Avraham and Sarah in Provence - Hakirah

Avraham and Sarah in Provence : 229
with the male, and Eros (the desire for physical contact) with the female.
In analyzing this allegory, it is important to understand a basic
Jungian principle. Jung clarifies the concept of allegory by using the
word “symbol” and defining what it is. A “symbol” is not a word or
object that is used arbitrarily to stand for something else, 30 but that
which symbolizes an idea does so because it innately identifies with
that which it represents. Among colors, red often is used to represent
danger because it is the color of blood and in the human psyche—in
the 31 collective unconscious, the sight of red conjures up a feeling of
danger. So, too, woman identifies with chomer, as in Mother Earth for
example, because physical life springs from the body of woman.
Moreover, women are more prone to emotion, which is part of the
human chomer, while men are more inclined to be detached intellectual
thinkers. Thus the allegory of man/woman as tzurah/chomer is not
merely some universal sign-language, but innate symbolism. So when
the Torah says that Avraham the man acts in a certain way and we
know that Avraham is a man of perfected intellect, then we understand
that if Israel follows in the steps of Avraham, similar results will
follow for them. This is the principle of םינבל ןמיס תובא השעמ—“That
which happens to the Fathers (of the Jewish people) is a sign of what
will happen to their children.” 32 And this is the key for the justification
of a dual interpretation of the Chumash.
30 This is merely a “sign.” In “Man and His Symbols,” Jung and his students
explain the importance of “symbols” to people. The book was
written for laymen and is easily understood. Jung begins the first chapter,
“Approaching the Unconscious,” by distinguishing between “signs”
and “symbols.” My extremely brief description of his view, including
the example of blood, is my own framing of his insight.
31 See the above note. The “collective unconscious” is explained in Jung’s
chapter “Approaching the Unconscious.” Because there is substantial
commonality between all men and their experience of life, certain symbols
will impact all people in a similar way even though they are never
consciously and intellectually able to explain why.
32 This is actually not a statement of Chazal but is based on Bereishis Rabbah
48, and has been popularized by Ramban. See his commentary to
Bereishis 12: 6, 10 where in fact he applies it to Avraham and Sarah going
down to Egypt. We will discuss the allegorical message of this event
later in this essay.