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

Conceived in Sin - A Lack of Soul Connection

I was intrigued by how Jewish teachings interpret King David’s lament in the Psalms that “in sin my mother conceived me (1)”. Surely, Judaism does not regard sex as a sin. I was pleased to find an interpretation that made a lot more sense to me and expressed Judaism’s guidance about genuine intimacy.  

Let us begin with the context of David’s exclamation. It is part of “a psalm by David…after he had come to Bathsheba” (2). David, a passionately religious (3) married man, had become interested in a married woman - Bathsheba. He slept with her, and used his royal power to ensure her husband died in battle (4). In this psalm, David expressed remorse, acknowledged his sins and continuing guilt, and pleaded with G-d for forgiveness.

A Midrash adds some explanation of what David meant. “David said to God; “Master of the worlds, did my father Yishai intend to cause me to stand [be born]?! …his intention was only for his own pleasure. Know that this is so, because after they did their needs, this one turned his face this way and that one turned her face there (5)”.

This seems to imply that David was not concerned about the act itself, but its intention - for pleasure rather than procreation (6).

This is problematic on two counts. The Torah mandates intercourse as a husband’s obligation and a wife’s right (7), regardless of the potential for procreation, for example, when a woman is past menopause (8). A husband’s priority during intimacy should be maximising his wife’s pleasure and he is encouraged to delay his own pleasure so that his wife climaxes first (9). The Torah portrays intercourse as pleasurable, using the euphemism ‘playing’ or ‘laughing’, regarding Isaac and Rebecca being sexually intimate (10). According to Raphael Aron, an Australian Chasidic Rabbi and counsellor, the Torah teaches that the “intimate relationship must be pleasurable (11)”. In 2008 Rabbi Aron wrote that “it is a serious mistake to think that the best way is the strictest way; that denial is the most effective means by which to achieve a ‘Kosher’ marriage (12)”.

To understand what ‘Kosher’ intimacy is, it is worth looking at its opposite. The Talmud lists nine types of children, conceived in situations that were, mostly, not accompanied by a full emotional union. These include children of fear, i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was forced into intercourse by her husband; children of a hated woman; children of drunkenness (and thus the partners are not able to be emotionally present with each other); children of a woman who was divorced in the heart, i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; and children of substitution, i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman (13).

Considering this list, further commentary written in the 19^th century, on the midrash above, can advance our understanding of David’s lament.

This commentary cited a different midrash that relates that ‘Yishai, David’s father, separated from his wife Nitzevet [because of a technical religious concern] (14). Instead, he decided to sleep with his maidservant. The maidservant told her mistress, Yishai’s wife Nitzevet.  Nitzevet then went into the bed, instead of the maidservant, and was intimate with her husband Yishai while Yishai thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. From this deed, David was born’ (15).

The nature of his conception rang in David’s mind during his situation with Bathsheba. Because he felt like he was inherently damaged goods, like a child of a substitution. [one of the nine mentioned above]. …David referenced this in this psalm about his sin with Bathsheba. …David said to God, “I had to sin with Bathsheba (16) because there is, in me, a side of sin, from my father’s side, in that he had no intention of creating me, but only his own pleasure, as he thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. …In this, my father made me like the ‘child of a substitution’. This rumbled inside of me when I sinned with Bat Sheva.” [perhaps, also, that he felt additional shame as he reflected on his sin, because he saw it as linked to his essentially damaged spiritual state because of the nature of his conception (17)].

This remarkable commentary can be understood to be critical of an act that was completely selfish. Yishai was not cementing his relationship with his wife in an act of love and togetherness – in the way the Torah says a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh (18). He didn’t even know who he was sleeping with! (It is also unlikely that he had quickly formed a deeply committed relationship with his maidservant.) This understandably ‘messed’ with the head of his son, David, who regarded it as sinful.

I find this explanation very useful in an age that, although shameless in some ways, is in other ways excessively shame prone. So many of us feel ashamed of our bodies, telling ourselves we are fat etc. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to feel ashamed of themselves when they violate valid standards. However, for a religious Jew, being a considerate lover, giving and receiving intimate pleasure, in a committed loving relationship, sanctioned by marriage, is certainly not one of them.   

 

Notes

1)   Psalms, 51:7

2)   Psalms, 51:1-2

3)   Samuel II, 6:14 is one example, his authorship of the psalms is another.

4)   Samuel II, 11

5)   Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 14:5

6)   Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, in his first comment. Anaf Yosef links the objection to pleasure to a comment in the Talmud whose context suggests it does not mean what he suggests it means. The Talmud in Nedarim 20b relates a description of intercourse by a woman named Ima Shalom who described her husband’s behaviour as follows… My husband does not converse with me [a euphemism for sex] neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he ‘converses’ he reveals a handbreadth and covers a handbreadth, and it [the sexual experience] is as though he were being forced by a demon. And I said to him: What is the reason? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on [think about] another woman, which would then result in his children consequently come to a mamzer [bastard] status. [i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore, he engaged in sexual intercourse at an hour when there are no people in the street that might distract him from his attention on his wife because he was afraid of not being fully focused on her]. From his explanation, it is clear that he was not worried about how much pleasure he was having but about his degree of emotional connection with his wife, and that it is not diluted by thoughts of other women.

7)   Exodus 21:10, Maimonides, Book of Women, Hilchot Ishut, 12:2

8)   In Aron, R. (2008), Spirituality and Intimacy, Devora Publishing, p. 81

9)   Talmud Nida 31a, see Rashi there and Raavad quoted in Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 240:8

10) Genesis 26:8

11) Based on a comment by Rashi on Genesis 2:24 and the Netziv- HaEmek Davar on Genesis 2:23, in Aron, R., p. 84, he also cited Nachmanides that Intimacy should be “amidst an abundance of love and desire”

12) Aron, R., p. 85

13) Talmud Nedarim, 20b

14) As a descendant of Ruth, who was a Moabite woman, he was unsure if the Torah forbids only Moabite men or also Moabite women from marrying into the Jewish people.

15) Yalkut HaMachiri, and Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot, cited by Chanoch Zundel in Anaf Yosef and Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

16) Maharal of Prague in Derekh Chayim (commentary on Pirkey Avot) 3:1:15 explained that David’s intention was not to excuse his behaviour- in the psalm he expressed genuine remorse. It is more an argument of mitigating circumstances.

17) Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, see more on this in this article, cited by Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

18) Genesis 2:24

My speech for son's Bar Mitzva Be a Dragon Rider

What a night, to be with all of you to celebrate our delightful Tuvia’s Bar Mitzvah.

King David told his 12-year-old son, Solomon, “I am going the way of all the land, to die, and you should be strong and be a man[i]”.

What kind of man should you be?

You should follow the example of the men you were named after.

Moshe Tuvia Stark, your great-grandfather who was so loved that every time his grandchildren mentioned his name, their whole faces lit up with pleasure.

My wife Shoshie and I, grandparents, and teachers all get great pleasure from you. This is no small matter, as we are taught: “Every person in whom people’s spirit find pleasure, God is pleased with, but anyone that people are not pleased with, God is also not pleased with[ii]”.

Mr. Stark was an example of the teaching that; “In a place where there are no men, step up and be a man[iii]”. He was ‘the man’ who took responsibility for the synagogue, two schools, meals for those in need, the mikveh, and the burial society.

You are also named after your great, great grandfather, Dr. Armin, Yirmiyahu Blau. A Torah scholar and a teacher. One of his students wrote about him. “His depth of knowledge of German culture and his artistic interests fascinated us and called on us to follow him.  “Nobody instructed us better in the noble art of being human.[iv]”

Great shoes to fill, but you are already on your way to living up to their examples, thanks to the balanced education you get at your school, Kesser Torah. But, as Reb Zushe said, it is not our task to be a copy of anyone else. Certainly, not strong, and brutal like Samson[v]. Instead, we must strive to be the best version of ourselves[vi].

So, I return to the question of what kind of man you will become?

I invite you to consider being the kind of man represented by a fictional, brave, young man, wise beyond his years.

I refer to the character called Hiccup, a young dragon rider[vii].

It is written: “who is strong, one who conquers his own inclination”[viii].

The kind of man you must be, is one who is able to tame the beast inside of you.

According to Hasidic teachings, the meaning of the sacrifices offered up in the temple, is to offer up the animals inside of us.

The ox represents the aggressive part of us[ix], that reacts harshly when provoked or irritated, when we feel that the other person is not being reasonable and deserves a harsh reaction.

It is ok to be assertive, but we must be calm and restrained.

The wrong kind of ox is represented by many of the 1980s New York City cops I remember who were in the habit of yelling insults at people who made a traffic mistake.

 On the other hand, the harnessed ox is exemplified by the detective who stopped at a traffic light, next to a car full of Yeshiva students including me on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. He flashed a badge and in a very calm, soft voice told the driver “I have been watching your driving”, he listed all the things the driver did wrong. Then he said: “I am not a cop, I am not going to give you a ticket. You keep driving like this and I will take you into the station”. The driving dramatically improved. 

But we also sacrifice sheep. This represents pleasure-seeking. A gentle sheep that does nothing but eat grass play on the computer and endlessly dribble a basketball.

Here is the odd thing about pleasure. In moderation, pleasure is good. All the sacrifices had to include salt[x] which adds flavour to food[xi]. I am proud of your basketball ability. 

But we must not be driven by seeking pleasure. We must be in control.

The Torah states that yeast or honey was generally not allowed to be part of the sacrifices[xii]. We must not be motivated by the drive for pleasure represented by honey[xiii], but do what is right, because it is right[xiv].

The animal soul we have inside is wild and loves his pleasure. It can be incredibly productive and delightful which is great. Its passion can help us fly high and accomplish things we might never have imagined possible, but this only works if we direct it.

Tuvia, welcome to the dragon riders, young man.

 

---

[i] Kings I 2:2

[ii] Pirkey Avot 3:10

[iii] Pirkey Avot 2:5

[iv] Wolfsberg, Dr. O, Armin Published in Zion, vol 9, no. 3, pp. 13-14. July 1937. Berlin. Translated from German to English by his daughter Rivka (Jenny) Marmorstein.http://www.geni.com/people/R-Dr-Armin-%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-Blau/353035782440006443

[v] Lyrics to the 8^th Day song

[vi] https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/blogs/336309/a-moment-in-time-why-were-you-not-more-like-zusia/

[vii] the main protagonist of the DreamWorks’ animated How to Train Your Dragon

[viii] Pirkey Avot 4:1

[ix] Likutei Torah, Vayikra

[x] Leviticus 2:13

[xi] Baal Shem Tov on the Torah

[xii] Leviticus 2:11

[xiii] Sefer Hachinuch 117, referred to as “self-oriented satisfaction a person feels in his divine service – based on Ohr Hatorah and Yahel Or in The Siddur Illuminated with Chassidus, p. 39, Kehot publications

[xiv] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 1:3