A Moment in Anger, A Lifetime in Goodwill. Rosh Hashana

I recently delivered a keynote at the MacKillop Institute’s “Lead the Way” conference about how I cared for myself and supported members of my Australian Jewish community. I reflected on the middle ground between anger and absence of anger, between ignoring danger and debilitating anxiety and between shamelessness and persistent shame. This is the path I have walked since the mass murder of 15 people at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. The multiple emotions that I have navigated have been heavy.

 

The feelings of loss and hurt are varied and I make no judgement on how others deal with their pain. However, we can still explore different ways of striving for emotional wellbeing to get to as good a place as possible.  After all, however difficult it may be to receive emotional support, the cost of not getting relief is high.

Limited Duration Emotions

In Genesis (1), Cain felt angry and his “face fell” after his offering of fruit was rejected by God. The fallen face is a classic shame response. God challenged Cain with two questions. The first was; why was Cain angry? The second question was, “Why has your face fallen?” While Cain had failed to please God with his offering, and an initial feeling of shame was understandable, ruminating on rejection that led to persistent shame was not helping Cain.

One of the Chasidic masters compared a person in a low mood to a wrestler who is feeling down and can be easily defeated by a weaker but positive opponent (2). If we allow our negative emotions to drag us down, we won’t have the energy we need to prevail over our inner struggles. 

Trying to deny or squash one’s emotions does not work because they, especially fear and anger, are like alarm clocks, natural alerts telling us that a response is needed.  If I feel anger because something is wrong, and it leads me to have an adrenaline spike and I use this emotion as fuel to motivate myself and others to change something specific, then the anger is clearly beneficial.

However, we can regulate our emotions to feel them for shorter amounts of time. Emotions are like an alarm clock - anger, fear, etc are a response to a situation to alert us that a response might be needed. Once our alarm clock rings, we need to switch it off. For those of us who are in the habit of scrolling social media, we have ongoing stimuli that trigger ongoing emotions. It is like spending the whole day with an alarm clock ringing at top volume.

When strong emotions such as fear, anger or despair become more pervasive and semi-permanent, they start to eat away at our well-being, with diminishing returns in terms of righting any wrongs or solving any problems.

Another argument for shortened anger can be made based on a psalm referring to divine anger. “For one moment, I find myself in His anger, a lifetime in His goodwill” (3) The Talmud states that God’s anger lasts for one 16^th of a second, every day! (4)

A values Star

Another factor is inner coherence. My clarity about my principles and my work with Muslims and others was strong enough to dismiss an angry outburst at a cemetery at the end of the funeral of a friend killed at Bondi, on 16 December, just two days after the murders. A man yelled at me that “my Muslims” did this and included some profanities.  The reason this rant did not hurt me was, first, that his accusation was absurd. But second, I have been on a journey toward what I call having a settled soul that comes from internal clarity.  

The Together for Humanity team was working recently with some 13-year-old girls at a Jewish school. Out of a menu of 18 values, we asked the girls to prioritise five or six values and paint a wooden star to depict their choses top values. The purpose of this exercise was to give the students representations of their values to help them navigate life and be less thrown by strong emotions.

The process for selecting the values drew on the Schwartz theory of basic human values, which encompasses hedonism or fun and the desire for power and control as well as care for others, universalism and tradition. We hope that a clearer sense of their most important values would make the girls less vulnerable to the judgement of others; when we know who we are, others’ representation of us matters less.

Ruminating after Bondi

One form of fear I have noticed recently in the Jewish community is a persistent anxiety or heaviness – which of course is completely understandable. The anxiety is made worse for some people in the community by ruminating on everything that is wrong and terrible, fed by doom-scrolling and endless circular conversations in person and on WhatsApp. Being more intentional about our attention might help some people, at least some of the time. My reduced use of social media in general – at least a lot of the time – has been very helpful to me.

Hope

Despite all the concerns, I remain hopeful – at least some of the time - and I have spoken to Jewish communities around Australia, arguing against voices of despair.

When I spoke to a Jewish community in Perth, some in the audience said that all hope was lost for Jewish people in Australia and that we need to move to other countries. They argued that our time is similar to what they experienced in the former Soviet Union or what happened with the Nazis in the lead-up to the Holocaust.

I acknowledged that there are legitimate safety concerns, that there are people who wish to do us harm and are prepared to put such wishes into action. On the other hand, there are important differences between what is happening now and what happened in the past, and the future is still up for grabs. The future has not happened yet. There are decisions being made now that can take our country in a good direction. We can improve education in schools to encourage intercultural curiosity and wellbeing for all; we can have leadership in the public sphere that pushes back on narratives that represent people as less than others or collectively deserving of hatred. 

The same group of Jewish girls I mentioned earlier met a Muslim woman in a hijab whom I will call Fatima. Fatima talked to the girls about her experience at their age of attending a government school in regional Australia and craving to fit in and blend in. Despite this desire, she kept her scarf on because this was important to her as a young person of faith. The Jewish girls applauded her choice. In doing so, they not only showed care and respect for another, but also normalised their own place in multi-faith Australia. The warmth and love shown by those girls gives me hope.

We can be furious and fearful about specific behaviours and harm and take ethically considered action to respond to those emotions in ways that address the problem without causing unjustified harm. Then we can be intentional about directing our attention to thoughts and stimuli and self-care practices that enable us to be calm in ourselves and caring toward our neighbours. Renewing our social contract and flourishing together requires nothing less.

Notes

1)       Genesis, 4:5

2)       Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in Tanya chapter 26

3)       Psalm 30:6

4)       Talmud, Brachot, 7a 

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

Shaming Disrupts the Flow - Moses’ Rock Strike

Image by BillVriesema - Creative Commons License 2.0

When we are provoked, we must generally respond without shaming our antagonists, nor allowing anger to cloud our judgement. 

It is not always ethical to go along with others’ wishes. Saying yes when our principles require the answer to be no, is to compromise our own integrity. In the context of marriage, saying yes against our principles or needs, has this result: “the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos’[i]." Sometimes, disagreement escalates into identity conflict[ii] and becomes a contest of claiming the moral high ground – each party trying to be deemed the “good one” and cast the other as the villain. It can then become especially tempting to inflict pain on one’s opponent. Especially for people who have been hurt deeply – and who hasn’t been - there can be an urge to lash out. This blog post will explore the merit of being agreeable in disagreement.  

Let us consider what happened between Moses and the Israelites in the desert. “There was no water for the people to drink, so they gathered onto Moses… (the wording in Hebrew is very similar to the modern expression “pile on”). The people quarrelled with Moses, saying, “If only we had died when our brothers died… Why did you bring [us]… to this desert… and why did you take us out of Egypt… to this terrible place with no grain or figs or vines or pomegranates? ...[iii]”.

While there was a legitimate water problem to solve, the rhetoric from the Israelites was a broad rejection of Moses and God. Let’s think of the relationship between the people and Moses and God as a marriage. Only a short time ago, God - with Moses as his visible messenger - was the knight in shining armour that rescued the Israelites – damsel in distress – from the oppression of Pharaoh. The people threw caution to the wind and displayed great faith in God and Moses, his servant[iv],  walking after Him bravely into a desert, where nothing had been planted[v]. But the honeymoon didn’t last, and the Israelites’ stance was like yelling “Why did I ever marry you? I wish I never met you.”

In response to this attack on Moses, Moses lost his temper with the Israelites, and he used a derogatory label to shame them. In his anger[vi], Moses muddled God’s instructions to him about how to miraculously draw water from a stone. Although God told Moses to speak to the rock to draw water from it, he, instead, hit the rock with a stick. God was disappointed with the way Moses handled this situation, and told him that, because of this failure, Moses would not bring the people to the promised land[vii]. 

Moses had plenty reason to feel angry. The people had, yet again, delegitimised his leadership and life’s achievements. This attack came at a particularly vulnerable time for Moses as he mourned the death of his sister, Miriam[viii]. Yet, one commentator sees Moses’ angry reactions as a significant failure.

The amazingly kind, Berditchever, taught that you can rebuke people, using two different methods. One approach is positive and builds people up. It reminds the people that their very souls originate ‎immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It tells people about their ability and privilege to provide God with the pleasure he gets from ‎His people performing His will. The other method of admonishing people involves putting people down and shaming them.

When the positive method is used, it introduces positive energy into the physical world, so that the creations willingly provide for the people. In the case of Moses, if he had spoken positively to the people, then the rock would have responded to Moses’ words with flowing water. However, when people are denigrated, the creations are not in a state of flow. The only way to get them to provide for humans, is with great coercion symbolised by their being beaten with a stick[ix].

There will be times in our lives when others’ disrespect toward us, or unwillingness to support our wishes, might make us feel like we are spiralling down to feel small like a mouse “insignificant, under the foot, hiding, timid and on the run”. It is at such times that we overcompensate for such feelings by swinging in the opposite direction, to become a “monster… obnoxious, and overbearing”[x]. This reaction is understandable but ultimately very destructive - it interrupts the flow of the good things we need and want for ourselves and the people around us.

 

---

[i] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

[ii]  Heen, S. Patton, B. Stone, D. 2021, Difficult conversations, Penguin

[iii] Numbers 20:2-5

[iv] Exodus 14:31

[v] Jeremiah 2:2

[vi] Sifre to Numbers 31:21, see also Talmud Pesachim 66b, every man who rages, if he is wise his wisdom will leave him…

[vii] Numbers 20:7-12

[viii] Numbers 20:1

[ix] R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Kedushas Levi, on Chukas, Vdibartem El Haselah, p. 303, Sifrei Ohr Hachayim edition, Jerusalem

[x] Brenner, M (2011) Conscious Connectivity, p.70, drawing on the work of Pat Palmer