Acceptable Anger

And it was when he approached the camp and he saw the Calf and drums, Moshe was angered. He threw the Tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain. (Sefer Shemot 32:19)

I. The shattering of the Luchot

Parshat Ki Tisa describes the sin of the Egel – the Golden Calf. Moshe ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah and the Luchot – the Tablets of the Decalogue. He did not return at the expected time. The people panicked. They feared Moshe, their leader, had perished on the mountain. They demanded of Aharon that he fashion a figure to replace Moshe. This figure will lead them through the wilderness. Aharon fashioned the Golden Calf. He told them that the next day they will convene a celebration for Hashem. The next day arrived. The people celebrated offering sacrifices. The celebration devolved into meaningless frivolity.

Hashem described to Moshe these events and told him that He will extinguish the nation. Moshe interceded; Hashem would not immediately destroy Bnai Yisrael.

Moshe descended the mountain. He approached the camp and observed the Egel and the celebration. He threw the Luchot to the ground and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.

Why did Moshe shatter the Luchot? Our commentators offer various explanations.

And the Tablets were the work of the L-rd and the script was the script of the L-rd engraved upon the Tablets. (Sefer Shemot 32:16)

II. The Luchot were Hashem’s work

The above passage describes the Luchot as the work of Hashem. He created the Tablets and He engraved upon them the Decalogue. The passage appears immediately before the Moshe approaches the camp of Bnai Yisrael. Ramban – Nachmanides – notes that the passage seems out of place. The Torah previously recorded Hashem giving the Luchot to Moshe.[1] At that point in the narrative, the Torah should have provided its description of the Tablets. It did not. Instead, the description was postponed and first appears in the above passage.

Ramban explains that the Torah provides the description at this point to emphasize Moshe’s decisiveness. Hashem gave him these Luchot that He had created. Yet, Moshe concluded that they should be shattered rather than given to the people. He did not hesitate. He threw the Tablets to the ground, shattering them. This required remarkable decisiveness and courage.[2]

III. Unfit to receive the Luchot

Why did Moshe feel it necessary to shatter the Luchot? The commentators have different responses. Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno explains that Moshe observed the people’s celebration and recognized that they could not be rehabilitated adequately to deserve these Luchot.[3]

There are three important aspects to Sforno’s explanation. First, it answers a question. Hashem told Moshe that the people had committed a horrendous sin, engaged in idolatry, and that they deserved to be annihilated. Yet, Moshe descended the mountain with the Luchot. Apparently, he believed the people could be redeemed and receive the Luchot. What caused him to revise his judgement? Sforno responds that when he observed their celebration Moshe concluded the people could not receive these Luchot.

Second, Sforno maintains that the people’s celebration added a new dimension to their sin. What was this dimension and why did it convince Moshe that the people could not receive the Luchot? Apparently, Moshe hoped to observe ambivalence. He expected that although the people were engaged in idolatry, they would feel some doubt and discomfort with their behavior. Moshe planned to appeal to this voice of reason. He encountered the people rejoicing in their idolatry. They were wholeheartedly given-over to their sin. His observation of this abandonment of reason and good-sense persuaded him that he would not completely rehabilitate the nation.[4]

And Hashem said to Moshe, “Chisel for yourself two stone tablets like the first and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you shattered.” (Sefer Shemot 34:1)

IV. The second Tablets

The third aspect of Sforno’s position becomes evident when another question is considered. Moshe destroyed the Luchot because he believed the people did not and would never deserve them. Yet, Hashem commanded Moshe to create a second set of Luchot and He inscribed them with the Decalogue. Was Moshe mistaken in his assessment of the people? Did they exceed his expectations and completely redeem themselves?

Sforno explains that the second set of Tablets differed significantly from the first. The first was created entirely by Hashem. He fashioned the stone tablets and He recorded upon them the Decalogue. The second set of tablets was chiseled by Moshe. He ascended the mountain with them and there Hashem inscribed upon them the words of the Decalogue. The first Tablets were, in their entirety, the work of Hashem. The second set was created through a partnership between Hashem and Moshe.[5]

This indicates that Moshe was not mistaken in his assessment. Bnai Yisrael did receive a second Luchot. However, these were not the “work of the L-rd”. They were the product of a partnership. The second Luchot were not the equivalent of the first.

V. Moshe’s outrage

Ramban offers a different explanation of Moshe’s decision to shatter the Luchot. He comments that when he observed the behavior of the people he was angered. He could not restrain himself.[6] It seems that according to Ramban, Moshe responded in anger. He shattered the Luchot in response to his outrage.

This is a difficult explanation to accept. Rambam – Maimonides – comments on acting out of anger:

“Anger is a very evil trait. It is fitting that a person should distance oneself from it to the extreme. One should train oneself to not anger even in response to something it is fitting to anger over.” (Rambam, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deyot 2:3)

Rambam continues to explain that our Sages warn us that losing oneself to one’s anger is equivalent to idolatry.

How can Ramban suggest that Moshe shattered the Luchot in rage? Would this not mean that his actions were as reprehensible as those of the people. They engaged in idolatry; he was overtaken by his anger – a sin the Sages equate with idolatry.

VI. Appropriate anger

To answer this question, we must more carefully consider Rambam’s comments. Rambam acknowledged that sometimes anger is appropriate. Yet, it is prohibited to anger. If anger is appropriate in a situation, why is it prohibited? Rambam’s further comments respond to this issue.

“If one wishes to instill fear in one’s children or members of the household, or if a leader [wishes to inspire fear in] the community, and one wishes to anger toward them to motivate their improvement, then one should act before them as if angry to chastise them and remain internally calm.” (Rambam, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deyot 2:3)

There is a difference between demonstrating anger and being in a state of anger. A demonstration of anger is a tool we use in our interactions with others. Sometimes, this tool is appropriate and even necessary. Rambam explains that in such circumstances one may and perhaps, should demonstrate anger.

The state of anger is a state of mind. One is enraged and overcome by anger. The state of anger is prohibited without qualification. When anger is a requisite and appropriate response, one demonstrates anger but remains internally calm.

And I took hold of the two Tablets and I sent them forth from upon my hands. I shattered them before your eyes. (Sefer Devarim 9:17)

VII. Moshe makes a statement

In the above passage, Moshe reviews with the people the episode of the Egel and the shattering of the Luchot. Moshe adds two elements to his description that are not included in the initial narrative in our parasha. First, he says, “I took hold of the two Tablets”. Moshe descended the mountain carrying the Luchot. What does he mean by saying he took hold of the Luchot and then shattered them? He means that he modified his grasp to prepare to throw the Luchot. Why does he mention this seemingly insignificant detail? Let’s consider his second addition to the narrative.

Moshe says, “I shattered them before your eyes”. In other words, he shattered them with the intention that the people observe the event – the destruction of the Luchot. Now, Moshe’s message in noting that he modified his grasp on the Luchot in preparation of destroying them emerges. Moshe is explaining to the people that he acted with intention. His breaking of the Luchot was intended to communicate a message to the people. It was not a spontaneous reactive impulse. It was a carefully considered response to the people’s behavior. Moshe repositioned his hands, altering his grasp, to hurl the Luchot before the people.

Now, Ramban’s position is clarified. He is not suggesting that Moshe became lost in his rage and acted without thinking. Moshe recognized that he needed to shock the people and immediately and drastically alter their mood. He used the Luchot to accomplish this. He demonstrated to them that they no longer deserved the Luchot created by Hashem. He shattered them before the people, communicating to them the severity of their sin and its terrible consequences.

VIII. Justified anger

This discussion of Ramban’s position has obvious implications. First, the distinction between demonstrating anger and experiencing anger is very important and relevant to our lives. We may encounter situations in which a demonstration of anger is appropriate. However, we are not permitted to succumb to our anger and be moved by it. Demonstration of anger is a communication tool. Like any tool, it is only effective when used sensibly. Therefore, especially when we are demonstrating anger, it is essential to maintain our internal calm so that we fashion and execute our demonstration effectively.

Second, our culture treats demonstration of anger as virtually taboo. Moshe did not accept this. He identified a situation requiring a demonstration of anger and he created and executed a very dramatic one.

[1] Sefer Shemot 31:18.

[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:16.

[3] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:19.

[4] See notes of Rav Yehuda Kuperman on Sforno ad loc. 

[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot 34:27.

[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:16.