rab. 22 ; Bacher, Amor., III. 407). One of several
interpretations of Psalm 41 : 2, Blessed is he that considereth
the poor, is that of R. Meir: The poor is the good yeger in
man, which is poor and weak over against the evil yeger.
Blessed is he who makes the good yeger rule over the evil
{Lev. rah. 34). 1 R. Jbsua b. Levi interpreted Ps. 50 : 23
thus, He who sacrifices his yeper and makes confession
(min) over it, Scripture reckons it to him as if he had
showed God double honor, in this world, and in the world
to come {Sanh. 43b). And on Psalm 112 : 1, he says, Blessed
is he who as a man overcomes his yeger {Ahoda Zara 19a).2
Gen. rah. 22 reports a saying of Abba b. Kahana's (?) how
the evil yeper had brought to destruction many generations,
that of Enoch, of the dispersion of nations, of the flood, but
Abraham saw that this great robber had no real power so
he struck him down (Ps. 89 : 24 [23]). A similar saying of
Chama b. Chanina's is reported, interpreting Job 24 : 22:
The evil yeger "draws away the mighty," i. e., the race of
Enoch and of the flood and of the confusion of languages
and of the Sodomites; therefore "riseth up" the pious and
God "believes him not so long as he lives" (cf. also Job
15 : 16).» 1 Wiinsche, p. 234 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 64; Amor., III. 523.
2 Bacher, Amor., I. 132. See further sayings in Amor., III. 152, 315.
8 Bacher, Amor., I. 465.

THE YECER HARA 127
It must be added that the idea of the evil yeger as belong
ing to man by nature, and having not only great power over
him but also a sort of right in this world, led sometimes to the
use of it as an excuse for sin. On Isaiah 22 : 26 Rabba bar
bar Chana said : The prophet said to Israel, Return in peni
tence ! They said, We cannot for the evil yeger rules over
us. He said to them, chasten your yegarim ; x they answered,
His God teaches us (that this cannot be).2 In Tanch. on
Gen. 4 : 9, Cain charges God with being guilty of his crime
because God created in him the evil yeger (Taylor, p. 37).
On the Mishna, He who does not spare the honor of his
creator, it were better for him if he had not come into the
world, R. Joseph said, This refers to one who commits a sin
in secret, according to the teaching of R. Isaac, who said
that when one committed a sin in secret he stamps upon the
feet of the Shekina, for it is written, Heaven is my throne
and earth is my footstool (Isa. 66 : 1). R. Ilai the elder,
however, said, When a man sees that his yeger has the
mastery over him,3 he goes to a place where he is not known,
clothes himself black, veils himself black and does what
his heart desires, and does not profane the name of heaven
openly. — That is no objection (to Isaac's saying), it is
answered, for one is valid for him who can bend his yeper,
the other for one who cannot (Chagiga, 16a).4
b. TJi£_Jjaw-ij3Uldie__gjc£at nnxe for. this malady in human

naturjj. Raba says, If God created in man the evil yeper, j
he created also a remedy for it, the Law {Baha Bathra, 16a).'
This is the answer of Eliphaz (Job 15 : 4) to Job's com
plaint (10 : 7). So in Kiddushin, 30b, the words, Ye shall
take these my words to your heart (Deut. 11 : 18) are inter
preted as meaning that the JLaw_is_a jemfidv,6 for fhe.^ejger.
It is like a father who smote his son and then put a plaster
on the wound and said to him, My son, as long as the plaster
2 Sanh. 105 », Wiinsche, p. 244.
8 rhy "imna nw
* mrS ^"a 'so «Vi kh nnr1? rrb «]"3 'Xdi sn
6 OlVOVn Ye shall take = on DD> a perfect remedy.

128 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
is on your wound you may eat and drink what you please ;
you may wash in warm water or in cold, and need have no
fear. But if you take it away an evil ulcer will come forth.
So God said to the Israelites, My sons, I created the evil
yeger, I created for it the Law as a remedy (?»7^ri) literally,
spice or seasoning). If you are occupied with the Law you
will not be delivered into its hand 1 (Gen. 4 : 7a) ; but if
you neglect the Law you will fall into its power (v. 7b); yet
if you will you can rule over it (v. 7°).
From the school of Ishmael the saying is reported : If this
hateful thing (the yeper) meets you, draw it into the school
(heth ha-Midrash) ; if it is stone, the Law, which is like water
(Isa. 55 : 1) will wear it away (Job 14 : 19) ; if it is iron it
will break it in pieces (Jer. 23 : 29). 2 God has made statutes
not only for heaven and earth, sun, moon, etc., but also for
the evil yeger (or graven statutes upon it)3 prescribing its
bounds (Bacher, Amor., I. 451). Upon this saying of Chama
b. Chanina, R. Levi remarks, It is like a desert place occu
pied by troops; the king sets desert troops (beduins) to
watch it. So God says, The Law is called a stone (Ex.
24 : 12), and the evil yeger is called a stone (Ezek. 36 : 26).
One stone shall guard the other stone {Lev. rab. 35; Cant.
rah. 6 : 11). With this may be compared the interpretation
of Isaiah 26 : 3, ascribed to R. Simon and R. Chanina b. Papa
{Gen. rab. 22): 4 If the evil yeger comes and will make you
frivolous, watch it (or, repel it) 5 with the words of the Law.
If you do so I (God) reckon it to you as if you had created
,'peace in this world, peace in the coming world.6 But say
not the yeger is not in your power, for I have already written
in the Law, Toward thee is its desire, but thou shalt rule
over it (Gen. 4 : 7). R. Chama b. Chanina, in one of six
1 Perhaps based on Sir. 21 : 11. See below p. 140 f.
2 Succa, 52 b ; Kidduschin, 30 b ; Bacher, Tan., II. 337.
a jnn -ir hy D'pipn wvo D'pn
* Bacher, Amor., II. 443.
6 Taking 113fn (Isa. 26 : 3) from 1XJ, watch, or from 11X, press upon.
6 Taking "UXD in this case from "12T, fashion, and applying the repeated
Shalom to the two worlds.

THE YECER HARA 129
interpretations of Gen. 29 : 2, likens the stone to the evil
yeger. As the stone is rolled away from the well's mouth
(v. 3) so the evil yeper departs when men go into the syna
gogue to drink of the Law, but when they go out the evil
yeper returns to its place (Gen. rah. 70, Wiinsche, p. 341).
That the Law did not take the place of moral and religious
struggle in the conquest of the yeger is suggested by the
directions for its overcoming which Simon b. Lakish found
in Psalm 4 : 5 x Let a man always bring the good yeper in wrath
against the evil yeper ("be angry and sin not " [i. e., that ye
may not sin]). If he conquers it, well; if not, let him
occupy himself with the Law ("speak in your heart"). If
he conquers it, well ; if not, let him read the Shema (" upon
your bed "). If he conquers it, well ; if not, let him remind
it of death ("and be still, Selah ").
c. Most frequently, however, Prayer and divine help are]
recognized as necessary to man's victory over the yeper. %¦
" The evil yecer seeks constantly to get the upper hand over
man and to kill him ; and if God did not help him he could
not resist it, Ps. 37 : 32-33 (Sueca 52h, Simon b. Lakish.)
Of the nature of prayer are the oaths by which in the pas
sages already cited (p. 112) various men of the Bible over
powered or exorcised their evil yecer.
The prayer to be said in connection with the Shema upon
retiring at night contains the petition, " Bring me not into
the power of sin, or temptation, or shame; and let not the
evil yeper rule in me ; 2 and guard me from evil lot, and
from evil sicknesses. Let not dreams and evil thoughts
(DHinin) disturb me," etc. (Berach., 60b). The morning
prayer contains a similar clause : Bring me not into the power
of sin, temptation, or shame : and bend my yeper to submit
itself to thee ; 3 and keep me far from evil man and evil asso
ciate; and let me hold fast to the good yeger, i and to the
1 Berach., 5* ; Bacher, Amor., I. 354.
2 yin -ir '3 diSw hy)
s "\h •uynumh nr nx tpi
* 3ia -rr3 'jp3T 1 9

130 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
good associate (Berach., 60b). These petitions are found in
the Jewish Prayer Book.
Among the private prayers which various rabbis added to
those prescribed, some include similar petitions. Thus Rabbi
used to pray that God would keep him from evil man (evil
event, evil yeper), evil associate, (evil neighbor, and the
destroying Satan).1 R. Eleazar (according to Bacher, Amor.,
I. 244, R. Jochanan) prayed that he might be furnished
with good associate and good yeger (21C3 "l¥*l DltO "Qn3)
(Berach., 16a). R. Alexander's prayer was as follows : Lord
of the worlds, it is open and known to thee that it is our
will to do thy will. And what hinders ? The leaven in the
dough (i. e., the yeper in man), and servitude under the
(world) kingdoms. May it be thy will to humble these
before us and behind us (and that thou remove the evil yeper
from us and humble it out of our heart) that we may fulfil
thy will again with a perfect heart.2 Mar b. Rabina prayed,
Keep me from evil event, from evil yeger, from evil wife,
and from all evils (Berach., 17a). R. Jochanan, Grant
us a good associate and a good yeger.3 R. Isaac inter
preted " the Lord bless thee and keep thee " to mean, from
the evil yeger.* Rabbi understood the phrase "that it be
not to my sorrow " in the prayer of Jabez (1 Chr. 4 : 10),
that the evil yeger hinder me not in study.5 R. Chija b.
Ashi used to pray, Save me from the evil yeper; yet the
prayer did not save him from falling before temptation
(Kiddushin, 81b).
5. The Bemoval of the Yeper hy God
The evil yeger is to be at last removed and destroyed by
i God. The passage upon which this hope chiefly rested was
1 Berach., 16b. But Bacher, Tan., II., 463 f., omits the bracketed phrases on
manuscript evidence (see Rabbinovicz, Variae lectiones, etc.).
2 Berach., 17 * ; and Bacher, Amor., I. 196, who defends the fuller text.
8 Berach., 7 ; Bacher, Amor., I. 245.
4 Sifre, Nu. 6 :24; cf. Prov. 3: 26 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 399.
6 Mechilta, 18 :27; Temura, 16"; Bacher, Tan., U. 483.

THE YECER HARA 131
Ezekiel 36 : 26 (cf. 11 : 19). This verse is in itself a strik
ing proof that " no idea of corrupt inclination attaches to the
term, flesh " in Old Testament usage ; 1 and its frequent use
Iwith reference to the final removal of the evil yeger from men
still further confirms the view that this is not inherent in
matter as such. The mourning in Zech. 12 : 12 was said by
some to be for Messiah b. Joseph, who was slain, by others
for the evil yeger, that was slain. Why should there be
mourning and not rather joy when the yeger is slain? R.
Juda b. Ilai said: Hereafter the Holy One will bring the
evil yeger and slay it before the face of the righteous, and the
wicked. It will seem to the righteous like a high mountain,
to the wicked like a hair. Both will weep. The righteous
will weep, saying, How were we able to conquer this high
mountain?2 The wicked will weep, saying, How were we
not able to conquer this hair. And the Holy One also will
be astonished with them, according to Zech. 8 : 6, "also in
my eyes will it seem wonderful." 3 God said to Moses: Be
cause in this world the evil yeper is in them they fall away
to idolatry, but hereafter I will root out of you the evil yeper
and give you a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36 : 26).4 To Israel he
said, In this world you will be torn from the commandments
by the evil yeger, but hereafter I will tear it out of you (Ezek.
36 : 26). 5 There is indeed a sense in which the evil impulse
is already slain in the righteous (proved by Ps. 109 : 22,
above, p. 125). In another sense only death delivers the
righteous from it, and is therefore included in the things
that are very good ; 6 while the end of its power can come
only with the end of the world (based on Ezek. 36 : 26,
above, p. 118). God created the evil yeger, but will here
after take it away (Isa. 46 : 4, above, p. 121). Rabbi said,
The evil yeger in man is like a robber who anticipates punish-
1 A. B. Davidson«n Ezek. 36 : 26.
2 Cf. 4 Ezra 7 : 92.
8 Succa, 52 »; Bacher, Tan., II. 223.
4 Exod. rab., 41, end.
6 Num. rab., 17, end.
6 Gen. rab., 9, on Job 3:17.

132 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
ment, and since he cannot escape it accuses his companions
of being accomplices. So the yeger thinks, since I am des
tined to destruction in the world to come, I will bring men
to destruction with me.1 R.. Simai on Hos. 12 : 2 offers this
parable : A great rock stood on a forked road and hindered
commerce. The king commanded that it be gradually crum
bled up. He would, when the time was come, wholly
remove it. So the yeger to sin forms the great rock over
which Israel stumbled. It is gradually crumbled, but will
be finally removed by God, according to Ezek. 36 : 26. 2 In
Gen. rab. 89 (beginning) we have this exposition of Job
28 : 3: As long as the evil yeger is in the world darkness
and the shadow of death are in the world. But if it is
rooted out these will be no more.3

6. Sunmiary
The result of our review is that in rabbinical usage the
yeper is hardly other than a name for man's evil tendencies or
inclinations, the evil disposition which as a matter of experi
ence exists in man, and which it is his moral task to subdue
or control. It does not contain a metaphysical explanation
of the fact, a theory as to its source or nature. The proof
of the various things that are said of the yeper is always
found, in the fashion of the rabbis, in Old Testament pas
sages more naturally or more artfully applied. In some cases
the passage, rather than experience and reflection, is itself
the source of the saying. These evil inclinations go all the
way up from sensual passions through anger and revenge to
various forms of selfishness such as greed, deceit, and pridei
and on the other hand to religious unbelief and idolatry;
These propensities are deeply implanted in man's nature and
are not due to his will, though the will can rule over them.
i Ab. di R. Nathan 16 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 461.
2 Bacher, Tan., II. 546.
8 The application of the " stone of darkness " in this verse to the yecer is as
cribed to Simon b. Lakish in Tanchuma (Bacher, Amor., I. 354).

THE YECER HARA 133
v
They must therefore, in a monotheistic view of the world, be
ascribed to Good's creation. Moreover.,at almost every stage
it can be seen that these inclinations are not wholly evil, but
are in some sense necessary to human life and progress. Not
only the impulse that aims at the continuance of the race,
but also a measure of self-assertion, and even of anger and
other passionate impulses, though they easily overmaster
men and lead them to sin, are yet necessary to the life and
progress of humanity in this world. But though a theodicy
can rest on such considerations, the moral task of man is to
control these impulses of his nature. For this end man has
f uJl fiaedom and is wholly .responsible. Moreover, God has
implanted good impulses and inclinations in men, to which
they can, if they will, give the upper hand. God, however,
has provided a definite remedy in the Law. Against one
who studies and observes its precepts the evil impulse has
little power. Further, in answer to prayer, the help of God
may be gained in this struggle, which always remains a severe
and uncertain one. Men are sustained in this warfare by
the belief that there is another world in which the evil
impulse does not exist, that the righteous enter this
world after death, and that hereafter, in the Messianic age,
the powers and qualities of heaven will have exclusive
dominance. All this, it is evident, has nothing to do with a dualistic
contrast of body and soul. Hamburger's remark must rather
be accepted as in the main just: "In contrast to the dualism
of Plato, Philo, and the Gnostics, Judaism in these phrases
[the evil and the good yeper] stated and developed the Bib
lical doctrine of evil and good." A quotation may also well
be made from Lazarus's Die Ethik des Judenthums (1898),
p. 268: "The Jewish view of the world in general, and Jew
ish ethics in particular, is everywhere grounded upon the
actuality of existence and upon the actualization qf the idea;
in both, however, we meet always with soul and body in
connection and in common activity. So in the Biblical
writings we see the contrast of good and evil unceas-

134 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
ingly discussed and emphasized; but almost never does the
contrast of soul and sense there come before us. The same
manner of thought meets us in the rabbinical literature.
The "Sayings of the Fathers," for example, has not unjustly
been called a sort of compendium of ethics; but in all the
five (or six) sections of which it is composed hardly a single
time is the contrast of spirit and body suggested " (p. 266).
He cites Aboth, 4 : 1 (Taylor, 4 : 2), as proving that the
yeper is not sensuousness, since the " patient one " is its con
queror, and the parallel speaks expressly of control and inner
freedom in the spirit itself. " Eben so wenig wie 31£3 "1U»
das Rein-Geistige bedeutet, ist pin IT die Sinnlichkeit."
Lazarus is right too in saying (p. 264) that the important
thing in the rabbinical view of man is not that his natural
impulse is twofold, that originally, by the side of the evil
impulse, stands the good. More important is the thought-
God has created the evil impulse, he has also created the
Thora as a remedy against it. The main thing is not the[
natural disposition of man — even to good — but the Law j
that redeems from the impulse of nature. Only we must;
doubt whether he is historically just in taking this Law to
be primarily or solely the moral law, the creation of the ethi
cal, which surpasses all nature.
/it must, moreover, be evident, apart from any positive
explanation of Paul's doctrine, that the parallelism between
his contrast of spirit and flesh and the rabbinical contrast of
the good and evil impulses is remote and insignificant. Of
course Paul in Rom. 7 is describing the same experience
of struggle between two opposing forces in man upon which
the Jewish doctrine rests, but his way of expressing the
struggle as a war between the law (of sin) in his members,
and the law of his mind (vovs), or between that which he
possesses and does in his flesh and in his mind, is widely
different_fxom. the Jewish conception, and seems to rest on a
different view of the world and of man.
It is especially evident that Paul's conception of the Spirit
has almost nothing in common with the relatively unimpor-

THE YECER HARA 135
tant rabbinical idea of the good yeper. On the other hand
there is a closer, though still remote, parallelism between his
contrast of spirit and flesh, and the Jewish conception of the
Law as the divinely given remedy for the evil nature of man,
the power before which it must yield.

136 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES

IV
THE PRESENCE OF THE CONCEPTION IN EARLIER
SOURCES
A distinct and significant Hellenistic element in the Jew
ish doctrine of the yeper may be confidently denied. It
remains to inquire after the time of its development. Is it
attested only for the post-Christian period? This develop
ment must certainly have begun in the Old Testament period,
for though First Chronicles 28 : 9 and 29 : 18 only cite the
phrases of Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21, yet in Deuteronomy 31 : 21
(Exilic or post-Exilic), and. probably in Isaiah 26 : 3 (late
post-Exilic) yeper is used, without modification, of the dis
position, or mind. In Psalm 103 : 14 the word may mean
"frame " as the second clause suggests (Gen. 2:7; 3 : 19);
but the context suggests a wider sense, "nature," as Well-
hausen renders it.1 That which characterizes the rabbinical
use in distinction from the Biblical is not the contrast of
two yepers, a good and an evil, and not a radical departure
from the sense "mind" or "disposition" already found, but
rather the choice of this word,2 with its emphatic use and
partial personification, for the seat and power of temptation
and sin in man.
/^Jl - 1. The JBo ok of Sir ash
We must turn to the Book of Sirach for light upon the
early stages of the transition from the Biblical to the rabbin
ical use of the word.3 From the parts of this book now
1 Haupt's Bible. So Duhm, Die Psalmen, 1899, translates it Wesen.
2 Especially in place of " heart," " evil heart," etc., or "thoughts (frDBTID) of
the heart," and similar expressions.
8 It is important to observe that there was no Greek word with which the

THE YECER HARA 137
known in the original Hebrew we are able in a measure to
confirm and correct hypotheses already put forth as to the
occurrence and meaning of the word.1 The most important
passage for our purpose is 15 : 14. It reads, in its connec
tion, in Taylor's version of the Hebrew, as follows: —
" 11. Say not, My transgression was of God ;
Por that which he hateth he made not.
12. Lest thou say, He it was that made me stumble ;
For there is no need of men of violence.
13. Wickedness and an abomination the Lord hateth ;
And will not let it befal them that fear him.
14. For (?) God created man from the beginning;
And put him into the hand of him that would spoil him
And gave him into the hand of his inclination \_yeger] 2
15. If thou choose, thou mayest keep the commandment;
And it is understanding to do his will.
15(1). If thou trust in him, thou shalt even live.
16. Fire and water are poured out before thee :
Upon whichsoever thou choosest stretch forth thy hands.
17. Death and life are before a man :
That which he shall choose shall be given him" (ISjJL^IZ).
various meanings of the Hebrew yecer could be rendered. In its literal meaning the
verb was commonly rendered in the LXX by ir\&aaai, and the noun by
•n\iap.a in Isa. 29 : 16, Hab. 2 : 18, Ps. 103 : 14. Aquilla and Sym. use it also in
Dt. 31 : 21, Isa. 26 : 3. But this word could not bear the figurative meaning of
the Hebrew. In Gen. 8 : 21 yecer of the heart " is rendered ri Sidvoia ; so in
1 Chr. 29 : 18 " in the yecer of the thoughts of the heart " = iv Siavoia KapSias ;
while in Gen. 6 : 5 (" every yecer of the thoughts of his heart ") iras tis Siavourai
iv Tjj KapSlq avrov. But in 1 Chr. 28 : 9 " every yecer of the thoughts " becomes
irav ivOifiiina. The word is rendered by f) irovnpta in Dt. 31 : 21, and is passed by in
Isa. 26 : 3, unless indeed our Hebrew text itself is corrupt.
1 See Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasti
cus (39 : 15-49 : 11), 1897 ; Schechterand Taylor, The Wisdom ofBen-Sira (3: 6b-
7 : 29*, 11 : 34", 12 : 2-16 : 26, 30 : 11-31 : 11, 32 : l"-33 : 3, 35 : 9-20, 36 : 1-21,
37 : 27-38 : 27, 49 : 12-51 : 30), 1899 ; G. Margoliouth, in Jewish Quar. Rev., xii.
p. 1-33 (31 : 12-31, 36 : 22-37 : 26 ; E. N. Adler, J. Q. R., xii. p. 466-480 (7 : 29-
12:1); and further fragments in J. Q. R., xii. p. 456-465, 688-702, and by Levi
in Revue des Etudes juives, xl. 1-30. All these fragments are reproduced in
Facsimiles of the Fragments, etc., 1901. See the commentaries of Eritzsche
and Edersheim (before the discovery of the Hebr.), and of Ryssel in Kautzsch's
Apocryphen (after Cowley and Neubauer's ed.).
* nr T3 injm isnin T3 irrnBn

138 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
The occurrence of the word yeper in this passage (15 : 14)
had already been surmised on the basis of the Greek, koX
dqbrJKev avrbv iv xeiPl Sta/3ou\t'ou avrov, and Syriac, TD
JimX'.1 If the second and third lines of the verse in Hebrew
are doublets (Schechter), the Greek decides in favor of the
third as the more original. Since the second line is want
ing in the Greek, we should not, perhaps, put weight upon
the personification of the yecer which it implies. It is quite
possible, however, that the line was omitted by the trans
lator, or by later Christian scribes, as suggesting too much
intention on the part of God that man should fall into sin.
It is not easy to make out the exact views of Edersheim and
Ryssel as to the relation of the word in this passage to its
earlier and later uses.2 Edersheim says that it is used here
"not in the later application of it to either the good or the
evil impulse in man, but in the earlier meaning of disposi
tion, mind, counsel (Sinn, Gesinnung)." This earlier use
must be the Old Testament use. Yet on 17 : 6, where the
Greek translator, mistaking, as the Syriac indicates, the verb
for the noun, renders ~\T again by 8ia/3ov\t,ov,3 Edersheim
translates it as before, "disposition, mind = *^>." Then,
after reviewing its use in LXX in the plural, in the sense of
"counsels," "purposes," and "thoughts " (Ps. 5 : 11; 9 : 23
[10 : 2]; Hos. 11 : 6; cf. 4 : 9; 5 : 4; 7 : 2), he adds: "We
infer that the use of $ia/3ov\iov and of IT in that sense [i. e.,
counsel, purpose, etc. ?] was post-biblical, and, as regards
the Greek term, we would suggest, Alexandrian." Does
this mean that SiafiovXiov became identified with ~)T in its
Old Testament meaning (disposition), and then was carried
over with it to the later meaning (counsel, etc.)? and what
had Alexandrian influence to do with the transition? In
fact, there is no evidence of a fixed habit of rendering yeper
by this word.
1 Edersheim, and Taylor, Sayings,2 p. 151 f.
2 It should be noted that Ryssel as well as Edersheim wrote before the He
brew of this part of the book had come to light, but both recognized the IX'
of the original.
8 Hence read " He created also," for R. V. " counsel and."

THE YEqER HARA 139
Ryssel seems to rest in part on Edersheim, but makes
assertions quite contrary to his. In 15 : 14 he translates
the word, "self-determination" (Selbstentscheidung), and
remarks : " = hiafioiikiov, which word renders not the orig
inal significance of ~\T, which is certainly intended also by
the author, i. e., disposition (Gesinnung, so Syriac), but the
later, new-Hebrew significance of this word : ' the impulse to
good or to evil.' " And on 17 : 6 he says that SiaftovXiov
"cannot, however, here, as in 15 : 14, designate freedom of
choice, but perhaps reflection (Ueberlegung. Luther, Ver-
nunft)." But surely freedom of will is not a translation of
~)T in its rabbinical sense. And if the Hebrew author
meant to use the word in the older sense of disposition, why
does not Ryssel so translate it? The Greek translation,
by the writer's grandson, was probably made in 132 B. c.
(Schiirer). Does Ryssel mean that the Old Testament mean
ing of yeper prevailed until after 190 B. c. and the late
rabbinical meaning from some time before 132 B. c. onward ?
Neither Edersheim nor Ryssel makes clear his views at
these points, nor the grounds of them.
What does the sentence itself in its connection mean?
The writer, like Jjfflgs  JL__£__13 ft, after him, is arguing
against those who would ascribe their sin to God (i. e., to
their nature as God made them, or to circumstances which
God ordained?). God would not make what he hates (so also
Wisd, 11 : 241 Yet sin is a fact in God's creation. How
is it to be accounted for without making God morally re
sponsible for it? The answer is: God created man and
gave him into the hand of his spoiler, i. e.y his yeper, an evil
disposition or inclination whieh has power over him. But
if men choose they may keep the commandment, obey God's
will, not their own yeper. T_y£o, -things, are put before_th&rm_,
the_^e£er_aaiJie. Law. These are the fire and water, the
death and life between which men must choose. The ~\T is
not the free will, but man is free to choose between this evil
nature or disposition in him and the Law. This is the rab
binical meaning of the word yeper, which stands over against

140 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
the law as a power of sin, strong but never overpowering
man's will. Only in this sense is the word properly parallel
tcrthe "spoiler " of the preceding line.
{ But does not this make God responsible for sin ? In a
\sense it does, and so did both the Old Testament and the
jauthor of our book. See 11 : 14-lfu.1 "Good things and
evil, life and death, poverty and riches are of the Lord. . . .
Sin and upright ways are from the Lord ; " but (here is his
theodicy) "folly and darkness are created for the wicked,
|etc." See further .£9jJLib3S-
Now what of the Greek translator? His SiafiovXiov does
not render the original meaning of yeger, but means, prac
tically, freedom of will (deliberation or determination) as
Ryssel renders it. Taking the word in this sense and so
interpreting the meaning of the verse, he cannot do anything
but omit the second line, which is now restored to us. So
in 11 : 15 he changed "sin " to "love," while some found it
easier to omit vv. 15—16 altogether (so R. V. with the best
MSS.). In 17 : 6 the translator could well have given the
same meaning to ~\T, read as a noun, and put deliberation
or purpose among the powers with which God endowed man.
C If our understanding of yeper in 15 : 14 is right, the word
was already used, in the evil sense, to explain man's ten-
1 dency to sin in a way consistent with monotheism, since
God put men in its power, and yet consistent with legalism,
since man is able to choose God's will. God created him,
and put him in the hand of an evil disposition, but " did not
command a man to sin " (v. 20). Nor is it only by sheer
choice of the law that men are saved ; for the writer can also
say : " If thou trust in him thou shalt even live. " 2
Next in importance is a sentence, 21 : 11a, not yet recov
ered in Hebrew, but already rightly amended on the basis of
the Syriac by Edersheim. The Greek is, 6 fyvkacro-wv vbfxov
Karatcparei tov ivvornj,aTo$ avrov (R. V., He that keepeth the
law becometh master of the intent thereof). The Syriac gives
1 Hebrew in Jewish Quar. Rev., xii. 466 ff.
2 Only in Hebr. Cf. Isa. 26 : 3.

THE YECER HARA 141
as the undoubted original, He that keeps the law gets the mas
tery over his yeper. Fritzsche already rendered the Greek, be-
machtigt sich seiner Gedanken, or beherrscht seine Gedanken.
The Greek translator's choice of evvonfia renders it doubtful
whether he meant, " becomes wise, " or " masters the thought
or inner meaning of the Law." But there can be no doubt
about the meaning of the author. In this passage Edersheim
translates the word by "inclination," and speaks of it as used
"in the peculiar sense of "IV," i- e., in the rabbinical sense;
and Ryssel follows with "Trieb," so that what seemed to be
implied by their comments on 15 : 14 could not have been
meant to apply to the history of the development of the
rabbinical sense of the word, but only to the interpretation
of that verse. In fact, it is unmistakably the so-called rab
binical sense of the term that meets us here. Indeed one of
the most important rabbinical sayings about the yeger can be
regarded either as a parallel to this or as a free citation of
it: "I created the evil yeper; I created for it the Law as a
remedy. If ye are occupied with the law ye shall not be
delivered into its hand."1 The expression "masters his
yeper" occurs, e.g., in Aboth, 4 : 2 (fcJ^D), in Berach.,
The next passage is one in which the word was not sus
pected: Hebr. 6 : 22<1><2>= Gr. 27 : 5-6. Taylor translates:
"A potter's ("l¥V) vessel is for the furnace to bake (?); And
like unto it, a man is according to his thought Qjrt jjmj$
*m:3E2>n). Upon the bough (?) of a tree will be its fruit; So
the thought of a man is according to his mind (?) (y^ fl^KTl
inX ~\T)." This follows Schechter's text, but both the
Hebrew and the Versions read J"l"Qy, labor, tillage, or hus
bandry, not m5,Jf, Aram, bough, as Schechter emends.
There seems no good reason for the emendation. Greek and
Syriac read DIN for Tf75<. We may therefore read: Ac
cording to the husbandry of the tree will be its fruit; So
the thought is according to the yeper of man. With doubts
regarding the text go difficulties in the interpretation. The
1 Kiddushin 30b. See above p. 127, and Cowley-Neubauer, p. xxiii.

142 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
Greek translator seems to have got the meaning of the first
verse, but missed that of the second. A potter's vessel is
both tested and made by the fire, so a man is tested by his
inner thought, it is this that both tries and makes him (cf.
Prov. 23 : 7). If now the second verse follows in this direc
tion we might understand the thought to be : The husbandry
of a tree, i. e., the digging and pruning, both tests the life
of the tree and is the condition of its fruitfulness. So the
thought-life of man is tested and developed by the yeper,
which like the fire of the potter's furnace and like the labor
of the husbandman is severe and may prove destructive, but
is essential to the making of a vessel and the growing of
fruit. A man is tested and made not by appearances or
deeds but by his thought or reasoning, and his thought is
tested and made to be of worth by the evil inclinations
within him, i. e., by moral struggle.1 If this is the thought
of the passage, the word yeper means here what it means in
15 : 14 and 21 : 11. If, on the other hand, the meaning is
that behind the man is his thought, and behind or .beneath
his thought (sustaining it as the bough sustains the fruit?)
is his yeper, then yeper must mean nature, the fundamental
character or tendency of each man, whether good or bad.
The former sense, however, answers better to the comparison
of the potter's vessel, to the actually attested reading in v.
6, and to the other uses of the word. The yeper is the labor
which gives man his moral discipline and cultivation; not
man's own labor, but, ultimately, God's.
The Greek renders yeper here, as in 1 Chronicles 28 : 9,
by iv9v/j,7)fia, or iv6vfj,7]fj.a fcapSias.
The next passage, 17 : 31, is one in which the use of the
word yeper is made probable by the Syriac, but the Hebrew
text is not yet recovered. The Greek reads, "What is
brighter than the sun? yet this faileth; And an evil man
will think on flesh and blood " (koX irovnpo<s ivOvprjaeTav
1 Cf. the verse which precedes in Greek (27 : 4), " When the sieve is shaken
the refuse remains ; so the filth of man is in his reasoning" (\oyio-/i6s), which also
has to do with the testing of man.

THE YECER HARA 143
crdp/ca koI atfia). The Syriac renders, " When the sun after
the end of a bright day goes down, even it is darkened. So
the man who does not subdue his yeper because he is flesh
and blood." This suggests that the Greek took *)T as a
verb and rendered it by ivdvfitjaerai. Horowitz (Frankel's
Monatschr., XIV.) suggested as the meaning of the Hebrew,
"How much more the thoughts (fTDBTlO) of man who is
flesh and blood," or "How much more the evil yeper of man
who is flesh and blood." As the use of yeger is favored by
the Syriac and would account for the Greek, it is preferred
by Ryssel, who, however, puts avrjp 6'? in the place of
¦Kovnpos, and reads, How much more man, whose impulse
(yeper [= nature?]) is flesh and blood.1 He suggests that
Syr., because it seemed strange to say that the yeger of man
is flesh and blood, assumed that £OD K 7 had fallen out.
One is not inclined, at present, to put great weight upon
conjectural restorations of the text of Sirach. The bearing of
the passage upon the conception of the yeger would depend
upon which one of the reconstructions we adopt. The con
text suggests that man, not sinful man, is spoken of. In no^
case does the association of the yeper with flesh and blood j
imply its connection with the body in contrast to the soul, j
for flesh and blood is only the familiar phrase for man him- J
self (cf. 14 : 18). The possibility that the yeger is here!
called "evil" is to be recognized.
The next passage is one in which the Greek seems to imply
the word yeper, but the Hebrew does not contain it. In
STjJ^ speaking of false friends, the writer exclaims, " 0
wicked imagination (<S irovnpbv ivdvfivfia), whence earnest
thou rolling in to cover the dry land with deceitfulness. "
Ryssel supposed the original to be: JT)7JU |7Q~7# }H ~\T
and translated, O thou evil (human) nature ! Wherefore hast
thou rolled in (like a flood), etc. The Syriac reads: Hatred
and evil, why were they created, etc. ; 2 and hence does not
confirm the use of yeger. The Hebrew text is unfortunately
1 mi 1t?3 w 1»K 1PNK '3 f\K
2 man* kjd1? twai xkjo

144 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
blurred in the first half of the line (Jewish Quarterly Rev.,
XII. p. 8), but G. Margoliouth reconstructs as follows:
?iTlXU p ynQ OONB> JH IH) and translates " (Alas! for
a friend who says) Why have I thus been created," with the
remark, "Not a satisfactory clause; but the Hebrew, going
by the remaining portions of the letters, must be read as
in the text " (p. 18). Schechter confirms this reading, and
Levi's text, called D in the Facsimiles, finally establishes
it. Schechter suggests that Syr. read i"TN.3t£> (hatred), for
10N^; and that Greek misread PimiJ (from p"|) for
mVIJ (do. p. 270). Levi's text, however, is pointed thus:
ION* )^T *1TT> Woe to the wicked (who) says. Levi pre
fers the Greek, and supposes the Hebrew to have run thus :
IT ^'"1 *1!T "O wickedness of the yeger, why wast thou
created?" (fl"lV1J with a play on the word ")¥'). He sug
gests that the original *\T became "ION* in our copy, and
was read as IT by the Syriac translator. If, on the other
hand, our Hebrew texts represent the original at this point,
the Greek translator must have read IT for "ION 2% or "ION',
perhaps by conjecture, and it is only to him and not to the
Hebrew author that we can ascribe this anticipation of the
question so deeply felt by the author of Fourth Ezra as to
the origin of the evil power in man's nature. Perhaps, after
15 : 14 we should not expect our author to ask the question.
He did not feel the difficulty of ascribing the yeper directly to
God, and seeing its good end, evil though it was in itself.
So the figure of the potter, just discussed (27 : 5 = Hebr.
6 : 22(1)), is developed further of God's relation to man in
33 : 13, in a passage that emphasizes God's authorship of
evil as well as good, all his works being two and two, one
against another (v. 15).
It is possible that the recovery of the Hebrew would reveal
the word in other passages (e. g., 23 : 2 Biavov/Ma)oT would
restore to the text such verses as 17 : 16, 21 ("Knowing
their TrXdo-fia " = Ps. 103 : 14). On the other hand, the
Hebrew in 5 : 4 is like the Greek, and the rabbinical saying

THE YECER HARA 145
cited by Cowley-Neubauer (p. xix.), "If the evil yeper say to
thee, Sin, for the Holy One excuseth, do not believe," is
independent of Sirach at least in form (Bacher, Amor., III.
578). Allowing for all remaining uncertainties we have definite
proof of the use of the word yeper, almost two centuries
before Christ, in the rabbinical sense. For the later doctrine
is essentially a fuller and varied expression of the thought
of Sir. 15 : 14 as to the source of sin in man, and God's
relation to it, and of Sir. 21 : 11 as to the means by which
it is to be overcome. The current view, that the doctrine
was shaped or modified under Greek influence, and that it is
post-Christian in its development proves to be at both points
erroneous. The limits of this essay exclude the effort to trace in detail
the development of the conception of the yeper between Sirach
and the rabbinical literature. Since the word had no Greek
equivalent and no uniform Greek rendering, and since the
Hebrew and Aramaic writings of the period are known to
us for the most part only in Greek, or in oriental or Latin
versions of the Greek, the use of the word is naturally
obscure.
(f~ It seems certain that the Greek idea of the material body
i as the seat and source of sin gained difficult and limited
[iaccess to the Jewish mind. Even among Greek-speaking
Jews this conception, so contradictory to Old Testament
religion, and so dangerous to monotheism, could have gained
few thoroughly consistent adherents. Even Philo may be
defended, as he is by Drummond,1 from a consistently anti-
Jewish development of his Greek belief in the eternity of
matter, and its evil power. The Wisdom of Solomon accepts
creation out of formless matter (11 : 17), and the idea that
the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly
frame lies heavy on the mind, making a knowledge even of
earthly things difficult and of heavenly things impossible,
1 Philo Judaeus, I, 297-313, n. 296-306.
10

146 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
without divine help (9 : 13-18). The author believes in the
immortality of the soul, and in this shows the large influence
of Greek modes of thought upon him. Yet on the other
hand he can speak of wisdom as entering into the soul, and
dwelling in the body, in parallel clauses (1 : 4), and the pas
sage often cited to prove his acceptance of the idea of the
pre-existence of the soul (8 : 19-20) can hardly bear such a
weight. The birth of the wise king is described first as if he
were the goodly body that received by lot a good soul, and
then by a better afterthought, as if he were the good soul
that came into a pure body. This involves a dualistic psy
chology, but the pre-existence of the soul is hardly implied
except in the sense in which the body also pre-existed before
birth. Sin and virtue are everywhere properties and func
tions of the soul.

2. The Apocalypse qf Ezra
The most serious and even impassioned struggle with the
problem of sin and evil from a Jew of this period is re
corded in the Apocalypse of Ezra, 2 Esdras, chs. 3-14, in our
Apocrypha.1 The conception of the "wicked heart " in this
book is obviously allied to that of the yeper. Various and
striking points of contact are also evident between the mind
and experience of the writer and that of Paul. So that this
book deserves especially close study, for an explanation of
the Jewish element in Paul's thought. The problems pre
sented by the book are, however, far too difficult and involved
to permit of an attempt here to discuss them in detail.
1 Commonly cited as 4 Ezra. Texts : The Latin in the Bensly-James edition,
1895; other versions and an attempted reconstruction of the Greek from which
they were made, by Hilgenf eld, Messias Judaeorum, 1869; commentaries by
Lupton (Wace!s Apocrypha, 1888), and Gunkel (Kautzsch's Pseudepigraphen,
1901). Introductory discussions by Schiirer (History) and Kabisch (IV. Ezra,
Gottingen, 1889). I assume the substantial unity of the book (Gunkel, against
Kabisch and Charles) ; the probability of a Hebrew original (Wellhausen,
Charles, Gunkel) ; the improbability of positive Christian influence upon the
doctrine of the book (Schiirer, Gunkel, against Edersheim, Charles).

THE YECER HARA 147
According to this writer Adam transgressed and was over
come because he had a wicked heart {cor malignum),1 and so
all who were born of him (3 : 21). "A grain of evil seed"
{granum seminis mali) was sown in the heart of Adam from
the beginning, and how much (fruit of) 2 wickedness has it
brought forth until now, and will bring forth until the
threshing come (4 : 30, cf. 31). It is hardly correct to say
that, through Adam's sin, "a hereditary tendency to sin was
created, and the cor malignum developed " (Charles, Apoca
lypse of Baruch, p. lxx.). The evil heart explains Adam's
sin, but is not explained by it. Men continued to do even as
Adam did because they also had the wicked heart (3 : 26).
Adam's sin had indeed fateful consequences. The decree of
death, and the sorrowful and toilsome nature of the present
world (saeculum = alcbv) are attributed to it (3 : 7; 7 : 11,
12); " O thou, what hast thou done, Adam ? for when thou
didst sin there came to pass not thy fall only but also ours
who came from thee " (7 : 118). Evil is traced to Adam's
sin, but his sin is itself traced to an evil seed sown in his heart
from the beginning, which has indeed grown and is called
a root (radix = pl^a, 8 : 53; cf. 3 : 22). Whence then came
the wicked heart? The prophet's angel guide promises an
answer to the question (4 : 4), but the answer is not easy
to find.
Kabisch argues that the evil heart is seated in the body,
on several unconvincing grounds. It cannot be, he says, in
the spirit of life from God, and hence must be in the dust of
which the body is formed (3 : 4-5). But it may be in man,
who is not a juxtaposition of these two, but a new creation
out of them. The evil heart is inherited, Kabisch says, and
must therefore belong to the body, for souls pre-exist, and
come in ever anew out of the upper world (p. 23). But
4 : 36, to which he refers, has nothing to do with pre-
existence; nor does 4 : 12 prove it, on which Gunkel remarks
cautiously, " The expression (to come into the world) 3 pre-
l irovnpa KapSia. 2 Syr. See Gunkel.
8 See also 7 : 132.

148 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
supposes, originally, the belief in the pre-existence of the
human soul." The evil heart, Kabisch argues, belongs to
this material world and passes away with it (4 : 26-32). But
the rabbis also taught that the evil yeper belongs to this world
and not to the world to come, and for the strain in which
Kabisch develops his thought our book furnishes no warrant,
Souls, he says, cannot do good so long as they carry the
material body; for all matter is infected with evil, and in the
world, which consists of matter, there can be no goodness nor
happiness nor virtue (p. 32-33) . Now as a matter of fact the
evil heart is never once expressly connected with matter, or
the body; nor in the many contrasts of this world (saeculum)
with the next do the ideas of materiality and immateriality
appear. The nearest approach to them is in the frequent
references to corruption and incorruption as characterizing
the two worlds. It is true that the book is strongly dualistic
in its contrast of the two worlds (7 : 50), and also that it
contains a somewhat marked dualistic anthropology. In
7 : 88 the death of the righteous is described as separation
from the corruptible vessel, and the un-Hebraic conception
of death in 7 : 75-101 is significant. But in spite of this
the solution of the problem of the book, the origin of sin and
evil, is not found in matter and its inherent properties. The
great debate, which makes up the book, between the author's
Jewish faith, on the one side, voiced by the angel, and his
doubts on the other, between his mind and his feelings, his
convictions and his sympathies and fears, turns on the ques
tion whether God or man is responsible for the sorrow and
sin of this world, and the torments of the next. No third
agent is summoned in, not Satan or any spirit-power, not an
eternal matter which conditions God in creation. Indeed
our writer seems expressly to exclude any such outside
agency. His monotheism is emphatic. God's entire re
sponsibility for man's creation is set forth at the beginning
(3 : 4-5), and often urged, and that in terms which expressly
include the body (8 : 7-14, 24).
If it is said that the earth (terra) or dust brought man

THE YECER HARA 149
t
forth, yet it is at God's command (3:4; 5 : 48, 50-55;
6 : 53; 7 : 63, 116; 10 : 9-14), and the earth, the mother of
man, is itself made by God (11 : 46), and has its own sorrow
(10 : 9 ff.) and hope (11 : 46). Chaos itself (Gen. 1 : 1) was
created by God (6 : 38b, Gunkel). God and he alone planned
and made and will consummate all (5 : 56 — 6:6).
Nor can evil be ascribed to malignity in the all-ruling God.
His love to Israel and to man far exceeds that of the prophet
who protests against his ways (5 : 33, 40; 8 : 47).
Is it then God who sowed the grain of evil seed in Adam's
heart from the beginning ? Who else could it be ? Yet this
is not expressly said. The prophet does indeed ask why
God did not restrain men from wilfulness and sin (3 : 8);
why he did not take away the wicked heart from Israel when
he gave him the law (3 : 20) ; why earth produced Adam at
all if it were not to restrain him from sinning (7 : 116).
Yet the tendency of the angel's replies is always to put the
responsibility for sin upon man. The solution which the
book offers, so far as one is reached, is Jewish, and not Greek
or Indian. In this solution three points are clear.
a. God implanted in the heart of Israel his law. " I sow
my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you " (9 : 31).
The writer feels the problem of the condition of the rest of
mankind, but assents to the proposition that the world is
made for Israel (6 : 55; 9 : 13). But for Israel also the
law has not proved able to produce its fruit. " Yet tookest
thou not away from them the wicked heart that thy law
might bring forth fruit in them . . . and the law was in the
heart of the people along with the wickedness of the root ; so
the good departed away and that which was wicked abode
still " (3 : 20, 22). "There has grown up in us an evil heart
(cor malum), which has alienated us from these (statutes)
and brought us into corruption and into the ways of death,
showed us the paths of perdition, and made us far from life ;
and this not a few but almost all that have been created "
(7 :48; cf. 9:31-37).
b. To this difficulty faith answers with a second vindica-

150 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
tion of God. Man is free and can escape the power of the
evil heart. It is true that the writer feels difficulty in
assenting to this essential dogma of a legal religion, but Mr.
Charles is surely wrong in ascribing to him even a -practical
denial of human freedom (p. lxx.). He assumes that some
obey the law. His lament is that they are so few (7 : 48-61 ;
8 : 1, 3; 9 : 14-16, etc.). In one mood he does indeed de
clare all men sinners (7 : 46, 68; 8 : 35), but he does not
mean this literally.1 He is assured against his fears that he
is himself righteous and will attain salvation.2 He insists
upon man's freedom and responsibility,3 and if it is hard
to keep the divine law, yet the reward is all the greater
(7 : 127-131).
The first of seven reasons for the joy of righteous souls
after death is " because with much labor they have striven to
conquer the evil thought formed with them, that it should
not seduce them from life unto death " (7 : 92). In this
expression cum eis pl/ismatum cogitamentum malum we may
with great probability recognize the word yeger itself (Gun
kel). The effort to conquer the evil heart may be made
effectual through prayer (8 : 6).
c. Yet the writer is perplexed and distressed at the diffi
culty of keeping the law, and must resort to a third vindica
tion of God, — the promise that in the coming age the evil
heart will be taken away. " The Most High has not created
one world but two " (7 : 49), is the answer to the lament
over the evil heart (v. 48). The evil that is sown must be
reaped, and the place where it is sown pass away, before the
field can come where the good is sown (4 : 29). Before the
end, Elijah, and others like him, will change the heart of
men to a different nature (6 : 26); and the "root" will be
sealed up for those for whom the time to come is prepared
(8 : 53). That the new age is near at hand is sometimes
1 See e. g., 3 : 11, 36, 7 : 18, 21-24, 45, 46 ; 8 : 26-30, 33.
2 See 7:76-77, 8:48 ff.; 10:57; 13 : 54-56, and compare 7 :48, 64, 118, 126 ;
8:17,31. 8 See 7 : 20-24, 72 f. ; 8 : 56-62 ; 9 : 7-13 ; 14 : 22, 34 f.

THE YECER HARA 151
the fear, but in general the consolation of the writer and the
practical solution of his problem.
Now these three lines of escape from the problem of the
evil heart are precisely like the rabbinical treatment of the
evil yeper. This is offset by the law which God gave Israel ;
men are free to obey the law in spite of the acknowledged
power of the evil propensity; and God will hereafter remove
it, change men's hearts (Ezek. 36 : 26), and bring in an age
to which the evil does not belong.
Yet the origin of the evil heart is not explained by these
considerations of the ways of escape. We have seen that the
rabbis sometimes resorted to the extreme expedient of say
ing that God repented having made it, and there is even some
suggestion that its rise or at least its dominance was a sur
prise to him. There is a hint of this sort in 4 Ezra.
God's fashioning of sinners and of the righteous, says the
angel, is like the husbandman's sowing much seed and plant
ing many trees. Not all that is sown is saved, and not all
that is planted takes root. So they that are sown in the
world shall not all be saved (8 : 38-41). But the prophet
finds fault with the parable. The husbandman's work fails
because God sends too little or too much rain. Furthermore,
men, in God's image, are not to be compared with the hus
bandman's seed (8 : 42-45).
Yet again the figure is used. God speaks of the time of
creation when none spoke against him, and adds, " But now
they that are created in this world that is prepared ... are
corrupted in their manners. I considered my world, and
behold it was ruined, and my earth, and behold it was in
peril on account of the devices (cogitationes) (of those) 1 that
had come into it. And I saw . . . and saved me a grape
out of a cluster, and a plant out of a great forest. Let the
multitude therefore perish which is born for naught, and let
my grape be saved and my plant, because with great labor I
have perfected them " (9 : 17-25). It is as if evil had come
in from without, and spoiled the plan, so that the salvation
l So Gunkel.

152 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
of a few (Israel, or the righteous in Israel) was all that God
could do. Yet it is man and not matter or evil spirit to
whom the disturbance is traced. So also in 8 : 59-60.
In Fourth Ezra, then, we have a certain dualistic element,
Greek, or perhaps rather Oriental in origin, but in spite of
what must have seemed to the writer the great temptation to
find escape from his unsolved problems in the acceptance of
an evil principle inherent in the corruptible substance of this
world, his view of evil remains substantially Jewish, i. e.,
monotheistic, and ethical in the legalistic sense of that word.
The question whether the word yeger occurred elsewhere
in the book upon the assumption of a Hebrew original (e. g.,
in 14 : 34, sensus) can hardly be answered. Nor does any
very simple reason suggest itself why the word "heart " was
preferred by this writer, unless it is because, like Jeremiah,
feeling the sinfulness of man to be deep-seated, he preferred
to ascribe it directly to the inner self, the rational and moral na
ture itself, and not to one of the propensities of that nature.
3. The Apocalypse of Baruch
In the Apocalypse of Baruch,1 which stands in some as yet
undetermined literary relation to Fourth Ezra, the effects of
Adam's sin are often spoken of,2 but the "evil heart" is
noticeably absent. Mr. Charles affirms that this book teaches
the thoroughly Jewish doctrine of free will and individual re
sponsibility in spite of Adam's sin ; while Fourth Ezra contains
a partly Christianized doctrine of man's "practical incapacity
for righteousness in consequence of his original defects or
Adam's sin " (p. 92-93). It is doubtful, however, whether
Baruch ascribes less serious results to Adam's sin than does
Fourth Ezra (48 : 42; 54: 14-15, 19; 56: 6); and on the other
hand Fourth Ezra does not deny man's freedom and responsi
bility, even though it does not explicitly affirm that " each one
1 Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896. Ryssel in Kautzsch's Pseudepi-
graphen, 1900.
2 4 : 3 ; 17:2-3; 18 : 2 ; 19 : 8 ; 23 : 4 ; 48 : 42, 43, 46 ; 54 : 15, 19 ; 56 : 5,
6, 10.

THE YECER HARA 153
of us has been the Adam of his own soul " (Ap. Bar. 54: 19).
The principal difference between the two writers at this point
is that while Ezra, with a deep sense of sin, feels impelled
to go back of the sinful deed to the grain of evil seed planted
in Adam from the beginning, which explains though it does
not really excuse sin, Baruch is satisfied to deal with sin as a
fact and with its consequences in a more purely legal spirit.
Since men possess the Law, they sin knowingly, and are there
fore justly punished (15 : 5-6; 19 : 1-4; 55 : 2).
As in Fourth Ezra, the ruling dualism of the book is the
contrast between the present and the future world-age. The
contrast centers in the thought that death, sorrow, and cor
ruption mark this world, and in increasing measure as it
grows old (83 : 9-23; 85 : 10; cf. 4 Ezra 5 : 50-56; 14 :
10), while the coming world is undying and incorruptible.
In it the present bodily life will be not simply restored (ch.
50), but transformed into an angelic nature (ch. 51). Yet
it does not appear that the writer ascribed sin to the body, to
which corruption and death belong. Even in 49 : 3 it is evil,
not sin, that pertains to the " members of bonds " with which
men are now clothed.1 The body must, indeed, be trans
formed, in order to have part in the coming incorruptible
world. But it would be an entirely different thing to say that
the soul must be delivered from the bondage of the body in
order to escape sin ; and this our writer, with his strict legal
ism, could never say. Nor even in his definition of the two
worlds does he carry his dualism to a point that seems to him
inconsistent with the creation of all things by God. The
soul does not pre-exist, but souls are predetermined as to
number and place ; and no chaotic matter precedes and limits
creation (23: 4, 5; 48: 6; 21: 4; 48: 2-8).
The most surprising thing about these two related books is
not that Jewish conceptions are displaced in them by foreign,
but that the foreign elements are so largely adjusted or
subordinated to the old Jewish view of the world ; that men
could be so influenced by dualistic conceptions and yet escape
1 The word is KW3, an(I the meaning is clear from 51 : 16 ; cf. 15 : 8.

154 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
a real dualism. The two worlds appear to be distinguished
from each other by physical properties, one being corruptible,
the other incorruptible, one human and the other angelic and
unearthly; yet it is never said that one is physical, material,
and the other spiritual, immaterial. Indeed Baruch's doc
trine of resurrection, like Paul's, denies pure immateriality
(ch. 50-51). The contrast of the worlds remains at the end
essentially the Jewish contrast of ages, the present and the
coming, interpreted by the contrast between the earthly and
the heavenly realms. In a dualism like this it is not possible
to connect sin essentially with the material body and holiness
with the soul. The author of Fourth Ezra would have had more
reason for tracing sin to the body as its seat and source, be
cause the legalistic doctrine of freedom troubled him more,
and sin seemed to him more inevitable. The writer of
Baruch, on the other hand, more often contrasts the two worlds
in physical terms, and more definitely connects the evils of
this present age with the corruptible body. But neither writer
adopts this solution of the problem, although it has been too
readily attributed to them. The two books are therefore
especially instructive illustrations of the deep-seated aversion
of the Hebrew mind to any theory of sin which ascribes it to
the physical organism, an aversion due partly, perhaps, to a
non -speculative cast of mind, but probably more to the power
of the Old Testament over their religious thinking, and the
virtual denial of Old Testament monotheism and ethics
involved in such a theory.

4. The Secrets of Enoch
According to its editor, Mr. Charles, the Slavonic " Secrets
of Enoch " 1 contains a Platonic rather than a Jewish account
of sin ; but this will, I think, prove to be another illustration
of a too ready ascription of Greek conceptions to Jewish
1 Translation by Morfill and notes by Charles, 1896; also Das slavische He-
nochbuch, by Bonwetsch, 1896.

THE YECER HARA 155
writers. Here we read of Adam : " I [God] knew his nature.
He did not know his nature. Therefore his ignorance is a
woe to him that he should sin, and I appointed death on
account of his sin " (30 : 16). Mr. Charles understands this
to mean man's ignorance of his nature with its good and evil
impulses; and these he defines in a dualistic sense, after
Plato and Philo, as follows: (1) The soul was created orig
inally good. (2) It was not predetermined either to good or
ill by God, but left to mould its own destiny (see 30 : 15).
(3) Its incorporation in a body, however, with its necessary
limitations, served to bias its preferences in the direction of
evil.1 (4) Faithful souls will hereafter live as blessed, in
corporeal spirits, or, at all events, clothed only in God's glory
(22 : 7) ; for there is no resurrection of the body (p. 43).
According to Charles, further, the writer, like Philo gener
ally, teaches not an absolute creation of the world by God,
but its formation out of pre-existing elements.2 But it is
difficult to justify this Hellenizing version of the teachings of
the book. The original goodness of the soul, in distinction
from the body, is nowhere taught, but only the original
authority and prerogatives of Adam (ch. 30-31). The pre-
existence of the soul is affirmed in Morrill's rendering of
23 : 5, " Every soul was created eternally before the founda
tion of the world." But Bonwetsch renders "prepared" (alle
Seelen sind bereitet vor der Welt).3 In other places the
author says only that the number and final places of souls are
predetermined.4 The idea of a pre -existent material out of
which God formed the world is not a necessary inference from
chs. 25, 26; and on the other hand creation is everywhere
affirmed to be absolute; the monotheism of the book is
emphatic.5 God, belonging to the invisible realm (24 : 4;
1 See also Charles's Apoc. of Baruch, p. 92.
2 See notes on 24 : 2 ; 25 : 1-2 ; 26 : 1 ; 48 : 5 ; 65 : 1.
3 See Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 104 ff., 245 ff., on the relation of the word
"prepared " to the idea of pre-existence.
4 49 : 2 ; 53 : 2 (?) ; 58 : 5 ; 61 : 2 ; just as in Ap. Bar. 23 : 4, 5 ; 48 : 6 ; 4 Ezra
4 : 36, 37.
6 2:2; 32: 1"; 33:3-4, 7-8; 34: 1; 36:1; 47:3 ff.; 58: 1; 66:4-5; 65.

156 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES
48 :'5), created the visible out of the invisible (24 : 2; 25;
26 ; 48 : 5) ; but both visible and invisible were made by him
(47 : 4; 64 : 5; 65 : 1, 6; 51 : 5). "I have blessed all my
creation, visible and invisible" (32 : 1, cf. 52 : 4-5). The
peculiarity of man's nature is that it consists of both visible
and invisible (30 : 10, 16); hence his place in the visible
creation is supreme (65 : 2, 3 ; 30-31 ; 44 : 1 ) . His moral
duty is to choose the light, and because he chooses darkness
he must die (30 : 15-16). This sin is traced to his free
choice, but never to his dual nature. Neither is the body the
cause of Adam's sin, nor is Adam's sin the cause of the sinful
nature of men. The ignorance which causes man to sin may
be ignorance of himself, but Bonwetsch conjectures that it
was ignorance of God. " I saw his nature, but he did not
see my nature" (30 : 16). The only theory of sin that is
clearly taught is that man alone is responsible for it. It
does not belong to either part of his nature as God made him,
the visible or the invisible, but to the vain thoughts of his
heart (ch. 53). All the works of God are good, but the
works of man are some good, but others evil (42 : 14).
This understanding of the writer's view of sin according to
which it is far more Jewish than Greek, is confirmed by a
study of his ethical teachings. The ideal is not the subjection
of the bodily passions to the rule of reason, as thoroughgoing
Hellenists teach (Philo, 4 Maccabees). Asceticism does
not appear. Virtue consists in justice and a charity that is
disinterested and prompted by love; in patient forbearance
and endurance ; and in sincerity before God, who knows the
heart.1 1 Ch. 9 ; 42 : 6-13 ; 44 : 4 ; 50-52 ; 60 ; 63.

"Fo-rKr t F. C .

ADDENDA.

p. 145, 1. 22. The word appears to have been used in Judith 8 M.
p. 147, 1. 24. The promise is made on conditions which no man could fulfil.
The secret belongs to "the way of the Most High" (4 2 "), which man cannot com
prehend. The passage excludes the supposition that the writer accepted any such
solution of the problem as that which derives evil from matter. It is written to
prove not that man's physical nature explains the mystery of his wicked heart, but
that man's worn out nature in this corruptible world cannot comprehend the mystery.
p. 154, 1. 27. It is not improbable that Josephus was guilty, perhaps inten
tionally, of the error which it is the purpose of this essay to correct, when he
ascribes a Greek dualistic contrast of body and soul to the Essenes (B. J. II. 8, 11).

YALE UNIVERSITY I