Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses an interesting aspect of animal psychology, which, as we shall see, is true for humans as well, to the extent that they can be dominated by animal instincts. As it says in Koheles (3:19), “There is no difference between man and beast.”

According to the tradition of tereifos, certain predatory animals inject a venomous poison from their claws. Therefore, certain small punctures can still render an animal a tereifa. In regard to a cat who claws a lamb, since the cat is a relatively small animal, it only injects venom if it is in an angered state. Therefore, if no one is around helping to fight off the cat, and the cat claws the lamb, ironically there is no venom. But if there are people fighting off the cat, and it succeeds in clawing the lamb, its extra aggression releases venom and the lamb is a tereifa.

Arvei Nachal (Vayeshev 2) infers that there is this animal-like quality in people to become more aggressive when met with opposition. But it is not the only factor. He says we have a psychological-Talmudic concept of pas besalo, literally, “One who has bread in his basket is less hungry than one who does not,” which is true even if he chooses not to eat. There are numerous halachic applications of this principle, most famously what is described in Yoma (67a):

“Never in recorded history had the person who escorted the Scapegoat into the wilderness on Yom Kippur needed to eat, even though he would have been permitted to do so. The Gemara attributes this to the fact that at regular intervals on the way, there were stations with food and water that were offered to him. All of us have experienced being hungry on the morning of a fast, even when we often do not eat breakfast on a regular day.”

Yet, Arvei Nachal says this only works to subdue rage or lust, allowing other instincts such as compassion or love to take over. As an example, he says that when Yaakov presented Esav with appeasing gifts, this lack of aggression subdued Esav, as essentially he had pas besalo. This allowed his brotherly love to reassert itself. Arvei Nachal cautions that this can only work if there is some core of goodness that will reawaken once the aggression is no longer occluding it. However, if one were to submit in front of a completely sadistic, cruel enemy, the enemy would simply gun you down (as we have seen with Nazis and others).

The Arvei Nachal’s distinction between when pas besalo is operative and when being conciliatory backfires and incites evil tendencies can be used to understand what has always been, for me, a contradictory conundrum in Chazal’s advice regarding approaching desire.

On the one hand, there is a teaching that warns that one must totally subdue his evil inclination and not try to appease or partially gratify it. As it is taught in Sanhedrin (107a): “There is a small limb in man. If he starves, then it is satiated; but if he attempts to satiate the limb, it becomes even more starved.”

Yet, we have numerous teachings that suggest otherwise. Gemara Kiddushin (21b) considers the captive woman as a concession to the evil inclination. Knowing that warfare arouses animal instincts and breaks many boundaries, if no organized and sanctioned system for taking a captive as a mate is allowed, then there might be wholesale rape (unfortunately, as occurs many times during war). Sanhedrin (107b) also advises that one push sexual lust away with his left hand, but draw it near with his right, implying that there is a need for moderated, appropriate channeling of sexual desire. Additionally, we have the case of Abba Chilkiya’s wife in Taanis (23b), who would greet her husband adorned and dressed up. When a surprised student asked why, he answered: “so that when I walk through the city I will not set my eyes upon another woman.”

And finally, and most strikingly, we have the case of Rava and Chuma, as told in Kesuvos (65a). Chuma was known as an exceedingly attractive woman. When she engaged Rava during a legal dispute, he was so taken by her looks that the Gemara states, without judgment: “Rava arose, went home, and proposed intimacy with his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda.”

In all these situations, an accommodation and partial appeasement to human desire was made.

When does the first principle apply and when does the other? Perhaps there is no hard-and-fast rule, and it depends on the individual and the situation. Or possibly the key is the distinction of the Arvei Nachal. Aggressive opposition to the evil inclination may lead to defiance and pushback. However, capitulation and caving in, even partially, without a basic desire to do well, will only incite further debauchery. Therefore, the formula might be as follows: If the resistance is an attempt to channel higher aspirations, and it is done with an internal sense of kindness and gentleness, without internal scorn or aggression, it may go well. Alternatively, if the person feels mounting desire, a humble partial acceptance and channeling of this desire is also appropriate, hoping that this too will allow for healthy balance and serving God, may also work. And finally, if it is merely impulsive indulgence in desire for the sake of appeasing desire, with no motivation for self-improvement, this may only incite more indulgence because there is no deeper or higher purpose.