[Avodah] Regarding Anger: What is R' Moshe's Resolution?

[Meir Rabi]

R' Moshe's explains an inconsistency in the RaMBaM Hilchos DeOs at the
conclusion of the first part of his Teshuvah, O"Ch 1:54.

The following is an approximation of what R Moshe says and I would be
pleased to receive suggested amendments.

He says:

This dichotomy is also found in the RaMBaM. In Hilchos DeOs 1:4 RaMBaM
observes that one should only become angered over significant issues to
effectively prevent re-occurrences of such matters. At the same time in 2:3
RaMBaM prohibits anger in all circumstances as a terrible evil even where it
is justified.

In my humble opinion the RaMBaM is only discussing matters where anger is
justified and appropriate. Nevertheless when the evil is not obvious, one
should first pursue other methods of protest before remonstrating with
anger, 2:3. But when faced with a wrong which is clear and obvious it is
vital that after evaluating that his anger will not on the whole, be
misinterpreted he must display anger otherwise people will misinterpret his
silence and believe that it is not necessary to protest, 1:4.

This is the conclusion of this part of the discussion.

 

Would someone help me understand this? Because this appears to be a
surprising reading of the RaMBaM who at first glance is proposing that in
some circumstances one should NEVER get angry. Could R' Moshe understand
that this means NEVER get angry to correct that evil? But to prevent others
from concluding that this does not require a strong protest one MUST express
anger?

 

 

Here is the first part of the Teshuvah; again, the following is an
approximation of what R Moshe says and I would be pleased to receive
suggested amendments.

.

Rabbenu Gershon MeOr HaGolah explains the Gemara of TaAnis 4; "Any Torah
Sage who is not as tough as iron is not a [true] Sage", in the following
way. A Torah Sage must be unrelenting and not readily appeased. This appears
to contradict the Mishnah of Pikey Avos 5:11; a Chassid is one who is
difficult to anger and easy to appease.

It appears to me that these are two distinct and separate considerations. A
Torah Sage who believes he is correct in matters of Din and Halacha and is
angry with those who do not heed his opinion and then relents from his
anger, will be misunderstood.

Observers will say that in truth he erred in his Halachic ruling and should
not have been angry in the first place at those who disagreed with him.
However he does not have the fortitude to openly admit his Halachic error.
He is being duplicitous, hiding his incompetence behind a mask of false
honour and righteousness.

This will cause two problems: people will think that in this matter the
Halacha is not as he first ruled and additionally, people will not have
confidence in his future rulings and will not consider him a Torah Sage
capable of providing authoritative rulings and guidance.

According to this explanation we can better understand the Gemara's
conclusion ". is not a [true] Torah Sage". After all his wisdom is no less
just because he has relented when he should not have. But the meaning is as
I have said; he will not be perceived as a Torah Sage by those who should be
looking to him for advice and guidance and he will therefore not be able to
wield the influence and provide assistance for those who require it.

On the other hand, the Mishnah of Pikey Avos is describing an error which is
universally recognised as an error by all. In these circumstances a Torah
Sage who is easily mollified will be recognised and lauded for displaying
admirable and honourable character traits.

This is supported by the commentary of Rabbenu Yona who explains this
Mishnah by referring to Pinchas [Numbers 25:6-15]. Rabbenu Yona notes that
anger does have its place and purpose as is illustrated with Pinchas. He was
angry and reacted with violence thus saving the Jews. By avenging the
outrage against G-d he quelled G-d's anger. At the same time he should be
easily calmed even whilst still overwhelmed by his anger.

Rabbenu Yona chooses to illustrate this Mishnah with this episode since in
that case it was apparent to all that his anger was justified and correct.
In such circumstances he can be directed to be quickly and easily calmed
since there will be no suspicion of duplicity. It is evident that his anger
was warranted and his calm is prompted only by his honourable character. 

The continuation of the Gemara, "Nevertheless it is best that one direct
themselves in a calm manner", which is not presented as being in
disagreement with the previous statement, is now understood. The first
response of a Torah Sage should be without anger, even where anger is
appropriate and effective. Nevertheless, since it is a situation in which he
is not permitted to relent, it is not to be used as a first option. However
in circumstances where his anger will be understood by all to be justified
and his later concession not misinterpreted, he should become angry
immediately to display a proper outrage at the violation to G-d's honour.

This dichotomy is also found in the RaMBaM. In Hilchos DeOs 1:4 RaMBaM
observes that one should only become angered over significant issues to
effectively prevent re-occurrences of such matters. At the same time in 2:3
RaMBaM prohibits anger in all circumstances as a terrible evil even where it
is justified.

In my humble opinion the RaMBaM is only discussing matters where anger is
justified and appropriate. Nevertheless when the evil is not obvious, one
should first pursue other methods of protest before remonstrating with
anger, 2:3. But when faced with a wrong which is clear and obvious it is
vital that after evaluating that his anger will not on the whole, be
misinterpreted he must display anger otherwise people will misinterpret his
silence and believe that it is not necessary to protest, 1:4.

 

Meir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071014/bdf7c7e3/attachment-0001.htm>