Avot137

4:
The 'bad tendency' is a central concept in the psycho-theology of the sages. The idea is that each human being has two tendencies in his or her psychological makeup: a tendency to do what is wrong and a tendency to do what is right. It is, of course, our task in life to make sure that the tendency to do good vanquishes the tendency to do wrong as often as possible. This is stated specifically in the Gemara [Berakhot 5a]:

And elsewhere in the Gemara [Berakhot 60b] we are taught that everyone should pray daily that their good tendency have control over their bad tendency.

5:
The concept is first found in our sources in the Tosefta [Berakhot 6:11]. ('First' here refers to the ordering of the sources and is not meant to imply that the idea originated at this time.) There we read a comment on the well known biblical command [Deuteronomy 6:5] that we are to love God "with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might":

In Avot de-Rabbi Natan [16:2] we find the idea that the bad tendency is innate whereas the good tendency only comes with the onset of adolescence. This implies that we do bad things naturally but that we have to be educated to do the good things.

6:
The sages' understanding of what is good and what is bad is not necessarily the same as ours. Of course, in the broad sweep of things there is identity, but there are some things that the sages see as being born of the bad tendency which we would just call natural tendencies and even instinctual behaviours. There is a very interesting midrash [Bereshit Rabba 9:7] on this matter:

7:
Seeing that the bad tendency also includes many natural and instinctual behaviour patterns it is not surprising that Rabbi Yehoshu'a in our present mishnah warns that giving unbridled pre-eminence to our bad tendency will take a man out of this world. There is no way that we can (or should) rid ourselves of our baser instincts: they have a positive role to play in our lives. But we also have the duty to keep these instincts in check by the application of our tendency to to the right thing. This is the first lesson in ethical behaviour that man was ever taught according to the biblical record. Cain murdered his brother Abel and God warned him [Genesis 4:7:]

To be continued.

I always do my best to ensure that my teaching in these shiurim is free from gross error, but, of course, no one can ever be completely free from error. Indeed, I am often surprised that I do not have to correct myself more often! It is good that there are people around who will point out the more egregious mistakes. That's why it is very good that my colleague David Greenstein wrote to me:

With regard to your statement that our popular concept of ayin ha-ra derives from later kabbalstic influence – As far as I can tell, this is not quite accurate. Ayna bisha is cited in the Gemara ( e.g. Berakhot 20a); Otzar Yisrael quotes the Arukh as already having this concept; Rabbenu Gershom has it at Bava Batra 2b regarding the prohibition to look at a neighbor's garden, as does Rashi there and in numerous places. (And see the way the Rambam tries to reinterpret that Gemara in his teshuvah to the sages of Lunel, cited by commentators to Hilkhot Shekhenim 2:16.) So, too, Sefer Chasidim. So, even if the kabbalah, along with all the riches it has bequeathed us, also has much to answer for, let's not "cast a jaundiced eye" on the kabbalah too much in this regard.

I respond:

My face is particularly red because I have taught Bava Batra 2b dozens of times! "Oh, the shame of it!"

---

In Avot 134 I wrote: Clearly, Rabbi Ovadyah himself recognizes the weakness of his first suggestion and offers another as well: he suggests that these were sayings that each of the sages was wont to say on many occasions.

Ed Frankel writes:

Frankly, I find this sentiment true not only for the mishna in question but the whole tractate. There is no way that this book can fully include all the important statements of these preeminent Sages. However, these are the ideas and comments that most brilliantly reflect the approaches and personalities of their speakers.

I respond:

This is absolutely right and needs no comment from me.