Anger

 Ki Tissa

Ex. 30:11-34:35

 

Précis: The parasha begins with a census of the people, accomplished by the collection of a half shekel. We then return to a description of Tabernacle items, including the basin, anointing oil, and incense. The holy work of building the Tabernacle is to be interrupted by Shabbat. Then we return to narrative. Moses is given the two tablets and he descends from Mount Sinai. There he sees the people worshipping the Golden Calf. He smashes the tablets and the evil doers are punished. Moses returns up the mountain, and we next have the articulation of the 13 Attributes of God. Moses carves a new set of tablets, and returns to the People, his face radiant.

 

Ex. 32:19: “And it was that when he came close to the camp, and he saw the calf and dancing; and Moses’ anger flared, and he threw the tablets from his hands and shattered them below the mountain.

 

            We read here the familiar story of Moses’ initial return from atop Mount Sinai, his observing the People dancing before the golden calf idol, and his anger displayed by shattering God’s tablets. Rabbi Sacks has written about the meaning and use of anger in this context (Covenant and Conversation, 2/28/18). He notes that while Moses was subsequently criticized (Num. 20:12) for a display of anger in striking a rock for water, with the result that he was barred from entry into the Promised Land, he is not criticized here, when he destroyed God’s own handwork. God merely tells Moses to come back up the mountain and carve a second set.

            Sacks compares the two instances of Moses’ displays of anger. He notes that Maimonides stated: “Anger is an extremely bad attribute, and one should distance oneself from it by going to the other extreme. One should train oneself not to get angry, even about something to which anger might be the appropriate response…” But Maimonides adds an important caveat: one may display anger to convince others who are acting inappropriately and thus reprove them. At the same time, one must not actually feel anger: it is a mere display, undertaken to improve another’s conduct. As Sacks says, again referring to Maimonides, there is a fundamental difference between feeling anger and showing it. When one in authority displays anger, it may be effective in bringing a person or group to order.

Nevertheless, it is a risky tactic, since displays of anger may provoke an angry response. This seems to be the center point of political discourse in America and Israel at the present time, with angry rhetoric and actions begetting angry responses.

Sacks asks us the critical question: is this a moment when anger is called for or not? Noting these two instances of Moses’ anger, he suggests that when people are dancing around an idol, a display of anger is the right response. But when there is no water and the people are crying out in thirst, it is the wrong action.

I confess that I myself feel anger all too often, as is probably the case with most of us. The thought here is that "anger management" is more than a 21^st century process: its roots are found in the reading this week.