Inner Peace and Judaism

 “Jews don’t do inner peace”.

“Jews don’t do inner peace”. This was my first thought when teacher Judith Hurley invited me to talk about inner peace in Judaism for a staff spirituality day. The Strife of the Spirit[i] is the title of a book that articulates some of the Chabad Hasidic ideas that have most influenced my understanding of spirituality. The battle of the body also referred to as the animalistic soul or “evil inclination” against the divine soul looms large in the Hasidic experience[ii]. The Torah appears more concerned with the struggle to obey the commandments than peace. However, as I learned more, I recognised that peace can be regarded an overarching goal that includes obeying the commandments and living out the covenant with God.

Peace is an essential condition of existence.

This past week, I was delighted and surprised to find teachings about inner peace in the writings of Rabbi Yitzchak Arama (1420 – 1494). Arama is regarded as one of the great rationalist commentators on the Torah. He frequently quotes Maimonides’ guide for the perplexed. Yet, he regards peace as essential to all of existence including Jewish life[iii]. He explains that every being in the universe, other than God, is a composite of different components that must coexist in peace. The moment that peace is lost to a body, is the moment it is destroyed. The word ‘disintegrate’ captures his thinking. To disintegrate means to decay but also signals that it is opposite to being integrated or at peace.

Peace with God is synonymous with living the covenant.

For Arama, peace with God is synonymous with living true to the covenant with God. To obey the commandments is to be at peace with God. The gift of peace brings healing of all our faults[iv]. The opposite is also true. Regarding the verse “there is no peace for the wicked[v]”, Arama comments that there is no punishment needed for the wicked, other than losing peace.  To lose peace is to lose hope and to close off the channel of God’s blessings.

The resolution of inner strife involves inner peace.

In Jewish and Chasidic writings about the battle between body and soul or between animal and divine souls, there are allusions to cooperation and peace between them. Every morning and evening, Jews read the ‘Shema[vi]’, which
calls us to love God with all our hearts. The word for hearts has an extra letter Bet[vii], which alludes to Jews loving God with our two inclinations, the evil and good, or with both the animal and divine aspects of ourselves. The animalistic evil inclination cooperates with the Godly - good inclination to love God - putting aside their competition to conquer and control the body[viii]. Instead they are at peace with each other in joint love of God. The animal soul’s passion in the hot-headed person is harnessed by their divine soul to perform great acts of compassion beyond their ability[ix]. The two parts of the person working in harmony. Our souls are redeemed in peace[x].

Peace through pausing on Shabbat.

The practice of Shabbat is one of the great Jewish vehicles for peace. In the ten commandments we read, “Six days you shall work and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath for your God you shall not do any work”[xi]. The Torah instructs us to do all our work in six days. This is interpreted[xii] as God commanding us to imagine that, in fact, all our work has been done by Friday afternoon and to rest from even thinking about work. All the piles of papers in the in-tray, all the unanswered emails are as if they don’t exist. Vanished by a swish of the Shabbat angel’s wand, if I may mix my metaphors.

This approach is based on faith. If God wanted all that work done this week, He would have found a way for us to get it done. The fact that he didn’t ensure that it got done, means that it was not destined to be this week’s work. It belongs to another time. On Friday at sunset, all the work that mattered is either done, or as good as done, because Shabbat is a sacred time in which that work is irrelevant.

This attitude has been an amazing gift for me and my family. I don’t check emails or social media or lift a pen or read a work report. It is truly a holy time. Unfortunately, thoughts are harder to control than actions, and I confess that my thoughts sometimes wander to work on shabbat. But it is still a powerful way of achieving inner peace, to a significant extent, at least once a week with a flow-on effect for the rest of the week.

Accepting others and self – the ugly man

One of the great obstacles to peace is an unwillingness to accept people, either others, or to accept ourselves as we are. I have had my moments with both. Enter the ugly man story.

Rabbi Eliezer was once riding on a donkey on the coast, he was feeling very happy because he had studied a lot of Torah.

Then he noticed a very ugly man, not just in the physical sense but it was clear to the Rabbi that the man had an ugly character.

The ugly man greeted him, "Shalom, Rabbi!"

Rabbi Eliezer did not return the greeting.

Instead, he said, "Empty (headed) one! Are all the inhabitants of your town as ugly as you?"

The man replied: "Why don't you tell the craftsman who made me, “how ugly is the vessel you made?"

Rabbi Eliezer realised that he had done wrong. He went down from his donkey, prostrated himself and begged the man for forgiveness[xiii]...

A believing person has no business condemning anyone for what they are. Yes, we can object to someone’s behaviour. But I have found that sometimes what annoys me more than behaviour is another person's essential nature. This is wrong, as they have not chosen to be the way they are. They were created that way.

The same principle applies to me. It is ok for me to be disappointed with my behaviour or choices. But I should never be ashamed or frustrated with myself for what I am. I did not create myself[xiv]!

Forgiveness

We can lose peace within ourselves and with God through our choices and walking away from God and our covenant with Him[xv]. When this happens, we can seek resolution with God. Once we seek forgiveness, we are encouraged to be confident that God will instantly forgive us. God’s capacity for forgiveness is infinite, not like humans, who might find it hard to forgive someone for their repeated mistakes[xvi]. I’ve found that sometimes by focusing on my belief that God has forgiven me, I can more easily forgive myself. At a Catholic school spirituality day, I recently invited teachers to consider trying this approach on grudges they held against themselves - perhaps for ten years or twenty years - and to consider whether God’s forgiveness might allow them to forgive themselves as well.

There is also great power in forgiving others, which Jews are encouraged to do every night before going to sleep[xvii]. Forgiving others not only releases the object of our resentment, it also allows us to feel at peace in ourselves.  

Conclusion

Being at peace and in sync with God, through living out the covenant and bringing the different aspects of ourselves into harmony with God, allows us to have hope and brings with it its own kind of inner peace.

---

[i] Steinsaltz, A. (1997), The Strife of the Spirit, Jason Aronson, it is an adaptation of the Tanya the foundation book of Chabad Chasidism, by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, who is one of the most significant figures of Hasidism

[ii] Tanya, by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

[iii] Arama, R. Yitzchak, in Akedat Yitzchak, gate 87.

[iv] Arama, based on Isaiah 57:19

[v]  Isaiah 46

[vi] Deuteronomy 6:5-9

[vii] Sifey Chachamim on Rashi’s commentary to Deuteronomy 6:6

[viii] Tanya, chapter 9

[ix] Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, Sefer Hamaamorim Hakuntresim, Vol 1, Naase Na Aliyas Kir Ktana

[x] Psalm 55:19, as interpreted by Rabbi MM Schneerson, see also http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=11930&CategoryID=2010

[xi] Exodus 20:9

[xii] Mechilta

[xiii] Talmud, Taanit 20a–b

[xiv] Tanya, 31

[xv] Arama, ibid

[xvi] Tanya, Igeres Hateshuva chapter 11

[xvii] Siddur, order of shema and prayers before going to sleep, section hareni mochel 

Maimonides Teachings on Anger – Rare, Restrained and Real?

 

Maimonides wrote that anger is sometimes appropriate but, apparently, also that anger is always wrong.  I will argue that, despite Maimonides cautioning us about the dangers of excessive anger, he permitted real anger when it is warranted, on condition that one does not lose control.  

Chapter 1 - Anger is appropriate only when warranted.

In chapter 1,[i] Maimonides taught that one should follow the middle path.  “Do not be an angry person, easily angered; nor be like the dead, without feeling; rather one should be in between these extremes. Be angry[ii] only about big matters that warrant anger, to prevent the matter from recurring.”

Chapter 2 - Don’t get angry even when warranted.

In chapter 2,[iii] Maimonides wrote that “it is forbidden to follow the middle path” regarding anger. “Anger is an exceptionally bad quality. A person must teach himself not to become angry even when anger is warranted.” This appears to be the exact opposite of his guidance in chapter 1.

Aristotle vs the rabbis

One academic perspective on this apparent contradiction is that, in chapter 1, Maimonides was following the teachings of Aristotle, who advocated the middle way of being good-tempered – to get angry only in the appropriate manner on the appropriate occasion[iv]. In chapter 2, Maimonides rejected Aristotle and followed the teachings of the rabbis[v].

In the Abbreviated Code of Jewish Law (the Kitzur), these chapters of Maimonides are quoted verbatim, except for the permission to get angry when it is warranted in chapter 1, which is omitted[vi]. This makes sense if the author of the abbreviated code thought that chapter 2 is rabbinic and chapter 1 is Aristotelian.

This reflects a broader disagreement between the Torah’s approach and that of Aristotle. In Aristotle’s worldview, pride is a virtue, and a slight to one’s honour is seen to justify anger; in contrast, the rabbinic attitude sees pride as a vice and humility as a virtue, which makes anger about slights to honour unacceptable[vii]. 

Maimonides wrote elsewhere that authors might contradict themselves in this way, first quoting one authority, then quoting another with a different view[viii]. However, this approach does not completely explain Maimonides’ approach to anger as it is reflected in his various writings.

Other texts show that anger, when warranted, is appropriate.

Maimonides’ writings contain quite angry and scathing comments about wrongdoers whose offences warranted anger[ix]. One target of his anger was a man, who condemned Jews who made a statement of faith in the basic tenets of Islam under the threat of death. Maimonides was indignant and scathing in his rejection of this man’s work, declaring that he had “darkened the hearts of people[x]”.

Maimonides wrote about the case of Moses being angry with the Israelites for demanding water when they had none to drink, followed by Moses hitting a rock and being punished by God[xi]. Maimonides explained that Moses was punished for being angry in a situation that did not warrant anger[xii]. The inference I draw from this explanation is that there are some situations that warrant anger, in which anger is appropriate, just as there are other situations that do not warrant it.

Only feigned anger is permitted

Some interpret Maimonides permission to be angry in chapter 1 to mean feigned anger[xiii]. This approach is based on Maimonides’ comment in chapter 2: if a parent or a community leader wants to arouse fear in their children or the community to motivate them to proper behaviour, “he should show them that he is angry[xiv], but he should be inwardly calm, like a person who pretends to be angry, but is not really angry.”

A careful reading of Maimonides’ words does not support this interpretation[xv].  Real anger is implied by Maimonides’ statement: “nor should one be like the dead, without feeling[xvi]”. Instead, one can take Maimonides’ comment about feigned anger not as a rule but merely advice about how to limit one’s exposure to the vice of anger, even though anger - in some cases - is permitted by Jewish law[xvii]. 

Genuine anger is an appropriate educational tool.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote that genuine – not feigned – anger is legitimate when teaching children. A teacher who seeks to correct their students’ failings, is instructed to be angry with them[xviii]. The teacher must not just pretend to be angry as it is impossible to fool the students and influence their behaviour; instead, the teacher should feel genuinely angry[xix].

Anger only over big things?

An alternative attempt at reconciling the contradiction between Chapters 1 and 2 recalls the self-help book titled, “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff[xx]”. In chapter 1, two conditions are set for anger to be acceptable. A. something ‘big’ and B. a matter that warrants anger. Chapter 2 forbids anger where only one condition is met – ‘anger is warranted’; however anger is not justified unless the second condition is also met that it is a “big matter". [xxi].

The idea that “big matters” justify anger, aligns with the Torah’s praise for Phineas’ indignation over Zimri’s public disregard for the Torah’s morality[xxii]. Another example of anger in the Torah is Jacob’s anger at Rachel when she demands that he be God-like to solve her infertility[xxiii]. Also, a big issue.

Another Jewish authority wrote that there are times when anger is obligatory, and it is about such situations that the moralists taught: “Don’t be sweet, lest they swallow you[xxiv]!”. One who only gets angry rarely – with difficulty - and is easily reconciled, is called pious by the Mishna[xxv].

Be angry but don’t become an angry person or lose control.

An approach that resonates with me is Rabbi Elchanach Samet’s[xxvi].  He cites Maimonides’ other work where he defined anger as having two components - behavior and character. A person is encouraged to develop a patient or tolerant character, as well as be moderate in one’s behavior[xxvii].

In chapter 1, Maimonides is focused on behavior[xxviii]: feeling anger is appropriate when warranted. Chapter 2 is mainly[xxix] about character. Maimonides warns us that the angry person cannot think clearly[xxx].  It is this kind of angry character that Maimonides urges us to avoid developing. We should not allow ourselves to get so angry that we lose control, which would impact on our character.

When Maimonides wrote about showing family or community members that one is angry[xxxi], Maimonides meant to be genuinely angry, not pretending[xxxii]. But this anger should be controlled anger rather than one in which one has lost control. This aligns with Maimonides’ writing elsewhere that God does not act out of emotion, and that human leaders should aspire to the same[xxxiii].

Samet focuses on one important word, the word “like”[xxxiv] in chapter 2, where Maimonides mentioned pretending to be angry. Maimonides’ concern is that if one expresses controlled anger, it might not be taken seriously by others. They might mistake the calm manner as a signal that the offence was not serious. Therefore, it is ok to act similar to – but not exactly the same as – an actor who is not angry at all but pretends to be so angry that they have lost control. In fact, one is called to be more nuanced than the actor whose anger is completely fake: we are advised to combine genuine anger and calm, with exaggerated expression.

Acting like I lost it, roused a half-drunk actor.

I experienced this kind of mixture of controlled anger and pretending to “lose it” on the morning after some of my Sydney Yeshiva peers had been drinking on Purim night in 1991.  A group of Yeshiva students were scheduled to perform the story of Purim in a play at Bellevue Hill Public School, at 8 am the following morning. One of the young scholars with a minor part in the play, was too hung-over to get out of bed. I was moderately annoyed with him because he was part of the team, but not too worried because we could manage without him. Despite my confidence and calm, I pretended to be extremely angry. I screamed and yelled at him, not for his benefit but for his more crucial friend, half asleep in the next room, who was meant to play the king in the Purim play. “His royal highness” appeared moved by my acting and dragged his half-drunk body out of bed - the show could go on!

Maimonides' guidance on anger – although contested – appears to balance social utility and the recognition that anger is sometimes appropriate, with restraint that ensures we don’t lose control and supports virtuous character development.   

---

[i] Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deot – Human Dispositions, 1:4 https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Human_Dispositions.1.4?lang=bi

[ii] The Hebrew word isיכעס  which is most accurately translated as to be angry -but the Hebrew word is a verb.

[iii] Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deot – Human Dispositions, 2:3

[iv] Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, IV.5, in Frank, D., H., (1990), Anger as a vice: Maimonidean Critique of Aristotle’s Ethics, History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol 7, No 3, pp. 269-281, University of Illinois Press

[v] Frank, D. H. (1990), Anger as a vice: Maimonidean Critique of Aristotle’s Ethics, History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol 7, No 3, pp. 269-281, University of Illinois Press

[vi] Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Chapter 29, 2 and 4 where he only quotes Maimonides teachings in chapter 2 but omits his teaching about anger in chapter 1

[vii] Frank, D.H. (1990). Ibid, page 272-273

[viii] Maimonides, Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, introduction.

[ix] In addition to the example that I cite from Maimonides’ letters, see also his Introduction to Perek Helek where he wrote about the accursed second group of scoffers, who are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom.

[x] Maimonides, Iggeres HaShmad - letter on destruction written between 1160 or 1162

[xi] Numbers 20:12, Deuteronomy 32:51

[xii] Maimonides, Introduction to Pirkey Avot, Shemona Perkaim, chapter 4

[xiii] Knesset Hagdola, and E. Tauger’s translation of Hilchot Deot. Moznaim publishers HaGedolah. Tauger’s translations renders chapter 1 in which Maimonides says it is appropriate to be angry about big matters as “to display” anger. In other words, to fake it.  The Hebrew verb used by Maimonides to convey ‘being angry” is Yich’os - יִכְעֹס, which is hard to translate into English. Tauger boldly translated it as ‘to display anger. See also the conclusion of Shaarei Chinuch, p. 245-246, Likutei Sichos vol 22, p. 401 which seems to support this approach in cases not involving a teacher and students.

[xiv] The Hebrew text reads: יראה עצמו בפניהם שהוא כועס כדי לייסרם

[xv] Mirkevet Hamishneh, Aaron Ben Moshe Alfandri

[xvi] Hilchot Deot chapter 1 cited above

[xvii] Bigdey Yom Tov, Shlomo ben Yehuda Aharon Kluger, (1783-1869)

[xviii] Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 246:11

[xix] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, in Shaarei Chinuch, p. 245-246, Likutei Sichos vol 22, p. 401

[xx] Richard Carlson, (1997), Don't Sweat The Small Stuff and it's all small stuff, Bantham Books

[xxi] Abraham Ḥiyya de Boton (1560 – c. 1605) in Lechem Mishna on Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deot 1:4-5, Knesset Hagdola also offers a similar interpretation in one of his answers

[xxii] Numbers 25:7-8, and 25:11-13, See Rabbenu Yona on Avot 5:11

[xxiii] Genesis 30:1-2

[xxiv] Rabbenu Yona on Avot 5:11, Rabbenu Yona lived 1180-1263

[xxv] Pirkey Avot 5:11

[xxvi] Elchanan Samet, (1998) https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/maaliyot/iyunim1-2.htm

[xxvii] Maimonides, Introduction to Pirkey Avot, Shemona Perkaim, chapter 4

[xxviii] In 1:1 Maimonides mentions many behaviours including frequently being angry, or never being angry, along with other behaviours such as self-torment with hunger, gathering possessions or money, avoiding spending even a penny and when spending feeling great pain, or wasting all of one’s money etc.

[xxix] This resolution fits with a lot of the text of Maimonides but does not fit all of it. In 2:3 it states “one should conduct oneself in such a way that he should not ever feel at all for matters that make one angry, שינהיג עצמו שלא ירגיש אפילו לדברים המכעיסין which is about behaviour, not character. I don’t think there is any explanation that will perfectly resolve the contradictions arising from all that Maimonides wrote in these two chapters that also fits with Maimonides other writings.  

[xxx] Deot 2:3 based on Talmud, Pesachim 66b כל אדם שכועס – אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו

[xxxi] The Hebrew text is יראה עצמו בפניהם שהוא כועס כדי לייסרם, ותהיה דעתו מיושבת בינו לבין עצמו, which I think is best translated as he should show himself, before them that he is angry. The Hebrew text can reasonably be translated in either of two ways, either showing them that he is actually angry, or pretending to be angry. 

[xxxii] This phrase יראה עצמו בפניהם שהוא כועס  might be part of what was troubling the author of Mirkevet Hamishneh about the suggestion that only feigned anger was allowed – which he said did not fit with the  לשון (literally the tongue, figuratively the exact words) of Maimonides.

[xxxiii] Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, part 1, chapter 54

[xxxiv] the Hebrew letterכ      כאדם שהוא מדמה