Showing posts with label Maimonides. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maimonides. Show all posts

Thursday, July 6, 2023

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

[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

Friday, September 20, 2019

Some Equivalence between Muslim and Jewish ruled societies? Torah prohibition of Jewish presence in Egypt


I was delighted to find a passage, in a Jewish religious text, that shows appreciation for Muslims and Islam. A respected commentator on the Torah suggests, that in one matter of Jewish law, a society ruled by a Muslim king would have equal status to one ruled by a Jewish king.

This teaching was a wonderful find for me, because I live between two worlds. One is the exclusivist Orthodox Jewish one; the other is one that embraces, and even celebrates, a wide range of beliefs and cultural ways. So when these two meet, it gives me great pleasure.

I had better preempt two kinds of fierce critiques, based on inferences that either Jewish and Islamic faiths are equally true or an endorsement of every aspect of Islam. This text should not be read as either relinquishing exclusive Truth claims for the Jewish faith or wholesale endorsement of Islam, neither of which it is addressing at all; it has a particular context.

However, the teaching does reflect a recognition of the fact that some of the virtues Jews strive for due to the influences of Judaism are also practiced by Muslims due to influences of Islam. Of course this is also the case with people with other sources of guidance, both religious and otherwise. 

With the disclaimers out of the way, let me get into this teaching. There is a contradiction between the fact that Jewish communities and some of our greatest scholars, most notably Maimonides, lived in Egypt, yet the Torah forbids Jews to live there (1).

The context of the prohibition is a series of laws to prevent kings from becoming corrupt, with the hope that the king’s “heart should not be haughty over his brothers” (2). These laws limit the amount of wealth and horses a king can accumulate. It then adds the following statement: "so that he [the king] will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses.(3)".

I was intrigued to read one authority declare that this commandment only applied for a limited time so that the Jews would not learn immoral behavior from the Egyptians, but did not apply for future generations (4). The line of argument that the prohibition has expired is extended in the writings of an early nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Meir Benyamin Menachem Danon, who was the chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Muslim, Bosnia (5).

Danon argues that the conquest of Egypt by Muslims is a game changer. “When the king of the Ishmaelites [a reference to Arabs as well as Muslims] conquered the land of Egypt and all its inhabitants he turned them toward their religion [of Islam] and manners/cultural norms. With the passage of time, the Egyptians ...became like the Ishamaelites ...” (6). I wonder how Coptic Chrisitans would feel about this teaching, but let’s take Danon in his Bosnian Context. 

Danon’s basis for his argument is in the writing of Maimonides who states that: "it seems to me, that if the land of Egypt were to be conquered by a Jewish king under the guidance of a Beth Din, [a Torah court], the prohibition would no longer apply” (7). Danon essentially argued that it doesn't matter what kind of monotheistic society Egypt would be. He wrote that Maimonides’ reference to a Beth Din is merely descriptive of the typical scenario of a Jewish king going to war, rather than a condition for the law.

One might dismiss Danon’s argument based on the fact that Maimonides ruled that living in Egypt was still forbidden and only tentatively suggests it might be permitted under a Jewish king. If Danon’s view is in accordance with Maimonides’ own view why does Maimonides not state this explicitly? In fact, Maimonides use of the expression “it seems to me” is questioned by two scholars (8) who wonder why he does not simply present his view as law.

I suggest that this tentativeness might offer a hint to Maimonides’ real opinion on the matter. The fact that he was living in Egypt meant that he was personally implicated by this particular law, if he was in breach of it. In fact, it has been claimed that Maimonides would sign his letters, "Moshe ben Maimon, who transgresses three prohibitions each day" on account of his residence in Egypt (9). He could hardly feel comfortable justifying himself, in a novel way. We are taught that “one should not be defensive, in accordance with the proverb that one cannot recognise one’s own faults”, instead one should seek to judge oneself truthfully (10). This ethical principle might explain both Maimonides reticence in justifying living in Egypt under Muslim rule and the tentative language he uses to introduce the monotheistic conquest exception.

Danon’s teaching illustrates a manner of respect between believers that is not merely relativist. Rather, it acknowledges the reality that in some significant ways the religious influences of other faiths on their adherents can lead them to similar outcomes to those achieved through the influence of one’s own faith. There is no need to agree about the big questions of how to get to heaven or please the creator, but for the sake of truth let us recognise the truth about our neighbours, whose beliefs differ from our own, including the non-religious. Surely, this is in keeping with the idea that the Torah’s ways are ways of peace (11).
  

Notes 

1)            Deuteronomy 17:16
2)            Deuteronomy 17:20
3)            Deuteronomy 17:16
4)            Bachaya, on Deuteronomy 17:16, Ritva to Yoma 38 also takes the law to be non-applicable to his time but his reason is that the prohibition only applies to returning to Egypt from Israel, but moving there from other diaspora lands is permitted. This view seemed to contradict both the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:1 and Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b which state that the massive Jewish community of Alexandria was destroyed because they disobeyed the commandment against settling in Egypt. Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8 rules that living permanently in Egypt is forbidden.
5)            http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4891-danon-meir-benjamin-menahem chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Bosnia, author of "Be'er ba-Sadeh".
6)            Be'er ba-Sadeh, on this verse,  published in Jerusalem in 1846
7)            Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:8
8)            Torah Temima, Levin, A. in Hadrash VeHaiyun, Shoftim, Maamar 125, p. 150 ff.
9)            Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1366), in his encyclopedic work Kaftor v'Ferah, (ch. 5), cited in  Loewenberg, M. May a Jew live in Egypt?,   http://www.jewishmag.com/173mag/jew_live_in_egypt/jew_live_in_egypt.htm
10)          Chida in Nachal K’domim, in Torat Hachida, shoftim, p. 129
11)          Proverbs 3:17