Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the unusual ritual of the firstborn donkey. Unlike any other non-kosher firstborn which has no ritual significance, the firstborn donkey must either be redeemed with a sheep, and if not, the owner must break its neck from behind, and bury it.

On the simplest level of peshat one might say the donkey is included in the consecration of firstborns because, like a domesticated kosher animal, it has utility and function as a beast of burden. They are economically relevant and so the fist born should be dedicated to God. However, if so, why not also have this apply to dogs, who certainly serve domestic functions too.

The Gemara (Bechoros 5b) offers a reason:

“The donkeys assisted the Jewish people at the time of their exodus from Egypt…laden with the silver and gold of the Egyptians.”

The Zohar (II:43a) sees this dual process of either redeeming it with the lamb or breaking its neck as the relationship of the person to the Yetzer Hara. Ideally, the impulses and passions should be sublimated to the service of God. Done properly, this is the redeeming of the donkey (a physical beast) with the lamb (the Jewish people—God’s flock). If not, and it displays a stiff neck, then it is struck down and broken.

The Zohar then adds an important line. When describing the appropriate sublimation of the evil inclination, it makes reference to a known Midrash about Chava in relation to Adam. The verse (Bereishis 2:18) describes her as an eizer knegdo—literally translated as “a helper facing him.” The word used to describe facing is kneged, which, like the word in English “standing opposite,” can sometimes imply a parallel situation of partnership, but also imply opposition. The Talmud (Yevamos 63a) notes: “If he is worthy, she will face him and help him. If he is unworthy, she will be his opponent opposing him.” So too, the Zohar draws a parallel to the Yetzer Hara. If a person is worthy, he will be able to direct his desires and lusts toward positive pursuits in serving God; however, if he is unworthy, then it will lead to his downfall.

This comparison between the woman and the Yetzer Hara is often described in Christian theology in a pejorative manner, such that the woman represents sexuality, and in general materialism, and is the temptress that draws the man away from spiritual pursuits. I believe the Jewish perspective is different. True, many Talmudic, Midrashic and Biblical texts are aware that a particular kind of woman can tempt men to sin, such as the verses in Mishlei (7:21) that describe a seductive woman: “She sways him with her eloquence, turns him aside with her smooth talk. Thoughtlessly he follows her, like an ox going to the slaughter.” But that is a kind of person, not the archetype of femininity. The Torah perspective is that the feminine aesthetic sensitivity and passions are a resource that must be respected and integrated.

This reminds me of an idea of Jung’s. If a man is not at peace and integrated with his anima, he will relate poorly to women, project his fear and passions unrealistically upon her, and end up rejecting her or lusting after her instead of healthy partnership. This is precisely the difference between the Jewish and Christian theology on the feminine, sexuality and the evil inclination. The Torah looks for integration, modulation and respect of these forces and aspects of life, while Christian philosophy sees them as unholy and dangerous.