Daf Ditty Taanis 4: Rabbinic Rage

1
§ And, incidentally, the Gemara relates that which Rava said: This Torah scholar who grows
angry, it can be presumed that it is his Torah study that angers him. Therefore, he must be given
the benefit of the doubt, as it is stated:

;‫ ְיהָוה‬-‫ ְנֻאם‬,‫כט ֲהלוֹא ֹכה ְדָב ִרי ָכֵּאשׁ‬ 29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like
{‫ }ס‬.‫ ְיֹפֵצץ ָסַלע‬,‫וְּכַפִטּישׁ‬ a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? {S}
Jer 23:29

“Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” And similarly, Rav Ashi said: Any Torah scholar
who is not as hard as iron, but is indecisive and wavers, he is not a Torah scholar, as it is stated
in the same verse: “And as a hammer that breaks rock in pieces”

2
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned the proof for this idea from that verse there; we
learned it from here, as it is written:

‫ָבּהּ‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר ל ֹא ְבִמְסֵכּנֻת תּ ֹאַכל‬,‫ט ֶא ֶרץ‬ 9 a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without
‫ ָבּהּ; ֶא ֶרץ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫ֶתְחַסר ֹכּל‬-‫ל ֹא‬--‫ֶלֶחם‬ scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land
.‫ וֵּמֲה ָר ֶריָה ַתְּחֹצב ְנֹחֶשׁת‬,‫ֲאָבֶניָה ַב ְרֶזל‬ whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou
m:9ayest dig brass.
Deut 8:9

“A land whose stones [avaneha] are iron” Do not read this phrase as “whose stones [avaneha],”
rather, read it as whose builders [boneha], since Torah scholars build the land spiritually and are
as tough as iron. With regard to these statements praising the toughness of a Torah scholar,

Ravina said: And even so, one is required to teach himself to act gently, as it is stated:

3
 ‫ ְוַהֲﬠֵבר ָרָﬠה‬,z‫י ְוָהֵסר ַכַּﬠס ִמִלֶּבּ‬ 10 Therefore remove vexation from thy heart and put
.‫ ָהֶבל‬,‫ַהַיְּלדוּת ְוַהַשֲּׁחרוּת‬-‫ ִכּי‬:z‫שׂ ֶר‬
ָ ‫ִמְבּ‬ away evil from thy flesh; for childhood and youth are
vanity.
Eccl 11:10

“And remove anger from your heart, and put away evil from your flesh”

As a preamble to the statement of Rabbi Berekhya, below, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi
Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Three people entreated God in an
unreasonable manner, i.e., in situations where their requests might have received an unfavorable
answer. To two of them God responded reasonably, with a favorable response to their requests,
and to one God responded unreasonably, i.e., unfavorably, in a manner befitting the
unreasonable request. And they are: Eliezer, servant of Abraham; Saul, son of Kish; and
Jephthah the Gileadite.

The Gemara clarifies each of these cases in turn: With regard to Eliezer, servant of Abraham, he
made a request when he prayed beside the well, as it is written:

‫ ֲאֶשׁר ֹאַמר ֵאֶליָה‬,‫יד ְוָהָיה ַהַנֲּﬠ ָר‬ 14 So let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say:
‫ ְוָאְמ ָרה‬,‫ ְוֶאְשֶׁתּה‬‰‫ָנא ַכֵדּ‬-‫ַהִטּי‬ Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she
‫ֹאָתהּ‬--‫ ַאְשֶׁקה‬z‫ְגַּמֶלּי‬-‫ ְוַגם‬,‫ְשֵׁתה‬ shall say: Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let the
,‫ וָּבהּ ֵאַדע‬,‫ ְל ִיְצָחק‬z‫ ְלַﬠְבְדּ‬,‫ֹהַכְחָתּ‬ same be she that Thou hast appointed for Thy servant, even
.‫ֲאֹד ִני‬-‫ָﬠִשׂיָת ֶחֶסד ִﬠם‬-‫ִכּי‬ for Isaac; and thereby shall I know that Thou hast shown
kindness unto my master.'
Gen 24:14

“That the maiden to whom I shall say: Please let down your pitcher that I may drink; and she
shall say: Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink; that she be the one whom you have
appointed for your servant Isaac” Eliezer entreated God unreasonably, as his request allowed for

4
the possibility that she might even be lame or even blind, and yet he had promised to take her to
Isaac. Nevertheless, God responded to him reasonably and the eminently suitable Rebecca
happened to come to him.

With regard to Saul, son of Kish, he made an offer when Goliath the Philistine challenged the
Jews, as it is written:

‫ ַה ְרִּאיֶתם ָהִאישׁ‬,‫כה ַויּ ֹאֶמר ִאישׁ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ 25 And the men of Israel said: 'Have ye seen this
;‫ ֹעֶלה‬,‫ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬-‫ִכּי ְלָח ֵרף ֶאת‬--‫ָהֹעֶלה ַהֶזּה‬ man that is come up? surely to taunt Israel is he
‫שׁר‬ֶ ‫ ֹע‬‰‫ַיֶכּנּוּ ַיְﬠְשׁ ֶרנּוּ ַהֶמֶּל‬-‫ְוָהָיה ָהִאישׁ ֲאֶשׁר‬ come up; and it shall be, that the man who killeth
,‫ ְוֵאת ֵבּית ָאִביו‬,‫לוֹ‬-‫ִבּתּוֹ ִיֶתּן‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ָגּדוֹל‬ him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and
{‫ }פ‬.‫שׂה ָחְפִשׁי ְבּ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ ֶ ‫ַיֲﬠ‬ will give him his daughter, and make his father's
house free in Israel.'
I Sam 17:25

“And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will
give him his daughter” The man who killed Goliath might even have been a slave or a mamzer,
one born from an incestuous or adulterous union, who would be unfit to marry his daughter.
Nevertheless, God responded to him reasonably and David happened to come to him.

By contrast, there is the case of Jephthah the Gileadite. Upon leaving for battle he issued a
statement, as it is written:

‫ ֲאֶשׁר ֵיֵצא ִמַדְּלֵתי‬,‫לא ְוָהָיה ַהיּוֵֹצא‬
‫ ִמְבֵּני‬,‫ ְבּשׁוִּבי ְבָשׁלוֹם‬,‫ֵביִתי ִלְק ָראִתי‬
,‫ ְוַהֲﬠִליִתיהוּ‬,‫ ַליהָוה‬,‫ ְוָהָיה‬--‫ַﬠמּוֹן‬
{‫ }פ‬.‫ֹעָלה‬
31 then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the
doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace
from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and
I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.'
Jud 11:31

5
 “Then it shall be that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return
in peace…it shall be to the Lord, and I will bring it up for a burnt-offering”

This might even have been an impure, non-kosher animal, which he had committed himself to
sacrifice. In this instance, God responded to him unreasonably, and his daughter happened to
come to him.

Regarding the incident of Jephthah, the Gemara remarks: And this is what the prophet said to
the Jewish people:

‫ֹרֵפא ֵאין‬-‫ ִאם‬,‫כב ַהֳצּ ִרי ֵאין ְבִּגְלָﬠד‬ 22 Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician
-‫ ַבּת‬,‫ ֲאֻרַכת‬,‫ ַמדּוַּﬠ ל ֹא ָﬠְלָתה‬,‫ ִכּי‬:‫ָשׁם‬ there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my
{‫ }ס‬.‫ַﬠִמּי‬ people recovered? {S}
Jer 8:22

“Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of the
daughter of my people not recovered?” This verse alludes to the fact that had he sought a means
to do so, Jephthah could have had his vow annulled.

And it is written, with regard to human sacrifice:

‫ְבֵּניֶהם‬-‫ ִלְשֹׂרף ֶאת‬,‫ָבּמוֹת ַהַבַּﬠל‬-‫ה וָּבנוּ ֶאת‬
‫ִצ ִוּיִתי ְול ֹא‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר ל ֹא‬:‫ֹעלוֹת ַלָבַּﬠל‬--‫ָבֵּאשׁ‬
{‫ }פ‬.‫ִלִבּי‬-‫ ְול ֹא ָﬠְלָתה ַﬠל‬,‫ִדַבּ ְרִתּי‬
mind.
5 and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons
in the fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal; which I
commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My
Jer 19:5

“And they have also built the high places of the Ba’al, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt
offerings to Ba’al, which I did not command, and I did not speak, nor did it come into My heart”

Summary

6
Much of our daf helps us to understand the process by which our Sages decided when to pray for
rain. Ultimately their decision considers the needs of both the Diaspora and Israeli
communities. This leads me to believe that halachic considerations should be flexible in modern
circumstances as well. In this ancient circumstance, a community that will be damaged by
excessive rain does not have to pray for rain at the same time as another community, where rain is
desperately needed. How can we apply this considerate decision-making to today's
dilemmas? Perhaps our prayers can reflect our contexts. Perhaps we can pray for different things
at different times, as our needs are diverse.

At the start of our daf, we learn some of our Sages precious gems of wisdom regarding anger. We
are told that both Rava and Rav Ashi justify anger in Torah scholars. Clearly they are angry
because they should be angry based on their Torah learning! They find proof texts taken from
Jeremiah 23:29. Rabbi Abba uses different proof texts to suggest that Torah scholars are tough,
not harsh. And Ravina stops this conversation with Ecclesiastes 11:10: Even so, one is required
to teach himself to act gently, as it is stated: "And remove anger from your heart, (and put away
evil from your flesh)".

Steinsaltz shares some very helpful notes. He tells us that generally speaking, anger in Torah
scholars is discouraged unless one is 'acting as if' he is angry to draw attention to a point. In fact,
Torah scholars should learn how to push their anger away. Even if they are angered because they
are extra-sensitive to the sins of others, they should be pleasant, never angry.

I am imagining these Torah scholars, frustrated with their memorization, either very hot or very
cold in stuffy, smelly rooms together. They are obliged to have wives and many children, whether
or not they can afford to feed those children. They may be working and also learning. Demands
from the community, demands from their families, demands from their colleagues and the heads
of the Yeshivot. Politics. Antisemitism. General physical discomfort as they age. And they are
not supposed to get angry!? I wonder who learned to do this and how it was done.

As a therapist, I work with people every day who are struggling to feel more 'in control' of their
emotions. I am waiting to learn more about how our Sages actually achieved this degree of control
-- if they did. Did they use similar techniques to those used today? Was meditation part of their
practice of emotion regulation? Hopefully I will learn more over the course of this study.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

RAIN, SEEDS AND TORAH SCHOLARS

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_4.pdf

7
Rava states that snow is as beneficial to mountains as five rains are for the ground. He states further
that heavy rain is favorable for trees and gentle rain is of assistance for produce. Drizzling rain is
beneficial for the seeds underneath a lump of earth. Rava taught that a young Torah scholar can be
compared to a seed underneath a lump of earth. Once a seed breaks through the ground, its growth
is not impeded, so too the young student grows in status once his name is recognized. Rava said
another statement regarding young students. When a young scholar becomes angry, it is the Torah
which boils within him that causes him to become angry. Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who
is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless,
he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to avoid anger.

IMPROPER REQUESTS

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan that there were three people who
asked inappropriately. Two of them were answered generously and one was not. Eliezer, the
servant of Avraham requested that the first girl who offers water to drink for him and his camels
will be the one who he will bring for Yitzchak as a wife. It could have happened that a lame or
blind girl would have responded to his request, and if Eliezer would not notice her defect, he would
bring her back to Yitzchak. He was answered appropriately since Hashem sent Rivkah to be the
one. Shaul made an improper guarantee when he promised wealth and his daughter to whoever
would kill Goliath. The possibility existed that it could have been a slave or mamzer, but Hashem
responded to him properly and sent David. Yiftach made an inappropriate promise before heading
out to wage a war against the Ammonites. He pledged that he would bring as a korban whatever
would come out of his house first. It was considered improper since it could have been a non-
kosher animal. Hashem responded in an improper manner and sent out his daughter. The prophet
complained about Yiftach that he did not go to Pinchasto have his vow annulled.

Rabbi Brachya cites another example where an inappropriate request was answered appropriately.
Klal Yisroel asked of Hashem to resemble the rain. Hashem responded to them that rain is
sometimes undesirable and instead, He will be to them like dew, which is always beneficial.

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING ARE NOT THE SAME

The Mishna stated that we ask for rain close to the rainy season. The Gemora inquires as to whose
opinion is reflected in this ruling. Rava says that it is the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehoshua who
maintains that we begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres. This is considered close to the rainy
season. Abaye suggests that the Mishna can be following the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who holds
that we begin mentioning rain on the first day of Sukkos. The Mishna is referring to the request
for rain, v’sen tal u’matar. Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we do not begin asking for rain until the rainy
season.

RABBI YEHUDA’S OPINION

The Gemora asks a contradiction in the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. In our Mishna, Rabbi Yehudah
stated that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach. A braisa is cited that presents a
dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir regarding the time during the year that we cease
requesting for rain. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over

8
and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited until the end of the month of Nissan. The Gemora attempts
to resolve this contradiction by making a distinction between the mentioning of rain and the request
for rain. This is proven to be illogical. If we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach, we
will certainly not continue asking for rain until the conclusion of Pesach.

The Gemora is compelled to say that there are two Tannaim who have different versions of Rabbi
Yehudah’s opinion. Rabbah answers that when Rabbi Yehudah stated that we ask for rain until
Pesach is over, he meant until the time of the slaughtering of the korban Pesach is over. It emerges
that we would stop requesting rain during the Minchah prayer on the day before Pesach. Rabbah
explains that just like in the beginning (Shmini Atzeres), we mention rain even though we do not
request rain until much later (during the month of Cheshvan), so too at the end, we mention rain
(the first Shacharis during Pesach) even though we stopped requesting rain the day before. Abaye
disagrees with Rabbah’s logic and states that there is a clear distinction between the beginning and
the end. It is correct to mention rain in the beginning even though we are not yet requesting rain
since we are praising Hashem that He provides rain in order that our request later will be listened
to; however there is no reason to mention rain at the end when we are not requesting rain any
longer.

MENTIONING AND REQUESTING

Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the halachah is according to Rabbi Yehudah who maintains that we
begin mentioning rain on Shmini Atzeres. The Gemora questions this statement from a Mishna
that presents a dispute regarding the asking for rain. One Tanna holds that we begin on the third
day of Cheshvan and Rabban Gamliel maintains that we begin on the seventh day of Cheshvan.
Rabbi Elozar said that the halachah is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel. Rav Assi answers that
the first halachic ruling was issued by Rabbi Yochanan and therefore you cannot ask a question on
this from a halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Elozar.

An alternative answer is given that Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is in regard to requesting rain and Rabbi
Yochanan was referring to mentioning rain. The Gemora rejects this answer because Rabbi
Yochanan explicitly rules that the mentioning and requesting for rain must coincide in the
beginning and in the end. The Gemora offers a different answer. Rabbi Elozar’s ruling is relevant
only to the people residing in Bavel and Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling applies to the people living in
Eretz Yisroel. The harvest is gathered much later in Bavel and therefore the request for rain is
postponed until Cheshvan.

The Gemora asks that even in Eretz Yisroel, we should be concerned on behalf of the people
traveling back from their pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdash and we should postpone the request
for rain until they return home. The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yochanan was referring to the
time that the Beis Hamikdash was not in existence and that is why the request for rain commenced
on Shmini Atzeres. The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Elozar was referring to the time that the
Beis Hamikdash was in existence and that is why the request for rain is postponed until the month
of Cheshvan.

9
SHMINI ATZERES

Rav rules that outside of Eretz Yisroel, where they observe two days of Shmini Atzeres, rain should
be mentioned during Mussaf of the eighth day and withhold from mentioning rain again until
Mussaf of the ninth day. Shmuel vehemently objected to this ruling. How can we stop mentioning
rain by Minchah of the eighth day? If the day was already considered holy, how can it now be
regarded as ordinary? Shmuel maintains that we mention rain by Mussaf and by Minchah of
Shmini Atzeres. We withhold from mentioning rain by Maariv and Shacharis of the ninth day and
resume during Mussaf of the ninth day. Rava and Rav Sheishes rule that once we begin mentioning
rain during Mussaf of the eighth day, we continue mentioning rain without stopping. The Gemora
concludes that this is indeed the halachah.

ALL ABOUT ANGER

Rav Ashi states that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true Torah
scholar. Ravina says that nevertheless, he should conduct himself calmly as the Torah teaches us
to avoid anger. The Gevuros Ari asks from a Gemora in Pesachim which states regarding one who
becomes angry; if he is a Torah scholar, his Torah will depart him and yet our Gemora states that
a Torah scholar who is not harsh like iron is not considered a talmid chocham. He answers that if
he becomes angry for the honor of Hashem and if it would have been impossible to accomplish
this without getting angry; it is not only permitted but warranted. An example for this would be to
instill fear into one’s students ensuring that they will not stumble into sin.

The Acharonim ask from the Gemora (20) which states that a person should always strive to be
soft like a reed and not harsh like a cedar tree. It is brought in the name of Reb Yonason Eibshitz
that if a person needs to get angry, he should make sure that the anger is only on the surface but
inside he should remain soft. This is what Ravina meant when he said that one should conduct
himself calmly as the Torah teaches us to remove anger from one’s heart.

The Mishna in Avos (5:10) states that it should be difficult for a person to get angry and easy to
be appeased. Rabbeinu Gershom explains our Gemora to mean that a person should get angry, and
it should be difficult to appease him. This is seemingly not consistent with the Mishna in Avos.

Harav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (O”C 54) answers that here the Gemora is referring to a
talmid chocham that issues a ruling. He is required to exhibit anger in order to ensure that the
listeners will adhere to the halachah. He should not be easily appeased so people will not say that
his ruling was actually a mistake, but he is too embarrassed to admit it. This is what Rav Ashi
meant when he said that a Torah scholar who is not as hard as iron is not considered to be a true
Torah scholar. If he is appeased readily, they will not rely on his rulings in the future.

10
 ASKING FOR RAIN "NEAR THE TIME OF THE RAINS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

The Mishnah (2a) states that "we ask (Sho'alin) for rain only near the time of the rains." The
Gemara initially assumes that "She'eilah," the request for rain, is the same as "Hazkarah" (the
mention of "Morid ha'Geshem" in the beginning of Shemoneh Esreh), and thus the Mishnah is
saying that "Morid ha'Geshem" is recited only near the time of the rains. The Gemara reasons that
this statement of the Mishnah must have been made by Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that the
Hazkarah of rain is recited from the time that the Lulav is placed down (on the seventh day of
Sukos), because that day is near the season in which the fields need rain (which begins right after
the festival).

If the Gemara is looking for a Tana who maintains that the Hazkarah is recited near the time when
rain is needed, why does it quote the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua of the Beraisa (on 2b), who
says that the Hazkarah is said at the time the Lulav is placed down? The Gemara instead should
quote the words of Rebbi Yehoshua mentioned earlier in this Mishnah (2a), who says that we begin
to recite the Hazkarah on Shemini Atzeres. That day clearly is near the time when rain is needed!
Why does the Gemara go out of its way to quote an opinion from a Beraisa?

(a) The GEVURAS ARI explains that Rebbi Yehoshua of the Beraisa argues with Rebbi
Yehoshua of the Mishnah (as mentioned in Insights to Ta'anis 3:1) and maintains that the Hazkarah
of "Morid ha'Geshem" begins on the seventh day and not the eighth day, Shemini Atzeres. When
the Mishnah says that the Hazkarah begins "near the time of the rains," it implies that we are to
begin reciting the Hazkarah for rain before the rains are needed. The rains are needed from
Shemini Atzeres and onwards when people no longer sit in the Sukah. Rebbi Yehoshua of the
Mishnah, however, maintains that the Hazkarah begins on the eighth day (on Shemini Atzeres),
and thus the Mishnah should not say that we mention rain in the Shemoneh Esreh "near the time
of the rains." The Hazkarah begins on the day that rain is needed, and not before ("near") the time
it is needed. Therefore, the Gemara understands that the words of this Mishnah, "near the time of
the rains," allude to a different opinion -- that of Rebbi Yehoshua of the Beraisa, who says that the
Hazkarah begins on the seventh day, when people still sit in the Sukah, and the rain is not yet
needed.

The NETZIV suggests that this may be Rashi's intention here as well. Rashi says that the time of
placing down the Lulav is "the eighth day." Rashi seems to contradict what he writes earlier (2b
and 3a) that the time of Hanachas Lulav is the seventh day. Why does he write here that it is the
eighth day? The answer is that when Rashi says the eighth day, he is not referring to the time of
Hanachas Lulav; rather, he is explaining when the time of the rains arrives. (According to this
explanation, however, the words "d'Hainu Yom Shemini" should be three words later, after the
words "Samuch l'Geshamim," and not before them.)

11
(b) As the words of Rashi appear in our texts, Rashi (when he mentions the eighth day) does not
seem to refer to the time when rain is needed but to the time of Hanachas Lulav. How are the words
of Rashi here to be reconciled with the words of Rashi earlier, where he says that the time of
Hanachas Lulav is the seventh day?

Perhaps Rashi understands that when Rebbi Yehoshua of the Beraisa mentions the time of
Hanachas Lulav, he indeed refers to the seventh day (see proof for this assertion in Insights to
Ta'anis 3:1). The Gemara here, however, uses the phrase "mi'She'as Hanachaso" the way the
Yerushalmi uses it -- to describe the eighth day. The Gemara here is referring to Rebbi Yehoshua
of the Mishnah (as it is discussing a statement from the Mishnah) and not to Rebbi Yehoshua of
the Beraisa. Therefore, Rashi's words here do not contradict what he writes earlier. Rather, Rashi
explains that the Gemara here uses the phrase "mi'She'as Hanachaso" in a different way than usual.
Why does the Gemara use these words to refer to the eighth day, and it does not say simply "the
last day of Yom Tov" (as Rebbi Yehoshua says in the Mishnah)? The answer may be that the
Gemara wants to explain why the eighth day is considered "near the time of the rains," the time
when rain is needed. The Gemara explains that the fact that the Lulav is no longer held indicates
that the Mitzvos of Sukos have passed, including the Mitzvah to live in the Sukah. Since there is
no longer a Mitzvah to live in the Sukah, the time is fit for the rains to fall. (See DIKDUKEI
SOFRIM 3a, footnote 400.)

(c) RABEINU CHANANEL, RABEINU GERSHOM, and the RITVA have an entirely
different understanding of the Gemara. They understand that the inference of the Gemara is not
that the Hazkarah for rain begins near the time that rain is needed, but rather the recitation of both
the She'eilah and the Hazkarah begin on the same day. Since the Mishnah mentions the Halachah
of the Hazkarah near the Halachah of the She'eilah (the petition for rain), it implies that both begin
on the same day.

According to this explanation, the Mishnah cannot follow the opinion expressed earlier in the
Mishnah by Rebbi Yehoshua, or the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer of the Mishnah. According to both
views, the first time the Hazkarah is mentioned is on Yom Tov (either the first day of Yom Tov or
the last day), but She'eilah is not said on Yom Tov at all. Therefore, the Gemara says that the
Mishnah must follow the view of Rebbi Yehoshua of the Beraisa, who says that the first day on
which the Hazkarah is mentioned is the seventh day of Sukos, which is Chol ha'Mo'ed (Hoshanah
Rabah), when the weekday Shemoneh Esreh is recited and thus it is possible to insert the She'eilah
for rain into the Shemoneh Esreh on that day.
(
d) The GILYON HA'SHAS quotes the SEFER HA'MACHRI'A of the RI'AZ who omits the
words "mi'She'as Hanachaso" from the Gemara because of this problem. According to his Girsa,
the Gemara indeed refers to Rebbi Yehoshua of the Mishnah.

"HAZKARAH" AS A "RITZUY" FOR "SHE'EILAH"

The Gemara points out a contradiction in the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. In the first Mishnah (2a),
Rebbi Yehudah says that we stop reciting the Hazkarah for rain at Musaf on the first day of Pesach.
In the next Mishnah (5a), however, Rebbi Yehudah says that we ask for rain "until Pesach passes,"
and since we ask for rain ("She'eilah") through Pesach, certainly we also recite the Hazkarah for

12
rain through Pesach (since the Hazkarah is said even when She'eilah is not said (on the last Yom
Tov of Sukos)).
The Gemara gives several answers to resolve this contradiction. Rabah answers that when Rebbi
Yehudah in the second Mishnah says that we ask for rain until Pesach passes, he means until the
time of Shechitas ha'Pesach (the slaughtering of the Korban Pesach) passes, which is the
day before Pesach. He is saying that Erev Pesach is when we stop asking for rain. The Hazkarah,
however, continues through Shacharis of the first day of Yom Tov, even though the She'eilah
stopped the day before.

Abaye challenges Rabah's answer and says that there is no point in reciting the Hazkarah once the
She'eilah is no longer recited. The purpose of the Hazkarah is to serve as a Ritzuy, a praise of
appeasement to Hash-m before we recite the She'eilah in which we ask Hash-m to send rain. If we
are not going to recite the She'eilah and ask Hash-m to send rain, there is no point in reciting the
Hazkarah.

From a simple reading of the Gemara, it seems that when Rabah suggests that She'eilah stops after
Erev Pesach, he means that She'eilah is said until Ma'ariv of the night following Erev Pesach (that
is, Ma'ariv of the first day of Yom Tov Pesach), while the Hazkarah continues until the following
morning. This indeed is how RABEINU GERSHOM and RABEINU CHANANEL explain the
Gemara.

However, RASHI (DH Ad she'Ya'avor) explains that Rabah means that She'eilah stops
after Shacharis of Erev Pesach. At Minchah of Erev Pesach we no longer recite She'eilah.
Why does Rashi not explain simply that She'eilah continues through Minchah of Erev Pesach and
stops only at Ma'ariv? Why should She'eilah stop at Minchah of Erev Pesach? (GEVURAS ARI)

(a) The GEVURAS ARI explains that Rashi understands that Rabah cannot mean that She'eilah
is recited at Minchah of Erev Pesach, because if that is what he means, then how does Rabah
understand Rebbi Yehudah's statement that She'eilah is said "until Pesach (i.e. Shechitas
ha'Pesach) passes"? According to Rabah, Rebbi Yehudah should have said simply, "Until the first
day of Yom Tov Pesach." Why did Rebbi Yehudah establish the time of the Korban Pesach, and
not the day of Yom Tov itself, as the reference for when to stop reciting She'eilah? It must be that
Rebbi Yehudah meant that we stop reciting She'eilah even before Yom Tov arrives -- at Minchah
of Erev Pesach.

(b) How does the Hazkarah serve as a "Ritzuy" (praise of appeasement) for the She'eilah? There
are two ways to understand it. It could be that the Hazkarah is a preparatory praise which must be
recited before the She'eilah is recited at a later time. Accordingly, it is necessary to recite the
Hazkarah a day before the She'eilah.

Alternatively, it could be that the Hazkarah is a Ritzuy for the She'eilah that will be recited at the
same time -- that is, on the same day as the She'eilah is recited. It serves as a Ritzuy because it is
recited in the Shemoneh Esreh before the She'eilah is recited.

If the correct understanding of Ritzuy is that the Hazkarah is a Ritzuy for the She'eilah of the same
day, then what is the point of saying the Hazkarah on Yom Tov or on Shabbos when no She'eilah

13
is recited? The answer is that if it is a day on which rain is needed, even though no She'eilah is
recited on that day (because it is Yom Tov or Shabbos) we nevertheless recite the Hazkarah as a
Ritzuy for the potential She'eilah of that day.

Proof for the second way of understanding the Ritzuy of Hazkarah can be adduced from Rebbi
Yehudah's statement in the first Mishnah (2a). Rebbi Yehudah states that the Hazkarah is recited
until (and including) Shacharis of the first day of Pesach, even though the She'eilah is recited only
until the previous day (according to Ula's understanding of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah). If the
first explanation is correct and the Ritzuy of Hazkarah is for the She'eilah of the next day, then
what is the point of saying the Hazkarah on the first day of Pesach when there will be no She'eilah
the next day? It must be that the Hazkarah is a Ritzuy for the She'eilah of the same day, and for
a potential She'eilah, such as when no actual She'eilah is recited because of Yom Tov or Shabbos.
The Gemara here also provides support for the second explanation.

If the Hazkarah is a Ritzuy because it is a preparation for the She'eilah of the next day, then the
Gemara's Kal v'Chomer does not make sense. It is logical that the recitation of the Hazkarah should
start the day before She'eilah starts and end the day before She'eilah ends, because on the last day
of She'eilah there is no need for a Ritzuy for the next day, and the She'eilah of today has Ritzuy
from the Hazkarah that was recited yesterday. According to the second explanation of Ritzuy,
however, the Gemara makes sense. The Gemara's Kal v'Chomer is that since the Hazkarah is a
Ritzuy for the potential to say She'eilah on Yom Tov, if the Hazkarah is recited on Yom Tov
(Sukos) even though the She'eilah does not actually begin until after Yom Tov, then certainly the
Ritzuy should be recited on a day on which She'eilah is recited.

If this is correct (that a Ritzuy may be said for the potential to say She'eilah), then what is the
Gemara's question on Rabah when it asks that there is no point in saying a Ritzuy of Hazkarah
when there is no She'eilah on the first day of Yom Tov? This is not a question, because the first
day of Yom Tov is a day that potentially has She'eilah since it is a day on which rain is still needed.
The only reason why the She'eilah is not said is because the day is Yom Tov and personal requests
(such as a request for rain) are not made on Yom Tov. It is logical that the Hazkarah be recited
because, in theory, it is still a time of She'eilah. What, then, is the Gemara's question on Rabah?

From the fact that the Gemara says that there is no need for Ritzuy on Yom Tov, it must be that
Rabah maintains that Yom Tov is not a time of potential She'eilah, since the recitation of She'eilah
already ended before Yom Tov. For that reason, Rashi says that the recitation of She'eilah ends at
Minchah before Yom Tov. By the time the Hazkarah is recited, it is no longer a time fit for
She'eilah.

According to the explanation of RABEINU GERSHOM and RABEINU CHANANEL, why is

Ula's answer for Rebbi Yehudah better than Rabah's answer? According to Ula as well, Ritzuy is
still being recited on a day when no She'eilah is recited (or will be recited)! Rabeinu Gershom
explains that although the Gemara concludes like Ula (that the two Mishnayos argue about the
opinion of Rebbi Yehudah), the first Mishnah (2a) maintains that She'eilah is recited on the first
day of Chol ha'Mo'ed Pesach, and that is why Ritzuy is said on the first day of Pesach -- it is for
the She'eilah of the following day.

14
When the Gemara proves that whenever She'eilah is recited Hazkarah is also recited from the fact
that the recitation of Hazkarah begins even when She'eilah is not yet recited, it does not mean that
Hazkarah must be recited on every day on which She'eilah is recited, including the last day of
She'eilah. Rather, it means that Hazkarah is recited until the day before the last day of She'eilah.
On the last day of She'eilah, however, there is no Kal v'Chomer to recite Hazkarah because no
Ritzuy is necessary on the last day (since there will be no She'eilah on the following day).

"HAZKARAH" IS RECITED WHENEVER "SHE'EILAH" IS RECITED

Rebbi Yochanan says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah, who says that the Hazkarah for
rain begins in Musaf on the last day of Yom Tov (Shemini Atzeres). The Gemara asks why Rebbi
Yochanan rules like Rebbi Yehudah, when Rebbi Elazar rules like Raban Gamliel who says that
the She'eilah for rain begins on the seventh of Marcheshvan (and not in Musaf of Shemini Atzeres).
The Gemara first answers that the two rulings were stated by two different Amora'im. No question
can be asked on a ruling of Rebbi Yochanan from a ruling of Rebbi Elazar.

In its second answer, the Gemara says that Rebbi Elazar's ruling does not contradict Rebbi
Yochanan's because Rebbi Elazar's ruling refers to She'eilah, while Rebbi Yochanan's ruling refers
to Hazkarah. The Gemara rejects this answer and asks that Rebbi Yochanan elsewhere states that
whenever She'eilah is recited, Hazkarah is also recited, and thus Rebbi Yochanan's ruling also
refers to She'eilah.

The simple understanding of the Gemara's question, as RABEINU GERSHOM and RABEINU
CHANANEL explain it, is that it is not logical that Rebbi Yochanan rules like both Raban Gamliel
with regard to She'eilah (Raban Gamliel maintains that the recitation of She'eilah begins on the
seventh of Marcheshvan) and like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Hazkarah (Rebbi Yehudah
maintains that the recitation of Hazkarah begins on the last day of Yom Tov, two weeks before the
seventh of Marcheshvan). Rebbi Yochanan himself maintains that Hazkarah and She'eilah are
always recited together! Therefore, the Gemara rejects the possibility that Rebbi Yochanan agrees
with Rebbi Elazar (and that he refers only to Hazkarah, while Rebbi Elazar refers to She'eilah).

RASHI, however, explains the Gemara differently. According to Rashi, the Gemara asks how
Rebbi Yochanan can rule that the recitation of Hazkarah begins at Musaf on the last day of Yom
Tov if She'eilah cannot be recited on Yom Tov (since the weekday Shemoneh Esreh is not said).
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand for several reasons.

First, why does Rashi not explain simply that the Gemara challenges the previous answer (that
Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rebbi Elazar)? According to Rashi's explanation, the Gemara's
question is unrelated to the previous answer or to Rebbi Elazar's ruling. The Gemara ignores Rebbi
Elazar altogether and poses a contradiction between two rulings of Rebbi Yochanan. Why does
Rashi not give the simple explanation?

Second, the Gemara answers its question on Rebbi Yochanan by saying that "b'Hafsakah Itmar":
when Rebbi Yochanan says that Hazkarah and She'eilah must be recited together, he refers to when
their recitation stops (on Erev Pesach). According to Rashi, the Gemara means that the recitation
of Hazkarah ends in the last Shemoneh Esreh of Erev Pesach (the Shemoneh Esreh of Minchah)

15
so that it is no longer recited at Ma'ariv on the first night of Yom Tov (because there is no She'eilah
on Yom Tov).

According to the Gemara's answer, even though Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Yehudah, he
rules like Rebbi Yehudah only with regard to when the recitation of Hazkarah begins, but not when
it ends, because Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the recitation of Hazkarah ends a day earlier (at
Minchah on Erev Pesach) than the day on which Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it ends (at
Shacharis on the first day of Pesach). This is an original opinion which no Tana expresses. What
forces Rashi to create a new opinion? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER; see also RASHASH.)

According to the simple explanation (that of Rabeinu Chananel), the first day of Pesach is
considered a day on which She'eilah is said (at least in potential), and thus it fulfills Rebbi
Yochanan's requirement that Hazkarah must be recited only when She'eilah is recited. (She'eilah
potentially can be recited on the first day of Pesach because the day itself comes at a time during
the year when a request for rain is still appropriate. It is only the fact that it is Yom Tov and no
weekday Shemoneh Esreh is recited which prevents She'eilah from being recited in practice.) The
Gemara's question is that Rebbi Yochanan rules that Hazkarah is recited on the last day of Yom
Tov (Sukos), but he also rules that the recitation of She'eilah begins only on the seventh of
Marcheshvan.

Rashi does not explain the Gemara like Rabeinu Chananel because he is bothered by the Gemara's
question. Why does the Gemara consider it problematic if Rebbi Yochanan rules one way and
Rebbi Elazar rules another way? There is no reason why the two Amora'im should have to agree.
The Gemara's first response to this question is clear: no question may be asked on Rebbi
Yochanan's ruling from a ruling of Rebbi Elazar.

The second answer of the Gemara is also a true statement: Rebbi Elazar discusses only She'eilah
and not Hazkarah. However, the Gemara's next question does not seem to make sense. The Gemara
asks why Rebbi Yochanan says that Hazkarah must be recited on the same day as She’eilah if he
rules like Rebbi Elazar that the recitation of She'eilah begins only on the seventh of Marcheshvan
(two weeks after the recitation of Hazkarah began).

What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just a few lines earlier states that no contradiction can
be asked on Rebbi Yochanan's ruling from a statement of Rebbi Elazar! Why is the Gemara now
concerned that the two opinions agree?

For this reason, Rashi explains that the Gemara is not asking a question on Rebbi Yochanan from
Rebbi Elazar's statement, but rather from Rebbi Yochanan's own statement. The Gemara is asking
why Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Yehudah, if Rebbi Yochanan himself maintains that
Hazkarah and She'eilah must always be recited together? According to Rebbi Yehudah, the
recitation of Hazkarah begins a day before She'eilah.

Rabeinu Chananel, on the other hand, maintains that it is not unreasonable to ask a question on a
statement of Rebbi Yochanan from a statement of Rebbi Elazar. Rebbi Elazar was a close disciple
of Rebbi Yochanan, and thus his rulings should be the same as his teacher's (see Yevamos 96b,
Shekalim 11a). Rashi does not follow this approach because the Gemara here makes no mention

16
that Rebbi Elazar was a disciple of Rebbi Yochanan and that he should have ruled like his teacher.
(See MITZPEH EISAN and MAR'EH KOHEN.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

Anger is usually perceived as a negative trait. Nevertheless, the Gemara on our daf appears to
suggest that anger has a positive side to it, as well.

• Rava teaches that when a Torah scholar becomes angry, he is expressing the anger of the
Torah itself. This statement is based on a passage in Yirmiyahu (23:29), which teaches that
the word of God is like a burning fire.
• Rav Ashi interprets the continuation of that passage – which teaches that God’s word is
like a hammer that smashes stone – to mean that a Torah scholar should be strong as iron,
i.e. that he should not be conciliatory in any way.
• Rabbi Abba argues that this teaching can be understood from a passage
in Sefer Devarim (8:9), which can be read to mean “the land whose builders
(reading bonehah instead of avanehah) are iron.” This refers to Torah scholars spiritually
building the land, and they must be tough as iron in their teaching and behavior.

In response to these statements, Ravina quotes a pasuk from Kohelet (11:10) that extols removing
anger from one’s heart, and he derives from it that everyone should work to behave in a pleasant
way.

The question of how we can understand the Sages’ perspective of anger as an ideal is discussed by
many of the commentators on our page. The Me’iri explains that a person who has dedicated his
life to Torah study has raised himself to a spiritual plane where he has a heightened sensitivity to
evil or inappropriate behavior. The anger that he expresses in response to such behavior should
not be interpreted as a negative personal trait, but as the reaction of a particularly sensitive soul to
the wrongdoings of the world.

Even under those circumstances, argues Ravina, the scholar should learn to express his position in
a positive way. Rabbi Yehonatan Eibeshutz explains that when one allows himself to become
angry, it affects his very soul of the person, even when he is presenting a legitimate argument,
Thus it is for his own benefit to be careful not to do so.

Three improper requests

Mark Kerzner writes:3

2 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit410/
3 https://mkerzner.blogspot.com/2014/06/taanit-4-three-improper-requests.html

17
Since we spoke about rain and seeds, Rava said a related thing: “Young Sages are like a seed
under a cloud of earth: he hides and grows, but when he is out, his power only increases.” He
also said, “When a Sage gets angry, it is the Torah that is burning in him, since God says, 'Is
not My word like fire?'” In addition, the true Sage must be hard as iron. The Talmud gives two
proofs for that. And yet, a person must train himself to always remain calm and “remove anger
from his heart.”

Three have asked God incorrectly, but in two cases that got a proper reply. The first one was
Eliezer, who prayed, “The girl that comes out first will be Isaac's wife.” This could include
someone with a bodily defect or unfit – but he was answered by Rebecca coming to the well. The
second one was Saul, who promised to “make rich and marry his daughter” to a person who will
fight Goliath. This could have been a slave or a mamzer, with whom marriage would be forbidden.
But he was answered with David stepping up to the task.

The last was Yiftach (Jephthah), who said that if he wins against the enemies, he will sacrifice the
first thing that comes out of his house. One might think it includes even a pig or other non-kosher
animal, which cannot be sacrificed. Instead his daughter came out to greet him. Some say, she took
a vow of celibate life, and others – that he actually sacrificed her. This was uncalled for, since his
vow actually was not even valid, and he should have asked the Sage Pinchas to annul it.

The Beis HaLevi explains that Eliezer was looking for a woman who would display the traits of
generosity, wisdom, and sensitivity to others.4 This would be the proper wife for Yitzchak. His
“test”, if passed, would display these middos. Since Eliezer did not have a cup that he owned, he
planned to ask the girl if she would “tip over her jug” for him to drink. He wanted to see whether
or not she would let him drink and render the remaining contents undesirable for others to drink.
This would show her kindness and generosity. The girl still had more tests to pass. Next, Eliezer
wanted to see what the girl would do with the leftover water. Would she pour it out, possibly

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20004.pdf

18
hurting his feelings, because it would appear that she thinks he is filthy, or would she take it home
to her family, thus indicating a lack of wisdom, for what if the water was contaminated by him, or
would she do the smart and sensitive thing and pour out the rest of the water for the camels?
Nevertheless, even if she passed these tests, it would not necessarily prove that she was the correct
wife for Yitzchak. Therefore, Eliezer prayed to G-d that if the girl did these things, it should be a
sign from heaven that this is the right girl. Rivka passed all the tests and even went above and
beyond what Eliezer had hoped to see. She showed an even greater sensitivity to the servant's
feelings. She did not say, as Eliezer had prayed for, “Drink, and I will also give your camels to
drink,” implying that she would pour out the remaining water for the camels. Rather, she responded
(Bereshis 24:18-19), “Drink...and I will also draw water for your camels.” Rivka felt it might
possibly offend Eliezer if she made it so obvious that she did not want to use the leftover water for
human drinking but rather for the camels, so she offered to draw extra water. We learn an important
lesson from Rivka.

When someone is performing a kindness for another person, it is not enough simply to perform
the act of kindness, but rather the greatness of the chesed is measured by the true sensitivity shown
to the recipient. The amazing thing is that often we feel that we have done someone a favor, when
actually it may be a “test” for the giver. Rivka passed the “test” and became one of the mothers of
the Jewish people. We can also pass the “test” and earn a great reward.

The Maharsham of Barzan, zt”l, was once asked a very delicate question. A certain young man
had been dating a young lady for a long time. They had already written a ‫ ת אים‬contract and set
the day for the wedding, when suddenly the young man decided to back out of the engagement.
He claimed that he did not want to marry the girl because she was lame in one foot. When asked
why he had gotten engaged to her and written tenaim, he responded that he hadn’t known about
her infirmity before because the girl had been seated during all of their meetings.

The girl’s side claimed that he must have noticed her impairment long before the actual
engagement because they had been seen strolling around a number of times by many witnesses.
Her family claimed that it was obvious that the young man had originally been willing to marry
her as she was, and that he had subsequently changed his mind. They felt that the contract was
therefore binding, and that he either had to pay the penalty outlined in it, or marry her as agreed.

The Maharsham said, “We see from Taanis 4a that the young man’s claim is justified with
regard to her limping. The Gemara recounts that three people asked for things
inappropriately: one of them was Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, when he said that he
would choose the very first girl to bring him water. What if it had turned out to be someone
lame or blind? Tosafos then remarks that perhaps because Eliezer had only said was that he
would choose the girl whom he tells to bear her vessel and give him water, he would be able
to rule out a girl with an obvious infirmity ahead of time. Tosafos dismisses this possibility
by saying that it is even possible for a girl with a wooden leg to walk with her vessel without
it being immediately noticeable. So we see from here that even a wooden leg is not necessarily

19
noticeable right away. This chossan might very well have gone out for a stroll with the girl
in question and failed to notice her impediment!”

Sara Ronis writes:5

Vows — promises made in God’s name — are taken very seriously in Jewish tradition. Indeed, the
third commandment, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, was probably originally meant as an
injunction not to break vows made invoking the God of Israel.

But sometimes our vows are poorly considered — which can create serious problems. The
Gemara today discusses a number of people who made unreasonable vows, and offers the
paradigmatic case of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Jephthah’s story is found in the biblical Book of Judges where he is found leading the Israelites
into battle against the Ammonites. On his way, Jephthah makes a dangerous vow: “Then whatever
comes out of the doors of my house to meet me shall surely be the Lord’s when I return in peace
... and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” (Judges 11:31)

You can guess what happens next: When he returns victorious from battle, Jephthah’s beloved
daughter, his only child, runs out to greet him. A man of his word, Jephthah: “did with her
according to his vow which he had vowed.” (Judges 11:39) In a tragic tale that would be perfectly
at home on Shakespeare’s stage, Jephthah actually sacrifices his daughter to God.

No one can read this story and not be horrified — the Gemara included. However, the first critique
offered by the rabbis is not necessarily the one we might expect. Initially, the rabbis are less
concerned with Jephthah’s murder of his only child than they are with his lack of specificity in
formulating the original vow because, after all, “it might even have been an impure animal” that
emerged from the door, and that would have been unfit to be sacrificed to God!

Of course, the rabbis are just getting warmed up, because the biggest problem is not that Jephthah
made this vow in a sloppy way, but that he followed through and actually worshipped God through
human sacrifice. (God, as we know from elsewhere in the Bible, abhors human sacrifice — and
also murder.) The Gemara next offers two biblical verses from Jeremiah which show just how
wrong this was:

And this is what the prophet said to the Jewish people: “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there
no physician there? Why then has the health of the daughter of my people not
recovered?” (Jeremiah 8:22).

The rabbis read the verse from Jeremiah to suggest that one’s daughter can be saved using
remedies. The medieval commentator Rashi explains: Jephthah could have annulled his vow
formally in front of the high priest and thereby saved his daughter.

Here is the second verse:

5
Myjewishlearning.com

20
“And they have also built the high places of the Ba’al, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt
offerings to Ba’al, which I did not command, and I did not speak, nor did it come into My
heart.” (Jeremiah 19:5)

Here, Jeremiah is calling out the Israelites for practicing human sacrifice as their neighbors did,
even though God had never asked for it and did not want it. This too puts Jephthah’s actions in a
terrible light. Even if he thought God wanted him to follow through with his vow, he should have
known that God despises human sacrifice.

In this second verse from Jeremiah, God uses three different verbs to reject human sacrifice. The
Gemara reads each verb as referring to a different instance of human sacrifice in the Bible:

“Which I did not command” — this is referring to the son of Mesha, king of Moab…

“And I did not speak” — this is referring to Jephthah.

“Nor did it come into my heart” — this is referring to Isaac, son of Abraham.

Jephthah, it is clear, erred in more than one way. Not only did he formulate his vow in a terrible
way, but he also did not annul it when he saw where that formulation led. Even though God chooses
to give Jephthah the military victory, the judge is a poster child for bad vowing all the way around.
Today’s daf criticizes people who make unreasonable vows, and notes that God sometimes
chooses to answer them unreasonably. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
And even if your daughter does come out to greet you, remember that vows can always be
annulled!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:

Last night I delivered a talk about recent attempts to ‘cancel’ – or at least, partially ‘cancel’ – a
well-known Religious Zionist Rosh Yeshiva, Communal Leader, Rabbi and author of a highly
popular series on halacha, by other Rabbis in that same ideological camp who seemingly feel that
their colleague has adopted halachic stances and hashkafic positions that they feel to be so
problematic and threatening that they must do what they can with the influence that they have to
limit his success. And what does this have to do with today’s daf (Ta’anit 4a)? Because I believe
that two contrasting teachings in today’s daf speak volumes about this current debate.

To begin with, Rav Ashi teaches that ‫‘ – כל תלמיד חכם שאינו קשה כברזל אינו תלמיד חכם‬Any Torah
scholar who is not as hard as an iron is not a Torah scholar’, as it says, ‫– וְּכַפִטּישׁ ְיֹפֵצץ ָסַלע‬
‘]Behold, My word is like fire, declares the Lord,] and like a hammer that will shatter a rock’
(Yirmiya 23:29).

Significantly, while the teaching of Rav Ashi suggests that a leader needs to be firm in their beliefs
and expectations, the verse he cites to support this teaching describes how something hard can
shatter something seemingly indestructible. What this suggests is that a Torah scholar needs to be

21
sufficiently firm in their beliefs that they can challenge and attack those beliefs and those threats
which they believe to be dangerous.

However, upon hearing this, Rabbi Abba then responds to Rav Ashi saying ‘you derive this
teaching from that verse, but we desire it from the following verse’, and he then quotes Devarim
8:9 which states: ‫‘ – ֶאֶרץ ֲאֶשׁר ֲאָבֶניָה ַב ְרֶזל‬For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land….
A land where the rocks are iron’. Then, noting the similarity between the word ‫‘ – ֲאָבֶניָה‬its rocks’
and ‫‘ – בּוֶֹניָה‬its builders’, Rabbi Abba deduces that a Torah scholar is like iron which is used to
build.

Undoubtedly, Rav Ashi’s derivation requires less artistic license in its interpretation of the biblical
verse which he cites than that of Rabbi Abba’s. Given this, why does Rabbi Abba challenge Rav
Ashi, and why does he feel that an alternative verse must be offered to ‫‘ – וְּכַפִטּישׁ ְיֹפֵצץ ָסַלע‬and like
a hammer that will shatter a rock’?

I believe that the answer to this relates to how religious leaders choose to use the influence that
they have. Some primarily use it as a hammer to shatter, while others use it as a tool to build. And
this now brings me back to this recent controversy, because while - as I explained in my talk - we
have a rich tradition of disagreement, and while any rabbinic leader and any halachic work is
certainly deserving of scrutiny, those who spend their time and energy building always outlast
those who spend their time and energy shattering.

Understood this way, I believe this is why Rabbi Abba responded to Rav Ashi by providing a
different biblical source for this idea – to teach that while every religious leader must be firm in
their beliefs and – where necessary – use this strength to shatter the seemingly indestructible, the
ultimate role of a religious leader is to be a builder of hope, a builder of people, and a builder
towards the future of the Jewish people.

22
 An Iron Fist
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:6

One of the most popular images in our tradition is that of a tree. Its many component parts reflect
the diversity of our community. Some, like the roots of the tree, are strongly connected to our way
of life and are impervious to any winds that may be blowing above. Others, like the leaves, are
hanging on for dear life; and others, like the branches of the tree, fall somewhere in between. A
tree offers fruit, shade, beauty, and is good for the environment. Not only is Torah compared to a
tree—something we emphasize every time we put the Torah back in the aron—humans themselves
are compared to the tree. "For man is the tree of the field" (Devarim 20:19).
"Rava said: A young scholar may be likened to the seeds under a hard clod; once he has sprouted,
he soon shoots forth" (Ta'anit 4a). Just like the dour barren tree can, with the blink of an eye, sprout
forth in all its beauty, a budding scholar will burst onto the scene when the time is right, sprouting
forth Torah to benefit all.
The young are full of enthusiasm and bountiful energy and tend to see the world in black and
white, with few shades of grey. It is this sense that anything is possible that gives them the
confidence to try and translate their energy into action. And such plans, while great in theory, may
not always be the best policy in practice.
"Rava further said: If a young scholar gets into a rage, it is the Torah that inflames him, as it is
said, 'Is not my word like a fire, said the Lord?'". As Rashi explains, the study of Torah "expands
one's heart". An expanded heart is a wonderful thing—a good heart being the best quality a person
can have (Avot 2:9)--yet one who has an "expanded heart" takes everything to heart. And the toll
can be heavy.
These people cannot tolerate injustice, corruption, or even plain spiritual laziness. Their idealism
may lead to angry outbursts as they seek to implement the ideals of Torah. Thus, Rashi advises,
we should judge these young scholars favorably. Their heart is in the right place, even if their
actions lack a certain sense of maturity.
While Rava urges us to excuse a young Torah scholar whose heart wins over his head, no such
excuse is granted a more experienced scholar. He (or in today's world, she) is expected to ensure
that all are exposed to a Torah "whose ways are the ways of pleasantness and all its paths are
peace" (Mishlei 3:17). They are to be metunim badin, deliberate in judgment, in a calm and
collected matter.
It is not easy to balance the fire of Torah that burns within with the need to be conciliatory. The
Talmud continues, "and Rav Ashi said: A Torah scholar who is not as tough as iron is no Torah
scholar". Torah is the expression of truth, and one who seeks truth cannot compromise. Like iron,
they must be strong and confident. Yet, despite its strength as a material, iron is malleable, allowing

6 https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/taanit-4-an-iron-fist

23
it to be formed in many ways. A Torah scholar must be opened to re-analyzing and revising his
views. It is flexibility where needed that makes one stronger.
Whether a Torah scholar should err on the side of unflinching and uncompromising truth, or
flexibility and openness seem to be a dispute relating to the source of this teaching. Rav Ashi, who
is the author of the teaching, derives such from the verse, "like hammer that breaks the
rock" (Yirmiyahu 23:29). Rav Aba immediately says to him, "You learn it from there? We learn
it from here: 'a land, asher avaneha, whose stones are iron' (Devarim 8:9). Do not read avaneha,
stones; rather, boneha, its builders, i.e., Torah scholars". While Rav Ashi sees the Torah scholar
as the one who can destroy obstacles[1], Rav Aba prefers to focus on the role of Torah scholars as
those who build society.
The discussion of the character of a Torah scholar ends with Ravina's comment, "Nonetheless, a
person must conduct himself pleasantly". A Talmid Chacham is, first and foremost, a "person" and
he must conduct himself as such. Torah must make us more human, not less so.
[1] In ancient times, it was iron that was the primary material for making weapons. And while we may, at times, need to use
weapons, those who must are often unable to build a society. Not every general makes a great politician. King David, the great
warrior, may have laid the groundwork for the Temple, but he could not build it.

The Anger of Scholars

Rav Yitzchak Blau writes:7

7 https://etzion.org.il/en/talmud/studies-gemara/midrash-and-aggada/anger-scholars

24
 The first few statements seem to justify anger, whereas the final statement recommends
against it. What constitutes the justification and why does Ravina nonetheless prefer calm? Most
commentators read this gemara in an interpersonal context, in which the scholar reacts to the
actions of others and thinks about how to positively influence them. Meiri says that a scholar
becomes enraged upon seeing the ugly deeds of mankind. Perhaps the sage is more aware of what
constitutes wrongdoing, or he powerfully identifies with Torah values, therefore becoming more
upset when people ignore those values. Thus, Rava views the scholar’s anger as a result of Torah
knowledge.

According to Meiri, Ravina may appreciate Rava’s justification for a sage’s anger; yet
Ravina also understands the pragmatic fallacy of this approach. Rage and fury generate all kinds
of negative fallout. Most parishioners or students do not enjoy hearing angry words, and they will
instantly turn themselves off to a message delivered with fury. Furthermore, they will soon stop
admiring a teacher who always loses his temper. Successful teaching demands minimizing angry
outbursts. Moreover, anger often rebounds on the angry person. Anger leads us to say the wrong
remark or to embark on a foolish course of action that ultimately proves self-destructive. Since so
much problematic behavior stems from anger, it behooves the sage to minimize his angry
responses.

In R. Arye Gunzberg s Gevurat Ari, he also assumes that the Gemara addresses a teacher
or rabbi pragmatically assessing the best way to impact others. A contradiction bothers him. R.
Ashi favors anger, but Pesachim 66b instructs us that the sage who becomes angry loses his
wisdom. Moshe became angry and did not know a halakha; Elisha became angry and temporarily
lost his prophetic ability. R. Ginzberg answers that anger is a last resort, which is avoided
whenever possible. Anger can lead in many problematic directions, but it also can accomplish
educational goals. R. Ashi favors anger only when no alternative remains. If a teacher can affect
students with calm persuasion and inspiration, that is the best approach. Even when the softer
approach fails, we should not risk rage if we predict that it too will not be effective. In other words,
we only justify anger when it is the single effective way to positively influence another’s behavior.

Both commentaries we have seen interpret this passage in terms of a scholar’s interaction
with others. After noting how the transgressions of others can inspire anger, the Gemara then
discusses the best way to impact the broader environment. Ravina counsels against anger, whereas
R. Ashi allows it as a last resort.

25
 R. Kook (Midot ha-Ra’ayah, Ka’as) offers a very different approach to this Talmudic
passage. He interprets the Gemara as focusing on the internal dynamic of the scholar, rather than
on the sage in a social context. Individuals with great aspirations often become frustrated when
they encounter the world’s limitations. Their souls yearn for awesome heights, but harsh reality
curtails their flight. Such frustration can be caused by the actions of others, but it also is an
inherent part of any significant personal quest. Those who would like to achieve great things in
scholarship, piety, or ethics will undoubtedly face days which make their dreams appear
unattainable. For R. Kook, the scholar’s anger stems from a frustrated quest, not from witnessing
the shortcomings of others.

This approach invariably changes our understanding of Ravina as well. Ravina does not
speak of effective preaching, but of personal character development. A more mature sage comes
to appreciate all the trials and tribulations along the way, seeing how they, too, contribute towards
the yearned for goals. Someone who comes to appreciate the need for difficulties and the
painstakingly slow process of authentic achievement finds it easier to remain calm in the face of
difficulty. Ravina instructs the frustrated scholar to internalize this more sophisticated
understanding.

The passage from R. Kook mentions limitation as a source of frustration. R. Kook may
refer to limitations of ability or the confines of social context, but he may also refer to the
limitations of Halakha. A soul rich with desire to cling to God might find halakhic details
unnecessarily confining and not conducive to spiritual ecstasy. Why are there so many rules for
prayer, instead of just letting the soul free to commune with its Maker? According to this
interpretation, Ravina calls for an understanding that details, limitations, and rules are not evil; in
fact, they frequently aid our most important quests. While some spiritual seekers fail to understand
this point, great men of the spirit do.

Ravina’s chosen verse supports R. Kook’s interpretation. Had Ravina wanted to emphasize
impacting others, he should have cited, The words of the wise are heard
softly (Kohelet 9:17). Instead, Ravina selected a supporting verse from a different chapter
of Kohelet, a verse that does not clearly allude to a social context. And remove anger from your
heart and put away evil from your flesh.

Personal frustration as a cause of anger appears in another Kookian passage in a much

broader framework. So far, we have discussed anger emerging from great aspirations and spiritual
yearning. In Orot Ha-kodesh (3:p. 244), R. Kook writes of people or groups who function in a
constant state of anger. He explains that this anger reflects a lack of insight and an inner
emptiness. In truth, the consistently angry are furious with themselves, but “the ego comes and
forces it (the group) to place the venom of anger on others.” Indeed, when we encounter those in
a constant state of rage, we realize how the anger has little to do with the victims of their wrath.
Such a realization may help us remain calm when we become the victims of such anger.

Even those of us who do not exhibit constant fury could benefit from R. Kook’s
insight. When we become angry with our children or spouses, how often does the anger truly stem
from a bad day at work or some other personal frustration? Let us not take out our difficulties on

26
those undeserving of our wrath. Furthermore, the first passage from R. Kook provides a remedy,
albeit a difficult one to internalize, for our situation. If we truly realized that difficulties,
limitations, and mistakes are both part of life and crucial elements in personal development, we
would find it easier to not allow every complication to upset us.

According to every interpretation, the Gemara speaks about the fiery impetuousness of
youth. Rava discusses a tzurba me-rabbanan, a phrase indicating a young scholar. Indeed, the
young frequently exhibit a hotheaded quality when confronted by backsliding humanity or by a
world of limitations. It takes the maturity of adulthood to realize that anger will not positively
influence others or lead to personal achievement. Ravina instructs the ripe scholar to train himself
to avoid anger.

The Ways of Pleasantness

Rabbi Marc D. Angel writes:8
Our Daf (Taanit 4a) cites the opinion of Rav Ashi that any rabbinic scholar who is not hard as iron
is no rabbinic scholar! A Talmid Hakham must hold strong convictions and must not bend under
pressure. Yet, a few lines later, the Talmud reports the opinion of Ravina: “even so, a person must
teach himself the quality of gentleness.” Yes, commitment to principles is very important; but so
is maintaining a compassionate and loving attitude.

The ideal religious personality strives to harmonize both of these qualities. One must be
courageous in upholding Torah and mitzvoth, must be hard as iron to resist improper compromises.
At the same time, one needs to maintain a gentle, non-confrontational attitude; one must not be
overly rigid and inflexible.

In our tradition, Moses is often depicted as being hard as iron. He was unflinching in his
commitments and strict in his judgments. By contrast, Aaron is described as being one who “loves
peace and seeks peace”—a man of gentleness. There was a distance between Moses and the
public; he was austere, not easily approachable; but people felt comfortable in the presence of
Aaron. While they respected Moses, they loved Aaron.

This week’s Torah portion reports the death of Aaron: “And when all the congregation saw that
Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel (Bemidbar 20:29).”
When the Torah recounts the death of Moses, it states: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses
in the plains of Moab for thirty days (Devarim 34:8).” Rabbinic commentators have noted a
significant difference between these two accounts.

When Aaron died, “all the house of Israel” mourned. “All” the people—men, women, and
children—suffered a loss; they all wept the passing of a friend, a gentle and kind leader. But when
Moses died, the Torah does not say that “all” mourned for him; rather there is a general expression

8 https://www.jewishideas.org/ways-pleasantness-thoughts-parashat-hukkat-june-30-2012

27
of grief among the children of Israel, but not everyone felt the loss with the same degree of intensity
and sadness. The public mourned Moses out of respect; they mourned Aaron out of love.

In our times, it is vital that we be strongly dedicated to our principles and values. It is essential that
we maintain the courage to stand up against those who would undermine Torah and mitzvoth. Yet,
it is also vital—more than ever—that we teach ourselves to act with gentleness and kindness. Too
often, religion is presented to the public with an angry, ugly, and iron face; it is perceived as a
mechanical, overly strict, and authoritarian way of life.
We need to be sure that religion is lived and presented to the public in a spirit of love, gentleness,
and kindness. “Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”
At a time when so many Jews are alienated from Torah, it is imperative that we put more emphasis
on the view of Ravina—that we learn to conduct ourselves with pleasantness and gentleness. We
need to draw more on the approach of Aaron who loved peace and pursued peace.
Insisting on unnecessary stringencies is not a sign of piety but of folly. It drives people away from
Torah. It not only discourages people from adopting a Torah way of life; it also alienates people
who grew up within the Orthodox fold.
An Orthodox rabbi recently issued an email to his community, in which he offered permissive
views on several halakhic issues. He provided his reasoning, along with halakhic sources that
supported his views. He was quickly and harshly condemned by “right wing” rabbis who insisted
on the more stringent views. One rabbi went so far as to declare that anyone who follows the
opinions of the “lenient” rabbi will be condemned to severe punishments in the next world!
Apparently, this rabbi believes he has the keys to the next world, and that he is empowered to
speak on behalf of the Almighty!
Such arrogance in the name of Torah is reprehensible. “Lenient” views that are halakhically
valid—are halakhically valid! It is appropriate for such views to be circulated. Being “strict” does
not mean being “more religious”; it often means that a person has not studied the halakha well
enough, or that he/she prefers stringencies even when lenience is justified and correct. If one has
legitimate objections to a halakhic position, one should state them clearly and calmly, providing
the relevant sources to support his/her position. Calling names, making threats, and condemning
others is not the way of Torah, but authoritarianism gone amok.
The ways of the Torah are the ways of pleasantness. That is a fundamental principle no one should
forget.

How to Deal with Anger

The Rebbe’s Advice

Mendy Kaminker writes:9

Rabbi Eliezer says: “. . . Do not be easy to anger.” (Avot 2:10)

9
https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/2349458/jewish/How-to-Deal-with-Anger.htm

28
Anger is one of the traits most condemned in Jewish literature. “Someone who gets angry,” we are
told, “is like one who worships idols.” 1 Anger can cause a sage to lose his wisdom, or a person
who is destined for greatness to forfeit it.2

It’s not hard to see why. When we get angry, we tend to act irrationally. Things said or done in
anger are almost always destructive and cause for later regret.

Everyone gets angry occasionally, but some people are more prone to anger than others. They may
have a “short fuse” and blow up over small things, or they may be chronically irritable. However
it is manifested, anger that is not dealt with in a healthy way is dangerous for the angry person and
for those close to him or her.

Dealing with anger is a lifelong challenge, but the results are unquestionably worth it. A person
who learns to control, or at least reduce, his anger will be surprised by how greatly his life and
relationships improve—at home and at work.

In the letters of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous
memory, there are several pieces of advice about dealing with anger. The Rebbe’s guidance ranges
from simple, practical suggestions to more advanced meditations that address the root causes of
our anger. Below is a loose adaptation of some of these, to study and hopefully put into practice.

A Simple Recommendation: Wait!

The Rebbe writes:

The anger may dissipate when the heat of the moment has passed.

29
Someone Is Watching
Another bit of advice, found in Tanya, is to remember Who is watching us when we get angry.

In 5717 (1957), the Rebbe wrote to a young student:

In chapter 41, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi explains that we must constantly remember that the
Creator of the world is watching at every moment: “Behold, G-d stands over him, and the whole
world is full of His glory, and He looks upon him and examines his conscience and heart [to see]
if he is serving Him as is fitting.”

Somehow, it’s easier to hang onto our self-control when we know that someone is watching. And
the truth is, Someone is always watching. This idea is useful for dealing with most negative traits
and behaviors. For more on this, and to study Chapter 41 in depth, visit our Tanya site.

Remember the Consequences

Here’s a practical piece of advice that is fairly easy to follow: If we realize that our anger has
consequences, we will think and behave differently.

The Rebbe writes to a young woman:

30
Remember Who’s in Charge
Finally, there is one idea that, when understood and employed properly, can uproot anger at its
source.

As we saw above, the Rebbe often advised people who struggled with this issue to study Epistle
25 of Iggeret Hakodesh, found in the last section of Tanya.6 There the Alter Rebbe explains why
anger is compared to idolatry. Granted, anger is a negative trait, but how can it be compared to
idol worship?

The Alter Rebbe puts it like this:

Getting angry means you don’t have faith that what’s happening to you is really coming from G-d.
The person you’re angry at is just a messenger. Now, obviously, he or she still had free choice,
and will be held accountable. But getting angry is not the answer. Rather than asking, “Why is this
person hurting me?” ask a bigger question: “What is G-d trying to tell me in this moment?”

31
 •

Anger Management

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes:10

There are some, say the Talmud, who acquire their world in an hour and others who lose it in an
hour. No example of the latter is more arresting and bewildering than the famous episode in this
week’s parsha. The people have asked for water. God tells Moses to take a staff and speak to the
rock and water will appear. This then follows:

10
https://rabbisacks.org/anger-management-chukkat-5775/

32
“Is this the Torah and this its reward?” we are tempted to say. What was Moses’ sin that it merited
such punishment? In previous years I have expressed my view that Moses did not sin, nor was he
punished. It was simply that each generation needs its own leaders. Moses was the right, indeed
the only, leader capable of taking the Israelites out of Egypt. It needed another kind of leader and
a different style of leadership, to take the next generation into the Promised Land.

This year, though, looking at the ethics of the Bible, it seems more appropriate to look at a different
explanation, the one given by Maimonides in Shemoneh Perakim, the “Eight Chapters” that form
the preface to his commentary to the Mishnah, tractate Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers.

In the course of these chapters Maimonides sets out a surprisingly contemporary account of
Judaism as a training in “emotional intelligence.”[1] Healthy emotions are essential to a good and
happy life, but temperament is not something we choose. Some people just happen to be more
patient or calm or generous-spirited or optimistic than others. Emotions were at one stage called
the “passions,” a word that comes from the same root as “passive,” implying that they are feelings
that happen to us rather reactions we chose to have. Despite this, Maimonides believed that with
sufficient training, we could overcome our destructive emotions and reconfigure our affective life.

In general, Maimonides, like Aristotle, believed that emotional intelligence consists in striking a
balance between excess and deficiency, too much and too little. Too much fear makes me a coward,
too little makes me rash and foolhardy, taking unnecessary risks. The middle way is courage. There
are, however, two exceptions, says Maimonides: pride and anger. Even a little pride (some sages
suggested “an eighth of an eighth”) is too much. Likewise even a little anger is wrong.

That, says Maimonides, is why Moses was punished: because he lost his temper with the people
when he said, “Listen, you rebel.” To be sure, there were other occasions on which he lost his
temper – or at least looked as if he had. His reaction to the sin of the Golden Calf, which included
smashing the tablets, was hardly eirenic or relaxed. But that case was different. The Israelites had
committed a sin. God himself was threatening to destroy the people. Moses had to act decisively
and with sufficient force to restore order to a people wildly out of control.

Here, though, the people had not sinned. They were thirsty. They needed water. God was not angry
with them. Moses’ intemperate reaction was therefore wrong, says Maimonides. To be sure, anger
is something to which we are all prone. But Moses was a leader, and a leader must be a role model.
That is why Moses was punished so heavily for a failure that might have been more lightly
punished in someone less exalted.

33
In addition, says Maimonides, by losing his temper Moses failed to respect the people and might
have demoralized them. Knowing that Moses was God’s emissary, the people might have
concluded that if Moses was angry with them, so too was God. Yet they had done no more than
ask for water. Giving the people the impression that God was angry with them was a failure to
sanctify God’s name. Thus one moment’s anger was sufficient to deprive Moses of the reward
surely most precious to him, of seeing the culmination of his work by leading the people across
the Jordan into the Promised Land.

The sages were outspoken in their critique of anger. They would thoroughly have approved of the
modern concept of anger management. They did not like anger at all and reserved some of their
sharpest language to describe it.

“The life of those who can’t control their anger is not a life,” they said (Pesahim 113b). Resh
Lakish said, “When a person becomes angry, if he is a sage his wisdom departs from him; if he is
a prophet his prophecy departs from him” (Pesahim 66b). Maimonides said that when someone
becomes angry it is as if he has become an idolater (Hilkhot Deot 2: 3).

What is dangerous about anger is that it causes us to lose control. It activates the most primitive
part of the human brain that bypasses the neural circuitry we use when we reflect and choose on
rational grounds. While in its grip we lose the ability to step back and judge the possible
consequences of our actions. The result is that in a moment of irascibility we can do or say things
we may regret for the rest of our lives.

For that reason, rules Maimonides (Hilkhot Deot 2: 3), there is no “middle way” when it comes to
anger. Instead we must avoid it under any circumstance. We must go to the opposite extreme. Even
when anger is justified, we must avoid it. There may be times when it is necessary to look as if we
are angry. That is what Moses did when he saw the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf and
broke the tablets of stone. Yet even then, says Maimonides, inwardly you should be calm.

The Orchot Tzadikim (15th century) notes that anger destroys personal relationships. Short-
tempered people scare others, who therefore avoid coming close to them. Anger drives out the
positive emotions – forgiveness, compassion, empathy, and sensitivity. The result is that irascible
people end up lonely, shunned, and disappointed. Bad tempered people achieve nothing but their
bad temper (Kiddushin 40b). They lose all else.

The classic role model of patience in the face of provocation was Hillel. The Talmud (Shabbat
31a) says that two people once made a wager with each other, saying, “He who makes Hillel angry
shall receive four hundred zuz.” One said, “I will go and provoke him.” It was Erev Shabbat, and
Hillel was washing his hair. The man stood by the door of his house and called, “Is Hillel here, is
Hillel here?” Hillel robed himself and came out, saying, “My son, what do you seek?” “I have a
question to ask,” he said. “Ask, my son,” replied Hillel. He said, “Why are the heads of the
Babylonians round?” “My son, you ask a good question,’ said Hillel. “The reason is that they have
no skilled midwives.”

The man left, paused, then returned, crying out, “Is Hillel here? Is Hillel here?” Again, Hillel robed
and came out, saying, “My son, what do you seek?” “I have another question.” “Ask, my son.”
“’Why are the eyes of the Palmyreans bleared?” Hillel replied, “My son, you ask a good question.
The reason is that they live in sandy places.”

34
He left, waited, then came back a third time, calling, “Is Hillel here? Is Hillel here?” Again, Hillel
robed and came out, saying, “My son, what do you seek?” “I have another question.” “Ask, my
son.” “Why are the feet of Africans wide?” “My son, you ask a good question. The reason is that
they live in watery marshes.”

“I have many questions to ask,” said the man, “but I am worried that you might become angry.”
Hillel then robed himself and sat and said, “Ask all the questions you have to ask.” “Are you the
Hillel who is called the nasi [leader, prince] of Israel?” “Yes,” said Hillel. “In that case, said the
man, may there not be many like you in Israel.” “Why so, my son?” he asked. “Because I have just
lost four hundred zuz because of you!” “Be careful of your moods,” said Hillel. “You may lose
four hundred zuz and yet another four hundred zuz through Hillel, yet Hillel will not lose his
temper.”

It was this quality of patience under provocation that was one of the factors, according to the
Talmud (Eruvin 13b), that led the sages to rule according to the school of Hillel rather than that of
Shammai.

The best way of defeating anger is to pause, stop, reflect, refrain, count to ten, and breathe deeply.
If necessary, leave the room, go for a walk, meditate, or vent your toxic feelings alone. It is said
that about one of the Rebbes of Lubavitch that whenever he felt angry, he would take down the
Shulchan Arukh to see whether anger was permitted under the circumstances. By the time he had
finished studying, his anger had disappeared.

The verdict of Judaism is simple: Either we defeat anger or anger will defeat us.
[1] The term was introduced by Peter Salovey and John Mayer, subsequently popularized by Daniel Goleman.

What is Anger For?

R U T H A B U S C H - M A G D E R W R I T E S : 11

11
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/2015/08/24/what-is-anger-for/

35
 There are three (types) of people the Holy One loves: One who does not get angry. One who
does not get drunk. One who does not stand on ceremony.

Pesachim 113b

As a jeans and a ponytail kind of gal myself, I relate to not standing on ceremony. And in a religion
that does stresses moderation in all aspects of life, the censure of drinking to excess with its
unpredictable results makes sense. But I wonder about anger.

Anger is a tricky thing. In children anger is often all-consuming; the frustration at being denied an
ice cream leading to a full-blown meltdown in the supermarket. And while most of us learn to
moderate the outbursts as we age, anger and its potential never disappear from our lives.

The destructive potential of anger is familiar to all of us. Extremes like road rage to domestic abuse
and even the subtler outbursts of anger can cause great damage. The great Sephardic rabbi Moses
Maimonides (Rambam) believed in the power of the intellect over all, suggested that we banish
anger to such a degree from our lives that even when chastise others we only feign anger and
operate only from a place of love. As any parent or manager knows, the best of our
parenting/managing comes not from anger but from providing guidance to move forward, even
when we are providing feedback on problematic behavior or performance.

But within Judaism, there is also an important place, even an honored place, for the evil inclination-
the source of bad and difficult behavior — including anger. There is an ancient story in which the
rabbis captured and imprisoned the yetzer harah, the evil inclination with the hope of making the
world a better place. After three days they noticed that the hens stopped laying eggs. They
understood that without the evil inclination the rooster had stopped coming to the hens and the
eggs had stopped coming. Faulty though the scientific reasoning of this story might be (hens
apparently can lay eggs without roosters) the point holds. To paraphrase another rabbinic piece of
wisdom, without the evil inclination, no person would build a house, take a partner, or have
children. In other words the impulse to ‘do evil’ is somewhat of a misnomer, as the yetzer harah if
channeled correctly can be a force for a great deal of good.

As we prepare for the High Holidays this year, I have been thinking about anger. Not only do we
pray for forgiveness for transgressions of the yetzer harah and many others such as violence or
insolence to parents and teachers are similarly connected to anger. Should we attempt, as the
Rambam suggested, to try and banish it entirely from our lives or can we find ways to channel it
productively?

The shadow of the Holocaust looms large in my family. And anger, towards God and the
perpetrators, was an important theme in my childhood home and experience. I grew to understand
the anger on many levels. God had not saved my family, or millions of others who were historically
observant and God-fearing. For some faith disappeared, for others there was a deep sense of
betrayal. Moreover, faith in God had provided some a false sense of comfort and hope that replaced
action as for some in my family leaving might have been an option. Remaining angry at God, a
connection with the divine was maintained even as the pain and sense of betrayal endured. Being
angry at God meant looking for salvation elsewhere; building a strong Israel for example. Similarly
being angry at the perpetrators strengthened a commitment to Zionism. I – and all of the Jewish

36
people – are the beneficiaries of this anger, anger that was channeled into productive and
constructive action.

I have no question that God’s love can and does abide the anger that we humans experience
towards the source of life. I worry not at all what that anger does to God.

And yet, in my own life, I came to recognize that anger as destructive as well. It kept me from
feeling the presence of God in my life. Anger stood in the way of my being able to build a
constructive relationship with God. It was only in letting go of my anger, through difficult
theological work and consideration, that I was able to find a connection with the divine that
fulfilled my spiritual needs.

Some, though not all anger, is as monumental as the anger that emerged from the Holocaust. Most
anger exists on a smaller scale. Sometimes anger is justified and other times not. But in all its
forms, anger is an expression of our evil inclination and as such it has great destructive potential.
Still it also has the potential for good. Anger can drive us to push for change, to protect ourselves
and our communities. The challenge, as with any other expression of the yetzer harah is to figure
out how to channel the impulse of anger.

Our tradition offers no formula for navigating our anger, but these are some of the question I ask
myself:

• Is my anger hurting me?

• Is my anger hurting others?
• Is my anger justified or is it really misplaced, the result of not dealing with other real issues
or concerns?
• Is my anger protecting me or others from real (not imaginary) harm?
• Is my anger being expressed in reasonable and productive ways?

And if we return to the wisdom with which this piece opened, it is easy to read a place for righteous
anger or productive anger. For while the Talmud in this case tells us not to get drunk, there are
occasion, such as Purim when drinking to excess is not just allowed but encouraged. At the proper
time and place and with the proper intention, we too can find ways to make anger work to make it
a better New Year.

37
 Anger Rage, Aggression12
Anger is one of the basic human emotions, as elemental as happiness, sadness, anxiety, or disgust.
These emotions are tied to basic survival and were honed over the course of human history.

Anger is related to the “fight, flight, or freeze” response of the sympathetic nervous system; it
prepares humans to fight. But fighting doesn't necessarily mean throwing punches. It might
motivate communities to combat injustice by changing laws or enforcing new norms.

Of course, anger too easily or frequently mobilized can undermine relationships or damage
physical health in the long term. Prolonged release of the stress hormones that accompany anger
can destroy neurons in areas of the brain associated with judgment and short-term memory, and
weaken the immune system.

For those who struggle with chronic anger, or for those who only experience occasional outbursts,
learning skills to identify and navigate this powerful emotion can lead to growth and change.

The Experience of Anger

Everyone knows the feeling. It's that rage that rises when a driver is cut off on the highway or an
employee is demeaned by his boss. People have trouble managing anger and other negative

12 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/anger

38
emotions. However, unleashing anger doesn’t produce the sense of catharsis people crave—it
tends to feed on itself instead. The best path forward may be to understand anger—its roots, its
triggers, its consequences—and cultivate the ability to manage it.

What causes anger?

The question of why some shrug off annoyances while others explode in rage is a fascinating one.
One model of anger, put forth by psychologist Jerry Deffenbacher, posits that anger results from a
combination of the trigger event, the qualities of the individual, and the individual's appraisal of
the situation.
The trigger is the event that provokes anger, such as being cut off in traffic or yelled at by a parent.
The qualities of the individual include personality traits, such as narcissism, competitiveness, and
low tolerance for frustration, and the pre-anger state, like levels of anxiety or exhaustion. Perhaps
most importantly is cognitive appraisal—appraising a situation as blameworthy, unjustified,
punishable, etc. The combination of these components determines if, and why, people get mad.
Which personality traits are linked to anger?

Research suggests that the tendency to become angry is associated with high neuroticism and low
agreeableness. Outside of the Big Five personality traits, a few habits and attitudes may be linked
to anger. These include:
• Entitlement (believing that one’s rights and privileges are superior to those of other people)
• Focusing on things out of personal control (such as a partner’s behavior)
• External regulation of emotions (trying to regulate emotions by controlling one’s environment)
• External locus of control (believing well-being is controlled by sources outside of oneself)
• Refusal to see other perspectives (viewing different perspectives as threats)
• Low tolerance for discomfort
• Low tolerance for ambiguity
• Hyperfocus on blame
• A fragile ego

Are there different types of anger?

Do men and women experience anger differently?

Why does anger sometimes feel good?

Why do people have revenge fantasies?

Why do people hold grudges?

What are the consequences of continual anger?

How to Manage Anger

Anger, like all emotions, should be monitored with self-awareness. This can prevent it from
spiraling into hostile, aggressive, or violent behavior toward others or oneself.

39
Support groups for anger management can help people understand anger, identify its triggers, and
develop skills to manage their emotions. In groups or individual settings, cognitive restructuring
can coach patients to reframe unhealthy, inflammatory thoughts.
Outside of therapy, techniques from deep breathing and emotion labelling to adopting a problem-
solving mindset can help people learn to navigate anger on their own.

How can I manage my anger?

If you are often carried away by anger, it can be helpful to understand the patterns that trigger you.
It's possible to intervene at different points along the way to deal with anger effectively.
1. Sleep: Sleep deprivation makes it harder to control angry impulses, so regular, healthy sleep can
prevent you from being provoked.
2. Consider alternative interpretations: And ask yourself what evidence you have to support your
angering interpretation. Consider different perspectives.
3. Take deep breaths: Take long, slow, deep breaths, using the diaphragm rather than the chest.
4. Avoid the “catharsis myth”: Venting anger, acting with aggression, and viewing aggressive
content does not tend to release anger effectively.
5. Know that it’s ok to get mad: If you have been wronged, treated unfairly, or provoked, you
should get angry, but express it assertively instead of aggressively.

How can I manage anger that’s warranted?

In cases of warranted anger, such as a coworker who never contributes to collaborative projects,
you may want to use a different set of anger management tips. In those situations:
1. Distance yourself from the angering situation. This will help you stop ruminating and develop
a clear path forward.
2. Dedicate time to thinking about how to solve the root problem so it doesn’t occur again.
3. Express your anger assertively, with a solutions-oriented approach, rather than aggressively.

How can I reframe situations to stop getting mad?

How can I handle angry people?

What do people learn in anger management?

How do therapists treat patients with severe anger problems?

Mental Health Conditions And Anger

Everyone experiences anger at some point. It becomes problematic, however, when the frequency
or severity of anger interferes with relationships, work performance, legal standing, or mental
health.
While there is no official “anger disorder,” dysfunctional anger and aggression can be a symptom
of Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder, and
Borderline Personality Disorder. It may also play a role in manic episodes, ADHD, and narcissism.

40
Anger doesn't require a formal diagnosis to be disruptive, or to benefit from help with its
management.

Intermittent Explosive Disorder

Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) is an impulse control disorder characterized by repeated

angry outbursts, representing a failure to control aggressive impulses. These outbursts can involve
verbal or physical aggression and result in property damage or physical injury. These reactions are
also severely out of proportion to the event that sparked the episode.
Of the various disorders related to anger, perhaps IED most accurately describes the escalating
explosions of violence we are witnessing today such as mass shootings. It may emerge from a
failure to recognize and consciously address anger as it arises, before it becomes pathological and
dangerous, perhaps starting in childhood.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is a disruptive behavior disorder that involves a pattern of
angry and irritable moods and defiant or vindictive behaviors. People with oppositional defiant
disorder may lose their temper, lash out impulsively, become resentful, argue with authority
figures, refuse to comply with requests, and deliberately annoy and blame others.

Two parts of the brain implicated in this reactive aggression include an overactive amygdala and
an underactive prefrontal cortex—the region that helps regulate impulses and inhibit
aggression. Medication and therapy—particularly a newer approach called Collaborative and
Proactive Solutions—can reduce defiance and anger and teach healthy coping skills.

Conduct Disorder

Conduct Disorder (CD) is a disruptive behavior disorder involving a pattern of violating norms,
rules, and the basic rights of others. Individuals with conduct disorder may bully, threaten, or
physically hurt others. They may be cruel to animals, lie, steal, or destroy property.
While Oppositional Defiant Disorder involves reactive, explosive aggression, Conduct Disorder
tends to yield proactive, calculated antisocial acts. Some people with the disorder will go on to be
diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a condition characterized by instability and impulsivity,

including bursts of anger or violence. Terrified of abandonment, people with BPD cling to those
close to them, crave reassurance and validation, and are deeply upset by seemingly small changes.
This turbulence can involve angry outbursts, severe mood swings, hopelessness, paranoia, self-
harm, and suicidality.

41
The overblown rage so common in borderline may stem from problems of trust, such as learning
not to trust parents or caregivers due to unreliability, neglect, and criticism. Anger may function
as a defense against fears of possible abandonment and rejection.

Depression

Depression is characterized by consistently low mood and feelings of sadness, emptiness, or

hopelessness. Enjoyment and pleasure are diminished while irregularities in sleep
and appetite emerge, among other challenges.

Both research and clinical observation have identified a connection between depression and
anger. Anger is often a reaction to and distraction from inner suffering—feelings such as sadness,
powerlessness, shame, anxiety, inadequacy, and isolation. Anger can be both an outgrowth of, and
meaningful distraction, from the intense pain of underlying depression. Similarly, many people
who seek help for depression come to recognize how anger directed inward, such as intense self-
criticism, blame, and dissatisfaction, contributes to their depression.

Rage vs Anger13

Anger is an emotional state of aggression and hostility towards someone or something. Most
people tend to think that also describes rage so they must be the same thing. It is but it’s also not
quite so straight forward.

Rage is best described as a fit of violent anger and fury. It is the most extreme expression of
anger. Anger can actually be good and lead to positive outcomes either by acting as a motivator to

13
https://cae.edu.sg/rage-vs-anger/

42
perform and succeed or acting as a means to overcome some personal difficulties. Rage is
excessive anger that is often violent.

Rage can be physically violent.

§ It can drive someone to physically attack another person.
§ It can make a person throw objects or destroy property.
§ It can often drive people to hurt other people emotionally.

Rage can be verbally and emotionally violent.

§ It can drive someone to verbally abuse their friends, family, colleagues, or strangers.

Though rarer, rage can also be expressed inwards; and instead of external destruction, people who
internalise their rage destroy themselves. It can lead to hate and self-harm. Eventually though, this
too will bubble up and be expressed externally in some way. It is never healthy to keep emotions
bottled up; particularly one as extreme as anger and rage.

Rage is extreme and scary when experienced from others; but we are all quite capable of it. For
many people, they have likely experienced this and felt completely out of control afterwards. Some
have described it as “seeing red” where conscious decision making goes out the window, and
actions are no longer in your own control. So it is scary even when we experience rage ourselves.

What exactly triggers rage is so specific to the individual there’s no way to list down anything
specific. Each person has a trigger that can lead to anger and rage; and it is entirely up to them to
try to figure themselves out. Maybe you’ve experienced excessive anger and rage. Did you
understand why, and did you know how to deal with it?

43
 Considering anger from a cognitive neuroscience perspective

R. J. R. Blair writes:14

Introduction
Anger is often considered to be a response to a perceived threat to oneself or to another. It is also
a response to frustration; frustration has long been recognized as a trigger for anger and eventual
aggression [1].

14 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260787/

44
The goal of this paper is to provide a view of anger that is consistent with contemporary cognitive
neuroscience. However, it is not possible to provide a full account of anger since, as an experienced
emotion, it would be necessary to have an account of conscious experience, something that is a
long way from being achieved. Because of this, an alternative approach will be adopted in this
paper. An important correlate of anger, reactive aggression, will be analyzed as a way of
considering anger.

Reactive aggression and the basics of anger

Reactive aggression is triggered by a frustrating or threatening event and involves unplanned,
enraged attacks on the object perceived to be the source of the threat/ frustration. The aggression
is often accompanied by anger and can be considered “hot”. It is initiated without regard for any
potential goal.
Reactive aggression appears to be exhibited by all mammalian species [2, 3]. It is part of the
mammalian gradated response to threat. Low levels of danger from distant threats induce freezing.
Higher levels of danger from closer threats induce attempts to escape the immediate environment.
Higher levels of danger still, when the threat is very close and escape is impossible, initiate reactive
aggression [2].
Animal work indicates that this progressive response to threat is mediated by a basic threat system
that runs from medial amygdaloidal areas downward, largely via the stria terminalis to the medial
hypothalamus, and from there to the dorsal half of the periaqueductal gray; [3, 4]. This system is
organized in a hierarchical manner such that aggression evoked by stimulation of the amygdala is
dependent on the functional integrity of the medial hypothalamus and the periaqueductal gray but
aggression evoked by stimulation of the periaqueductal gray is not dependent on the functional
integrity of the amygdala [3, 4]. This neural system, amygdala-hypothalamus-periaqueductal gray
is thought to mediate reactive aggression in humans also [3–5]. Certainly, imminent as opposed to
distal threat is associated with significantly greater periaqueductal gray activity [6]. This paper
will consider whether this neural circuitry might be considered the basis of anger.
The neural systems involved in mediating the basic response to threat, amygdala-hypothalamus-
periaqueductal gray, are regulated by several regions of frontal cortex; orbital, medial and
ventrolateral frontal cortex [5]. Indeed, a gradated response within medial frontal cortex occurs,
increasing proportionally with the individual’s retaliative reactive aggression [7].
Following the argument above, whether these regulatory systems may also be involved in
mediating human anger will be considered. There certainly already is evidence implicating some
of them in the anger response following human imaging work [see below; 8, 9].
In this paper, a cognitive neuroscience of anger will be developed from three main premises:
1. If anger is a response to perceived threat is increased threat, acutely and chronically,
associated with increased anger? If it is, what are the neural consequences of acute and/or
chronic threat?
2. There are frontal systems that are important for the regulation of the basic response to
threat; i.e., orbital, medial and ventrolateral frontal cortex [5]. Behavioral expressions of
anger can be accompanied by a sense of loss of control. Do dysfunctions within those

45
 neural systems important for regulating the basic threat response increase the risk for
expressed anger?
3. Frustration occurs when an individual continues to do an action in the expectation of a
reward but does not actually receive that reward. The individual may expect the reward
because he/she does not know that the reinforcement contingencies have changed; the
action can no longer elicit reward. Does it therefore follow that the more able that the
individual is to change their behavior in response to this contingency change, the less
frustrated they should feel and the less anger they should experience. One way to index the
ability to change behaviors following contingency change is through reversal learning
paradigms. Is impaired response reversal associated with increased anger?
It is to be hoped that by working through these premises, it will be possible to develop the
beginning of a cognitive neuroscience of anger. One way to do this is through work with patient
populations; both neurological and psychiatric. There are a variety of neurological and psychiatric
conditions that are at increased risk for anger, rage, and reactive aggression. These include
posttraumatic stress disorder [10], borderline personality disorder [11], psychopathy [12], and
“acquired sociopathy” following damage to orbital frontal cortex [13, 14]. This approach will be
adopted below.

Threat and anger

Is anger a response to perceived threat? Certainly, reactive aggression is a consequence of
perceived threat; when a threat is very close, and escape is impossible, reactive aggression will be
displayed [2]. It appears that the same can be said about anger. Individuals placed within
threatening environments exhibit higher levels of anger and irritability [15]. As mentioned above,
the amygdala-hypothalamus-periqueductal gray is thought to mediate the basic response to threat
[3, 4]. If this circuit is implicated in anger, we should see perturbations in these systems following
exposure to threat that might be causally related to anger.
One way of addressing the neural consequences of acute and/ or chronic threat is to consider the
neural systems implicated in the psychiatric disorder associated with the response to experienced
threat; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Considerable data from work with patients with
post-traumatic stress disorder indicates that this disorder is associated with elevated amygdala
responsiveness [16, 17] though, it should be noted that there has been, as yet, little investigation
into whether the hypothalamus and periaqueductal gray are also hyper-responsive in patients with
PTSD. There are data indicating an increased risk for reactive aggression in patients with post-
traumatic stress disorder [10]. Moreover, anger and rage are prevalent emotions in individuals
experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder [18, 19], so prevalent that they are considered part of
the clinical description of the disorder. In short, in line with the position developed above,
perceived threat alters the responsiveness of the basic threat circuitry (amygdala-hypothalamus-
periaqueductal gray), and this alteration is associated with an increased risk for anger.
There is a second disorder consistently associated with increased amygdala responsiveness, though
this does not appear to be due to prior threat exposure. Thus, data suggests that patients with
borderline personality disorder show elevated amygdala responses to threat related cues [20, 21].
Interestingly, patients with borderline personality disorder are also at considerably elevated risk
for anger and reactive aggression [22].

46
Moreover, there are data from work with healthy populations that also support this suggestion.
Thus, a predisposition to anger has been positively associated with an increased amygdala response
to masked fearful expressions [23] and even the presentation of the word “no” [24]. Moreover, an
increased predisposition to anger has also been positively associated with increased amygdala
volume [25].i

Emotional regulation and anger

Several regions of frontal cortex are important for the regulation of emotion, including the
regulation of the basic response to threat. These include orbital, medial and ventrolateral frontal
cortex [5, 27, 28]. Early accounts of the regulation of emotion assumed a single inhibitory system
[27]. However, it now appears plausible that there are multiple systems that contribute to the
emotional responsiveness of the basic threat system. For example:
There are regions of frontal cortex that appear to project excitatory connections to, potentially
inhibitory interneurons within the amygdala, leading to a reduction in amygdala activity [29]. It is
possible that such connections are recruited during emotional suppression paradigms where there
appears to be direct frontal suppression of the amygdala [30, 31].
Considerable data using reappraisal paradigms attest to a role for attentional manipulation of
emotional stimuli such that the emotional responses to these stimuli can be suppressed [28]. If the
individual attends to non-emotional features of a stimulus, the representation of these non-
emotional features, following models of attention as representational competition [32], will
interfere with the representation of the emotional features of the stimulus and thus reduce
consequent emotional responding to these features [33, 34]. This form of attentional emotional
suppression also occurs when attention to task relevant features of a stimulus interferes with the
representation of the emotional features of the environment [31, 35].
It is notable that frontal regions implicated in the regulation of emotion, orbital, medial and
ventrolateral frontal cortex, have also been implicated in the anger response. Thus, anger induction
studies have found this emotion associated with increased activity in these regions [8, 9]. Indeed,
it is possible that the expression of anger occurs when these regulatory regions have been
overwhelmed due to the salience of the anger cue (or the fact that their operation was compromised
in the individual). As such, the sense of a loss of control sometimes associated with the anger
experience may reflect awareness within the individual of the reduced operational efficiency of
these systems.
If these regions of frontal cortex are important for the regulation of emotion, including the
regulation of the basic response to threat, it can be expected that dysfunction within these regions
should be associated with increased anger. This is what is seen. Patients with acquired lesions to
ventromedial and ventrolateral frontal cortex may present with “acquired sociopathy” [13, 14].
Such patients present clinically with impaired emotional regulation though this has not been
formally tested. They also present with considerable difficulties in the regulation of anger, rage
and reactive aggression [13, 14, 36].

Frustration and anger

An interesting disorder to consider with respect to frustration-based anger and reactive aggression
is psychopathy. The risk factors for increased anger/ reactive aggression considered above relate

47
to emotional hyper-responsiveness; increased basic threat responsiveness or under-regulation of
this basic threat responsiveness. However, while individuals with psychopathy show increased risk
for reactive aggression [12, 37], they do not show increased responsiveness of the basic threat
circuitry. Thus, considerable neuropsychological work has shown that individuals with
psychopathy show significant impairment on tasks which rely on the functional integrity of the
amygdala; e.g., aversive conditioning, passive avoidance learning, augmentation of the startle
reflex by threatening visual primes and fearful face recognition [for reviews of this literature,
see 38, 39]. Moreover, a variety of neuroimaging studies with both adults and children with
psychopathic tendencies have shown reduced amygdala responses to threat stimuli [40–42]. In
short, it is unlikely that increased risk for reactive aggression in psychopathy relates to increased
responsiveness of the basic threat circuitry since core components of this circuitry appear to
be under rather than over responsive [see 26].
The suggestion is that, since responsiveness to threat-based stimuli is reduced in individuals with
psychopathy, the increased risk for reactive aggression seen in psychopathy reflects an increased
risk for frustration rather than threat based reactive aggression. However, it should be noted that
while it is clear that there is an increased risk for reactive aggression in psychopathy [12, 37], no
empirical studies have yet attempted to disentangle whether this reactive aggression is threat or
frustration based.
Frustration occurs when an individual continues to do an action in the expectation of a reward but
does not actually receive that reward [1]. The individual may expect the reward because he/she
does not know that the reinforcement contingencies have changed; the action no longer engenders
reward. FMRI studies investigating the response to frustration have all adopted this form of task
structure whereby the participant does not receive the expected reward [43–45]. These studies have
reported that frustrating events, the absence of expected reward, are associated with reductions in
activity within striatum [44] and that this is particularly marked in substance abusing populations
[45]. This would be expected from the prediction error literature [see below: 46, 47]. These data
might suggest therefore that impairments in the ability to detect changes in reinforcement
contingencies might be associated with increased anger.
Two tasks which index an individual’s ability to alter their responding following a contingency
change are behavioral extinction [48] and reversal learning [49]. In behavioral extinction
paradigms, the individual learns to make a response to a stimulus in order to gain a reward but
then this behavior is no longer rewarded. In reversal learning paradigms, the individual initially
learns to make a response to gain a reward. After a number of trials, the reinforcement contingency
changes such that the previously correct response no longer results in reward, and a new response
must be learned to achieve the reward. Individuals with psychopathy are impaired in both
behavioral extinction [50] and response reversal [51, 52].
Regions that have been implicated in response reversal in both animal and human studies include
orbital/ ventromedial (Brodmann’s Area 10 and 11), inferior (BA 47 and 45 – typically extending
into anterior insula) and dorsolateral frontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (BA 32) and
striatum [53–55]. Thus, work with monkeys has shown that lesions that include orbitofrontal
cortex lead to impaired behavioral extinction [56] and reversal learning [53]. Similar work with
humans has also observed that lesions of orbital/ventromedial frontal cortex lead to impairment in
behavioral extinction [57] and reversal learning [58].

48
Studies have indicated a role for ventromedial frontal cortex (including, in some studies, more
superior regions of BA 10) in encoding the value of Pavlovian conditioned stimuli [59, 60]. Similar
regions of ventromedial frontal cortex have shown activation to reinforcement outcome
information in stimulus-reinforcement based decision making tasks [61–64] or in tasks where the
outcome information is explicitly supplied to the participant [65, 66]. In addition, and presumably
related, to the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in the representation of reinforcement
information, it is also sensitive to prediction errors; i.e., situations where an anticipated reward
does not occur [67, 68]. Thus, during reversal learning, ventromedial frontal cortex shows a
significant reduction in activity during reversal errors (trials when a previously rewarded response
is now punished) [54]. It is argued that this signaling in ventromedial prefrontal cortex may be
needed for the detection of contingency change and thus the initiation of reversal learning [54].
The functions of dorsomedial, lateral, and inferior frontal cortex in the context of reversal learning
appear to relate to orchestrating the change in behavioural response following a change in
reinforcement contingency [54]. Dorsomedial frontal cortex has been implicated in monitoring
response conflict [69] and error detection [the discrepancy between actual and intended events]
[70]. Dorsomedial together with lateral frontal cortices are implicated in top-down attentional
control [71]. Inferior frontal cortex has been implicated in altering motor responses [54]. Indeed,
impairments in action selection are seen after lesions of the inferior frontal cortex [72, 73].
In short, problems with reversal learning and thus an increased risk for frustration and reactive
aggression/ anger might result from either difficulties in either the role of ventromedial frontal
cortex in detecting the contingency change or in the role of dorsomedial/ lateral/ inferior frontal
cortex in orchestrating the immediate change in behavioural response. In the case of psychopathy,
the problem appears to lie in the role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex dysfunction in psychopathy
[39]. This is thought to lead to the apparent “impulsivity” in individuals with psychopathic traits;
these individuals are less able to use appropriate reinforcement expectancies to guide their
behavior and thus appear more impulsive. Indeed, a series of studies have revealed deficient
signaling of reinforcement information within ventromedial frontal cortex in individuals with
psychopathic traits [40, 74–76] Moreover, direct data from children with psychopathic tendencies
performing a reversal learning paradigm has been obtained [75].
In this study, the youth with psychopathic tendencies failed to show the reduction in ventromedial
frontal cortex activity following the change in reinforcement contingency signaled by a punished
reversal error. In short, the suggestion is that individuals with psychopathic tendencies show higher
levels of reactive aggression because they are more frequently frustrated than comparison
individuals. They are more frequently frustrated than comparison individuals because their ability
to represent reinforcement information (and learn from changes in reinforcement contingency) is
impaired and thus they are less likely to make decisions that will successfully achieve their goals.
Interestingly, there has been some work suggesting that individuals who are particularly prone to
frustration/ anger show increased responses following the omission of reward within
dorsolemedial, lateral and inferior frontal cortices [43]; in other words, within those regions
important for orchestrating immediate changes in behavioral response. This might suggest that
activity within these regions relates to experienced anger (see also below).

49
Anger in the social context
One typical stimulus for the expression of anger is the sight of another individual engaging in a
behavior that the observer wishes that this individual would not commit [77]. Indeed, it has been
shown that individuals punish those who do not cooperate and that this punishment appears to
relate to the anger than you feel towards them [78, see also 79]. On this basis, there have been
claims that it is the threat of other’s anger/ punishment that enforces social norm compliance
generally [80]. However, it is important to note here that there are different types of norms. At the
very least, care-based (involving harm to others; e.g., hitting another), conventional (involving
social disorder; e.g., talking in class), disgust based (often relating to proscribed sexual activities)
and fairness based norms (involving resource allocation/ cooperation decisions) can be
distinguished [39, 81].
The role of dissociable emotional learning systems for the development of these different forms of
norms has been described elsewhere [39]. However, with respect to this paper, it is important to
note that the display of anger appears less relevant to care-based norm development/ enforcement.
Care based transgressions initiate empathy induction and references to the victim in care-givers
rather than anger (anger is typically shown to individuals committing conventional transgressions);
[82]. Moreover, punishment decisions with respect to transgressors of care based norms relate to
activity within the amygdala, ventromedial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices [83], regions
implicated in processing care based norms [39] but not regions involved in punishment decisions
with respect to cooperation norm violations [84, 85].
In short, displays of anger appear far more important for the development/ maintenance of
conventional and fairness/ cooperation norms than care-based norms. But what is the relationship
of anger with respect to norm violations to the discussion of the neural systems implicated in anger
above? According to one recent model, the recalibration theory of anger,

Such an account might suggest that this naturally selected neurocognitive program might organize
some of the neuro-cognitive circuitry described above (the basic threat system for example). But
need the existence of such a program be postulated?
As noted above, frustration, and consequently anger, occurs when an individual engages in a
behavior in the expectation of a reward but does not actually receive that reward. Expectations of
reward can occur on the basis of the individual’s own motor action or another individual’s
behavior. In other words, asking another individual to do something on the assumption that they
will do it and then them not doing it, is frustrating and anger inducing. Why should stronger (males
in particular) and more attractive (females in particular) individuals be more prone to anger
[cf. 86]? While this might relate to the activity of a dedicated neurocognitive program involved in
interpersonal conflict resolution, it appears perhaps more plausible that it relates to the

50
expectations of such (high status) individuals. As the data demonstrate [86], such individuals have
greater expectations that others will do as they are requested. Consequently, if these expectations
are violated, they will experience greater frustration and a higher propensity for anger.
This is worth considering with respect to conventional transgressions (e.g., talking in class). As
noted above, conventional transgressions are significantly more likely to induce anger in care-
givers than care-based transgressions [82]. Conventional rules are proscriptions of authority/ high
status figures as to how subordinate/ low status individuals should behave (children should not talk
in class and personal assistants should not put their feet up on the CEOs desk during a meeting);
[39]. They are rules describing the expectations of authority/ high status figures regarding the
behavior of subordinates/ low status individuals. The thwarting of these expectations should lead
to frustration and anger.
But what about fairness/cooperation norms and, critically, the neural systems that organize this
anger response to fairness/cooperation norm violations. While fairness/cooperation norms
frequently involve scenarios where the individuals involved are of comparable status, data
indicates that in cooperative scenarios participants expect resources to be distributed equally [78].
As noted above, failure to distribute resources equally leads to anger and, if possible, retributive
punishment by those unfairly treated [78]. At the neural level, the individual shows activation
within anterior insula and dorsomedial and lateral frontal cortices [87, 88]. Notably all three of
these regions show clear engagement in reversal learning and behavioral extinction paradigms
[54, 89]; see above. Indeed, the propensity to show activity within these regions to frustrating
circumstances may relate to the propensity for experienced frustration/ anger [43].
In short, the regions that organize the anger response to fairness/cooperation norm violations are
those that organize the motor change following nonsocial frustrating events. As such, rather than
assume the existence of a dedicated program for social conflict resolution, one might consider that
anger to the frustrating behavior of other recruits the same neural systems as anger to frustrating
events more generally.

Conclusions: The cognitive neuroscience of anger

There are five basic suggestions made in this paper: First, reactive aggression is the ultimate
behavioral expression of anger and, as such, it is possible to learn about the cognitive neuroscience
of anger by understanding the cognitive neuroscience of reactive aggression.
Second, the systems seen in other mammalian species to mediate reactive aggression (amygdala,
hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray; the basic threat system) are critically implicated in
reactive aggression in humans also. As such, they are also critically implicated in anger. Factors
that increase the responsiveness of these systems, such as exposure to prior trauma, should be, and
are (cf. post-traumatic stress disorder), associated with elevated incidences of anger and reactive
aggression.
Third, regions of frontal cortex have been implicated in the regulation of the activity of the basic
threat system. As such, if they become dysfunctional, there is likely to be increased anger and
reactive aggression. This is seen in neurological patients following lesions of orbital frontal cortex.
Fourth, frustration has long been recognized as a trigger for anger. It occurs when an individual
continues to do an action in the expectation of a reward but does not actually receive that reward.

51
The ability to alter behavioral responding when actions no longer receive their expected rewards
can be indexed through behavioral extinction or reversal learning paradigms. Individuals with
psychopathy show profound impairment on such tasks and it has been argued here that this
dysfunction relates to their increased risk for frustration based reactive aggression.
Fifth, frustration can occur not only when an action turns out unexpectedly and a reward/goal is
not achieved but also when another person’s behavior is unexpected and a reward/goal, dependent
on that person’s action, is not achieved. The response to frustrating social events appears to rely
on the neural architecture implicated in orchestrating a change in response in non-social frustrating
situations.
It is hoped that these suggestions begin the foundation for a cognitive neuroscience of anger. It is
a particularly important emotional response to understand given that inappropriate levels of its
expression are associated with so many psychiatric conditions.

Footnotes
i
It is worth briefly considering the relationship between threat, anger, and fear. Threats lead to fear as well as anger. Indeed, the

basic threat circuitry outlined above (amygdala-hypothalamus-PAG) is involved in fear as well as anger. The avoidance behavior

associated with fear relates to a lesser activation of this circuitry than that resulting in the reactive aggression associated with anger.

It has been argued elsewhere that threat based reactive aggression is significantly less common in individuals with psychopathy

than in healthy individuals, due to their amygdala dysfunction, but that frustration based reactive aggression is significantly more

common due to difficulties with reinforcement learning [26].

References: see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260787/

52
 Origins of “Rage” Identified in Brain15
Study in mice may lead to better understanding of aggression in other animals,
including humans.
Violent, unprovoked outbursts in male mice have been linked to changes in a brain structure tied
to the control of anxiety and fear, according to a report by researchers from NYU Langone Medical
Center to be published in the journal Current Biology online Feb. 11, 2016.

Damage or lost function in the animals’ midbrain wall structure — the lateral septum — was found
to trigger a cascade of activity in other brain regions that produced “septal rage.” These sudden,
violent acts, mostly attacks on other mice, have long been seen in rodents with a damaged lateral
septum, and in some birds, researchers say.

“Our latest findings show how the lateral septum in mice plays a gatekeeping role, simultaneously
‘pushing down the brake’ and ‘lifting the foot off the accelerator’ of violent behavior,” says study
senior investigator Dayu Lin, PhD, an assistant professor at NYU Langone’s Druckenmiller
Neuroscience Institute.

The lateral septum, Lin notes, is physically connected to, and receives electrical signals from, the
part of the brain that controls emotion and learning (the hippocampus). The lateral septum also
projects into and receives signals from the brain region most broadly tied to aggression and
hormone production (the hypothalamus).

Lin emphasizes that septal rage is not known to occur in humans, but that studying male aggression
in mice might help to map the circuitry involved in controlling other forms of aggression, including

violent behavior in humans.

Among the study’s key findings was that stimulating brain cells in the lateral septum controlled
other brain cells, notably in a centrally located region of the hypothalamus, identified anatomically
as the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus. Previous research by Lin had shown
this brain region to be highly active during natural aggression but, until now, had not identified the
other parts of the brain that interact with it in this context.

By “exciting” selected groups of brain cells with light from a surgically inserted probe, Lin and
her colleagues changed the activity of cells in the lateral septum, and found that they could start,
stop, and re-start aggressive outbursts in the study mice.

According to Lin, interrupting the connection between the lateral septum and ventromedial
hypothalamus did not affect the mice’s sexual behavior, and did not in other experiments stop male
mice from attempting to have sex with female mice. This is important, Lin says, because it
demonstrates that two innate behaviors, aggression, and sexual behavior, can be adjusted
separately.

15 https://neurosciencenews.com/rage-lateral-septum-3637/

53
The scientists also found that when excited, lateral septum cells increased activity in one set of
brain cells in the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus, even as they decreased
activity in another nerve cell set in the same region. Indeed, the cells most active during mice
attacks were those suppressed to the greatest degree during septal stimulation, while the cells
suppressed during aggression were most active when the lateral septum was stimulated. Lin says
this finding suggests that the lateral septum is a “smart” gatekeeper of aggression, suppressing

attack-excited cells while activating attack-inhibited cells.

This is an image of mouse brain shows lateral septum (in green).

“Our research provides what we believe is the first evidence that the lateral septum directly
‘turns the volume up or down’ in aggression in male mice, and it establishes the first ties between
this region and the other key brain regions involved in violent behavior,” says Lin.

The research team next plans to investigate which specific brain cells in the lateral septum control
male aggression, and under what conditions they are activated to promote or halt the behavior. Lin
says her long-term goal is to determine whether or not therapeutic means can be found to control
aggression without compromising other social and cognitive functions.

54
The feeling of anger: From brain networks to linguistic expressions

NellyAliaKleinaGabrielaGandGadiGilameJessicaBezekaAntonioBrunobThoma
s F.DensoncTalmaHendlerfgLeroyLowehVeronicaMariottiiMaria
R.MuscatellobSaraPalumboiSilviaPellegrinijPietroPietrinikAmeliaRizzobEdely
nVeronal write:16

Anger is activated by provocation and is couched in distinct internal states

propagating and escalating in a positive feedback loop. (Fig. 1).

Four left lateralized neural networks that orchestrate feeling components were
activated during anger induction (Fig. 2).

Anger linguistic expressions convey feeling components that are mapped on

neural networks underlying emotional activation and self-regulation.

Abstract
This review of the neuroscience of anger is part of The Human Affectome Project, where we
attempt to map anger and its components (i.e., physiological, cognitive, experiential) to the
neuroscience literature (i.e., genetic markers, functional imaging of human brain networks) and

16
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419302167

55
to linguistic expressions used to describe anger feelings. Given the ubiquity of anger in both its
normative and chronic states, specific language is used in humans to express states of anger.
Following a review of the neuroscience literature, we explore the language that is used to convey
angry feelings, as well as metaphors reflecting inner states of anger experience. We then discuss
whether these linguistic expressions can be mapped on to the neural circuits during anger
experience and to distinct components of anger. We also identify relationships between anger
components, brain networks, and other affective research relevant to motivational states of
dominance and basic needs for safety.

1. Introduction
A “feeling” is a fundamental construct in the behavioral and neurobiological sciences
encompassing a wide range of mental processes and individual experiences, many of which relate
to homeostatic aspects of survival and optimal life regulation (Buck, 1985; Damasio and Carvalho,
2013; LeDoux, 2012; Panksepp, 2010; Strigo and Craig, 2016). The feeling of anger is quite
specific and practically universal, yet it remains one of the least studied of the basic emotions
(Ekman, 2016). Provocation, a stimulus perceived as threatening or aversive, is a common
activator of anger. Regardless of the provocation and situational triggers (e.g., perceived threat,
unfair treatment), anger is couched in distinct internal states that can propagate and escalate in a
positive feedback loop (see depiction in Fig. 1). Unlike the sole reliance on aggression output to
measure antagonism in other mammals, humans show multiple non-verbal and verbal expressions
that can be readily recognized in the self and by others as anger. Anger is reflected across distinct
components, including the arousal component, as in stress reactivity with concomitant autonomic
arousal; cognitive components, including heightened attention to threat, hypervigilance, and
hostile attributions (Novaco, 2016).

Outward displays embody specific facial expressions, bodily displays of threat, and vocal prosody
as well as standard linguistic expressions which are used to reflect the subjective experience (e.g.,
feelings of being “mad”, “enraged”, etc). Thus, anger is experienced and expressed across these
components, and self-regulation of anger can occur by altering some or all of these components.
In modern society, as compared to ancient times where anger expression and displays of brute
force likely helped establish dominance and determine leadership, anger regulation is increasingly

56
important as one needs to moderate displays of anger in order to achieve advantageous outcomes
(Averill, 1983; Gilam and Hendler, 2017; Potegal and Novaco, 2010).

However, in the escalation of anger, emotional self-regulation can fail and the display of anger can
culminate into aggressive behavior (Coccaro et al., 2009). This reactive aggression can be so swift
as if following a ‘low road’ of brain activity, such that aggression is perpetrated seemingly without
observable escalation or the mediation of cognitive inhibitions (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The dynamics of the threat perception-anger arousal feedback

loop pointing upward toward the escalation of anger and expression of
aggression. Low road refers to the pathway where provocation can lead
to aggression, often bypassing the anger arousal loop. Bottom panel:
facial, bodily and threat displays.

We dedicate this review to mapping the neuroscience literature to anger feelings and their
components, as well as to the linguistic expressions of anger, all as a way of facilitating
collaboration and standardizing research efforts. In particular, this work is being undertaken as
part of ‘The Human Affectome Project’, of Neuroqualia.

57
Our team was specifically tasked to review the neuroscience research related to anger feelings; to
that end we restricted the scope of this review specifically to literature referring to anger and not
related feelings/behaviors (e.g., irritability, frustration, aggression).

We further consider whether or not anger feelings that people convey in language might inform
the way we approach neuroscience research on this topic. Accordingly, we summarize what is
currently known about genetic correlates of state and trait anger and the brain networks activated
during the induction of anger feelings, while simultaneously exploring the language that is spoken
to convey feelings of anger and metaphors of anger expression. We further discuss whether
feelings of anger that people convey in language might be linked to activation of distinct neural
circuits and to the anger processes depicted in Fig. 1 (see Glossary).

2. Components of anger

2.1. Arousal: autonomic and stress reactivity to provocation

Throughout evolution, anger has had an adaptive role in survival with its fundamental involvement
in the fight-or-flight reaction to threat detection (Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones, 2004). As such,
physiological responses that share phylogenetically similar mechanisms with other mammals
constitute the experience of arousal. Consistent with Selye’s (1976) stress model for example, the
body increases autonomic arousal in response to a stressor. In this context, stress reactivity is the
subjective perception of uncontrollability or unpredictability that is expressed in quality and degree
of the response to provoking elements (e.g., perceived threat to physical safety) (Koolhaas et al.,
2011). Autonomic arousal, indicated by a raised heart rate and muscle tone, altered posture and
facial expression due to adrenaline release, all serve as arousal displays of anger (Stemmler and
Wacker, 2010).

Not surprisingly, the circumplex model of emotion, which charts feelings on dimensions
of valence and arousal, places anger in the high arousal and negative valence category of basic
emotions (Russell, 1980). Although fear shares feeling components with anger, such as autonomic
arousal to threat, the organism is motivated to withdraw and flee under fear (unless escape is not
possible). Unlike fear, anger is characterized by ‘approach’ motivations, and if confrontation is
deemed the best course of action, can help mobilize optimal physiological and cognitive support

58
for action tendencies that promote confronting threat and provocation. Thus, perhaps initial arousal
to threat or provocation develops into fear or anger depending on context and personality or trait
tendencies.

2.2. Cognition: the role of anger in biasing attention and cognition

Autonomic arousal during anger feelings is relatively short lived, whereas frequent experiences of
anger and thoughts about the provoking situation (i.e., anger rumination) enables the persistence
of negative emotions . During a state of anger and perhaps more so during repeated and enduring
bouts of anger rumination, attention becomes narrowed and intensely focused toward the source
of the provocation (Alia-Klein et al., 2018; Gable et al., 2015a). As such, anger narrows attentional
scope (Gable et al., 2015b), often compromising the efficiency of cognitive processing and
decision making (Garfinkel et al., 2016). It is suggested that learned bias toward engaging anger
in response to stressors can develop as a function of associative network connections across
feelings, thoughts, memories and physiological and expressive motor reactions (Berkowitz and
Harmon-Jones, 2004). The rapid unfolding of emotional information through this network
promotes rapid interpretations and causal cognitive attributions of the provocation, which facilitate
enhancement of anger (Maoz et al., 2017).

In a recent theory of human anger, the authors expand on the unique cognitive elements of anger
(Sell, 2006, 2011; Sell et al., 2017, 2009). The recalibrational theory holds that anger evolved in
humans to bargain for better treatment, as in evolutionary biology and game theory approaches.
Since humans rely on language and cognition to bargain, the recalibrational studies and theory rely
on the correct assumption that substantial attentional and cognitive resources are diverted toward
the source of interpersonal conflict, with such processes mediated by interactions between
prefrontal (PFC) and subcortical brain networks, often with opposing activations (Siever, 2008).
Thus, it is interesting to understand the mechanisms behind failure in recalibration, when anger is
no longer helpful in negotiation and therefore needs regulation Hortensius et al., 2016.

2.3. Anger regulation: low road from provocation to reactive aggression

Some theories argue that regulatory processes are activated at the initiation of anger experiences,
or at later appraisal stages. However, most agree that processes involved in anger regulation occur
at different stages of anger escalation, depending on a multitude of factors (LeDoux, 1990),

59
including the degree of emotion regulation capacity (Siever, 2008). The anger regulation strategy
of reappraisal depends on one’s ability to distance the self from the provocation or to re-evaluation
of the provocation as less threatening or frustrating than it is initially perceived. This capacity is
sometimes also referred to as anger control (Spielberger, 1988) and it can serve to reduce the
intensity of anger and prevent escalation to maladaptive behaviors (Szasz et al., 2011).

Because cognitive reappraisal and other higher-level anger management training heavily rely on
intact intellectual and executive functioning (Ochsner and Gross, 2008), patients suffering from
intellectual disabilities or neurodevelopmental disorders can show frequent loss of control. Even
with intact intelligence and despite the availability of cognitive strategies as reappraisal, high
levels of arousal and stress reactivity induced during anger can challenge the ability to constrain
its expression. In particular, uncontrollable anger situations may trigger a ‘low road’ of activation
(e.g., with minimal mediation by higher-order cognition), rapidly leading to anger displays and
aggression. Some argue that intense frustration triggers anger leading to reactive aggression in
animals when there is high level of danger and the threat is very close (Blair, 2012).

In humans, whether stemming from frustration or from perceived threat, anger often requires some
degree of regulation. However, the inhibiting effects of PFC recruitment during such times of
intense and negatively valenced approach emotion may be greatly weakened or circumvented
(Alia-Klein et al., 2009). This concept of a low road is adapted from fear studies, which have found
that a specific fear response reflects an automatic process that does not even require conscious
recognition of the feared stimulus (Ohman, 2005; Carr, 2015; Ledoux, 1996). Thus fear reactions
(and anger as well) are partly managed by ancient brain systems, primarily the amygdala, that may
act relatively independently of the later emerging higher cognitions (LeDoux, 1996; Rosen and
Schulkin, 1998). Notably, the use of psychoactive substances such as alcohol can escalate feelings
of anger and facilitate the low road to rapid aggressive responses (Parrott et al., 2003). Sleep
restriction also intensifies anger perhaps by reducing tolerance for provocation (Krizan and Hisler,
2019).

2.4. Physiological and behavioral displays of anger

Anger signals are recognized in humans, especially the facial and bodily expressions that
exaggerate perceptions of physical strength and fighting ability analogous to animals that bare

60
their fangs (Ekman, 1973). Indeed, facial displays of anger often include jaw-clenching, indicating
readiness to attack. Face displays of anger are already functional at six months of age and may
demonstrate cross-cultural uniformity in its basic elements.

As an example, congenitally blind children produce normative anger facial expressions. However,
it should be noted that although anger displays are part of a universal species-typical system
evolved by natural selection, these are partly calibrated by cultural variation (Clark-Polner et al.,
2017; Potegal and Novaco, 2010). Linguistic expressions are also part of the human display of
anger. Anger prosody of sound and tone as well as angry language indicating escalation are used
as a communication of anger in humans (see section on linguistic expressions). Together, these
facial, bodily, and language displays (raising the voice, pounding on table, shaking a fist, breaking
something, physically assaulting) allow for a rapid exchange of information about the ability to
inflict costs on the provocateur(s).

3. Disease correlates of chronic anger

The enduring propensity to anger feelings is characterized as high trait anger in the literature
(Spielberger, 1988; Gan et al., 2016). Trait anger has been related to chronic disease and negative
consequences to one's own health, wellbeing and social support (Johnson, 1990; Phillips et al.,
2006; Williams, 2010). In fact, disproportionate and pathological manifestations of anger are a
cross-diagnostic feature of many psychiatric disorders, and anger is known as an emotion that
exacerbates mental health symptoms and complicates psychiatric recovery (for review
see, Novaco, 2010).

Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is perhaps the only disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) for which repeated manifestations of anger is
its core feature (Coccaro, 2000). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence estimates of IED are 7.3% and
3.9%, and most persons diagnosed with the disorder display a mean of 43 lifetime attacks of anger
and aggressive behavior (Kessler et al., 2006). Problematic and chronic anger is also a prominent
feature in oppositional defiant disorder, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder, to
name a few (for review see, Fernandez and Johnson, 2016).

61
Importantly, these detrimental manifestations of anger do not only express themselves in
psychiatric symptoms but also may result in chronic diseases of the heart and digestive and
immune systems, due at least in part to the chronic arousal and hypervigilance associated with
anger experiences, combined with the high cognitive and physiological resources needed to
downregulate such chronic anger (Johnson, 1990).

Several pathways linking anger to chronic disease states have been explored in studies. First, anger
may influence health status and disease processes through its effects on inflammation. Anger has
been associated with increased circulating inflammatory and coagulation markers, such as
interleukin-6 (IL-6), a pro-inflammatory cytokine, and fibrinogen (Carroll et al., 2011).
Specifically, both trait anger and outward displays of anger (e.g., yelling, slamming doors) have
been associated with higher IL-6 and fibrinogen, whereas better anger control (and reappraisal)
predicts lower IL-6, at least among women (Boylan and Ryff, 2013). Socioeconomic status, a
broad concept including educational attainment, socio-cultural variables, and ethnicity (Boylan et
al., 2015), has also been shown to moderate the relationship between anger and inflammation.

Second, chronic and acute episodes of anger can be detrimental to the cardiovascular system and
is considered the most robust personality-related predictor of cardiovascular disease (Russell et
al., 2016). The risk of cardiovascular events following outbursts of anger has been examined in a
meta-analysis (Mostofsky et al., 2014): based on the totality of the evidence, in the 2 h following
episodes of anger there is a significant risk of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome,
ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, and arrhythmia among individuals at risk of a cardiovascular
event. However, the impact of anger outbursts may be modified by trait anger, since individuals
with an angry temperament, showing chronically high levels of physiological arousal and stress
reactivity, and persons with traits characterized by anger (i.e., Type A personality) are considered
coronary-prone. Experiences of competitiveness and angry, hostile and distrusting dispositions
require higher levels of vigilance, resulting in prolonged neurohormonal activation conducive to
atherosclerosis and coronary disease (Pollock et al., 2017). It has been shown that sympathetic
effects and increased cardiac output prevail in the context of harassment or personalized recall of
anger events. Thus, the persistent and pervasive action of physiological arousal sustained by the
emotion of anger can well explain the consistent relationship between anger, cardiovascular
disease (Cox et al., 2017; Siegman, 1993) and hypertension (Harburg et al., 1991).

62
Indeed, several studies have shown that high levels of both expressed and suppressed anger predict
risk for hypertension and stroke across cultures (Kitayama et al., 2015), as well as increase the risk
of recurrent cardiac events and earlier mortality among patients with previous coronary heart
disease (Russell et al., 2016).

Third, anger has been associated with motility, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and to visceral
and pain hypersensitivity, as shown for other negative emotions. For example, anger control and
suppression, consisting of cognitive and behavioral efforts to restrain angry feelings, are associated
with prolonged gastric emptying, and a delayed gut transit (Bennett et al., 2000; Evans et al.,
1996; Zoccali et al., 2006). These effects, likely mediated by the corticotropin-releasing factor,
which is involved in the central stress response, are probably a way to prevent digestion during a
stressful period when energy is better spent on defense. In contrast, gastric hyperemia and
increased secretion have been reported during states of acute anger and aggressive behavior
(Drossman, 1998).

For example, patients with irritable bowel syndrome have been shown to display increased anger,
as well as colonic motor activity and decreased antral motor activity, during experimental anger-
provoking conditions compared to healthy controls (Welgan et al., 2000). When classified
according to the predominant bowel habit alteration as constipation or diarrhea predominant,
different profiles of irritable bowel syndrome have been extracted which differ along the
dimensions of anger, depression and anxiety (Muscatello et al., 20162010, 2014, 2016).

4. The neuroscience of anger

4.1. Measurement of the phenotype in humans

Although anger and aggression are substantially related and may be part of a particular affective-
behavioral complex, researchers differentiate between anger, the self-reported emotion
and aggression, the behavior (Blair, 2012). The lack of ability to ask non-humans about their
feeling state or emotion greatly limits the study of anger in animals and thus limits translation. In
human studies, self-report is the predominant way in which anger is operationalized, although
autonomic response, electrophysiological brain changes and facial coding have also been used in
the context of experimental provocations or mood inductions (Parrott et al., 2003; Waldstein et al.,
2000)—see section on brain activation in response to laboratory-induced anger.

63
On self-report assessments, individuals are simply asked to endorse the degree to which they feel
angry or endorse other statements or phrases that commonly describe the feeling (e.g., “I feel like
a keg ready to explode”). In this, we see the first indication that operationalizations of anger are
dependent on language and phrases that have been validated through psychometric studies. The
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) (Spielberger, 1988) is probably the most widely-
used questionnaire of state and trait anger; it has been used in genetic, neuroimaging,
cardiovascular, and behavioral studies for decades and has been translated in several languages.
The STAXI assesses seven facets of anger. The facets are: State Anger (“how do you feel right
now”) and Trait Anger (“how do you usually feel”); Anger-in (expressed inwardly: “I boil inside
but do not show it”), Anger-out (expressed outwardly: “I do things like slam doors”), Angry
Temperament (“I have a fiery temper”), Angry Reaction (“I get angry when I’m slowed down”),
and Anger Control (“I keep my cool”).

4.2. Genetic components of anger

Twin studies have ascertained that the variance among individuals in anger and anger-related
personality traits can be explained by both genetic and environmental factors (Wang et al., 2005).
For example, genetically-informed studies have found that the heritability rates for State Anger
and Anger-out are moderate, and higher heritability has been reported for Anger Control (Clifford
et al., 2015; Deater-Deckard et al., 2007; Gagne and Goldsmith, 2011).

Here we review studies linking anger to specific genotypes or polymorphisms, carefully limiting
our discussion to studies using self-report anger inventories, and not aggression inventories. The
literature review began by a PubMed search for (anger[Title/Abstract] AND
(polymorphisms[Title/Abstract] or anger[Title/Abstract] AND gene[Title/Abstract]), yielding 48
and 121 manuscripts, respectively, which were all reviewed. Studies were included only if they
had used an anger questionnaire or subscale (i.e., anger subscale of the Buss-Perry Aggression
Questionnaire; Buss and Perry, 1992) in association with one or more genetic variants, and only if
the participants did not have any intellectual disabilities or neurodevelopmental disorders.

This selective search resulted in 21 manuscripts; the 18 which showed statistically significant
results are included in Table 1. Data summarized in Table 1 show that the candidate gene
approach, versus whole genome approach, has been the preferred method to investigate the genetic

64
bases of anger. As a consequence, only a few candidate genes belonging to the monoamine
pathways have been studied and many others still remain to be investigated.

4.3. Gene-brain-anger relationships

The advent of neuroimaging techniques advanced the search for the neural substrates of human
anger. Functional MRI (fMRI) allows for the collection of brain activity data, which as compared
to positron emission tomography, has adequate temporal and high spatial resolution, facilitating
the study of dynamic processes and network activations. A small set of genetic studies tested
associations of trait anger and genes with brain activation using fMRI. For instance, male carriers
of the monoamine oxidase A low activity risk allele (MAOA-L), compared to carriers of
the MAOA-H (high activity alleles), show altered brain activity in lateral PFC and anterior
cingulate cortex (ACC) during social and emotional tasks (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2006),
including left lateralized amygdala and thalamic response to negative word presentations (Alia-
Klein et al., 2009). Denson et al., 2013, found a functional connectivity between the amygdala and
dorsal ACC when participants were asked to control their angry feelings in response to an insult.
In a follow-up study, insult by a rude experimenter increased ACC and amygdala activation
(Denson, 2014), and this heightened activation mediated the relationship between MAOA-L
genotype and self-reported effort at controlling their angry feelings. Other studies show an
involvement of MAOA-L in resting-state default mode brain networks (Clemens et al.,
2015; Klasen et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018).

4.4. Literature review criteria

There are several noteworthy studies and reviews of fMRI processing of angry faces and brain
activity during anger induction conditions, as well as brain activation during reactive aggression
paradigms (e.g., Gan et al., 2016; Gilam and Hendler, 2017, [Gilam et al.,2017]; Kose et al.,
2015; Krämer et al., 2007; Lotze et al., 2007). In this review however, we summarize studies on
the neural underpinnings of a feeling state of anger rather than a behavior that might be assumed
to follow anger (i.e., aggression). Thus, we conducted a search of the literature exclusively for
fMRI studies that utilized anger induction procedures in both healthy and patient populations. The
literature review began by a PubMed search for (anger[Title/Abstract] AND (fMRI[Title/Abstract]
OR functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging[Title/Abstract])), yielding 175 manuscripts, which
were all reviewed. Studies were included only if they had a clear anger induction (i.e., a condition
that was associated with an increase in state anger) during fMRI. Studies were excluded if

65
individuals with neurodevelopmental or intellectual disabilities were included or if they only
reported a correlation with anger traits, measured retaliative behavior but not anger specifically,
or showed passive viewing of angry faces, for example. This selective search resulted in only 13
manuscripts as described below and in Table 2 and Fig. 2. (Positron emission tomography imaging
studies were not included in this review. see especially, Dougherty et al., 2004, 1999)

Fig. 2. Brain regions activated during anger induction in the reviewed literature, were
organized into four major networks, color coded as follows: Mentalizing Network
(orange), PCC: posterior cingulate cortex, vmPFC: ventromedial prefrontal cortex,
SFG: superior frontal gyrus, MTG: middle temporal gyrus, STG: superior temporal
gyrus. Salience/threat detection Network (blue), dACC: dorsal anterior cingulate
cortex. Habit Network (purple). Self-Regulation Network (red), dlPFC: dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex, IFG: inferior frontal gyrus, vmPFC: ventromedial prefrontal
cortex. rACC: rostral anterior cingulate cortex, sgACC: sub-genu anterior cingulate
cortex. Table 2 results are overlaid on templates MNI coordinates x= -7 (sagittal), y=-
4 (coronal) and z= -1 (axial).

4.5. Brain networks of laboratory induced anger feelings

The salience network (see Table 2) consists of the dorsal ACC and anterior insular cortex, as well
as subcortical areas including parts of the thalamus, the amygdala, and the brain stem dedicated to
detecting behaviorally-relevant salient changes in internal states and any threatening external
stimuli (Menon, 2015; Seeley et al., 2007). In the studies reviewed, anger induction was linked to
activation of the anterior insula, the thalamus, and the amygdala (Denson et al.,

66
2013, 2014; Fabiansson et al., 2012; Gilam et al., 2018, 2015, [Gilam et al.,2017]; Herpertz et al.,
2017; Jacob et al., 2013; Krauch et al., 2018; Pawliczek et al., 2013; Radke et al., 2018).

In concert, these brain regions facilitate autonomic arousal, interoception and activation of the
stress response, upon recognition of threat or provocation. It should be noted that several studies
in Table 2 focused on anger in borderline personality disorder, due to the high prevalence of anger
and aggression in borderline patients. Compared to the activation in healthy controls asked to take
the perspective of a protagonist that is treated disrespectfully, borderline patients in the same
induction reported increased anger and showed stronger activation of the amygdala. Another study
used a script-driven imagery approach involving interpersonal rejection and physical aggression,
and found stronger amygdala reactivity in men with borderline personality disorder compared to
both women with the same disorder and healthy control men (Herpertz et al., 2017). Interestingly,
the only study not showing salience network activation involved a small sample of violent
offenders (Tonnaer et al., 2017).

Another dominant network in anger induction is the default mode network that is also called
the mentalizing network. Mentalizing activates midline-parietal and frontal areas including the
precuneus, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and the dorsal medial PFC, as well as lateral temporo-
parietal areas (Van Overwalle and Baetens, 2009). These mid-line areas of the so-called default
mode network are active during rest and have been associated with self-referential processing (Fox
et al., 2005; Greicius et al., 2003; Raichle et al., 2001).

In several of the reviewed studies, anger experiences activated primarily the PCC and the
precuneus of the mentalizing network (Krauch et al., 2018; Tonnaer et al., 2017), suggesting
engagement of self-referential mental imagery (Cavanna and Trimble, 2006) and social cognition
(Laird et al., 2011). Interestingly, there was a significant difference in precuneus activation in
adolescent borderline vs. control groups (Krauch et al., 2018). Only two studies failed to show
activation of the mentalizing network during anger, which could be a result of their use of region-
specific analyses (vs. whole brain analyses) (Gilam et al., 2017 Jacob et al., 2018).

The self-regulation network known as the executive network consists of medial and lateral PFC
areas including the ventromedial PFC, the subgenual/rostral ACC, the inferior frontal gyrus, and
the dorsolateral PFC. Anger feelings induced by mental imagery and autobiographical recall

67
activated the ventromedial PFC, the inferior frontal, and the dorsolateral PFC (Fabiansson et al.,
2012; Herpertz et al., 2017; Jacob et al., 2018; Laird et al., 2011; Tonnaer et al., 2017) involved in
response selection and behavioral control. Interestingly, violent offenders experienced more
pronounced anger feelings while showing higher activity in the self-regulation network and lower
activity in the mentalizing network during anger engagement relative to healthy controls (Tonnaer
et al., 2017).

Similarly, individuals with better anger regulation had greater activity in the ventromedial PFC,
and less activity in the brainstem’s locus coeruleus area, as well as greater medial thalamus-dorsal
posterior insula functional connectivity (Gilam et al., 2015).

A recent cross-over, sham-controlled, double-blind simultaneous fMRI and brain stimulation study
supports a potential causal role of the ventromedial PFC in anger regulation (Gilam et al., 2018).
Results indicated that brain stimulation led to increased ventromedial PFC activity during the
processing of unfair anger-inducing offers, resulting in behavioral improvement. Additional
support for the ventromedial PFC’s role was demonstrated in analysis of network connectivity
during emotion regulation (Jacob et al., 2018).

There also seems to be cross-talk between the salience and regulation networks, as increased
functional connectivity has been observed between the amygdala and the inferior frontal gyrus
after anger induction in healthy individuals (Gilam et al., 2017), as well as in women with
borderline personality disorder while imagining angry situations (Herpertz et al., 2017). This
finding is also supported by increased functional connectivity between the amygdala and the
dorsolateral PFC, the dorsal ACC, and the OFC following provocation with insults (Denson et al.,
2013). Although it is expected that the vast majority of anger studies should show prefrontal
involvement during attempts to constrain anger, several of the studies listed in Table 2 did not in
fact show activations in the self-regulation network associated with anger control (Denson,
2014; Gilam et al., 2015; Jacob et al., 2018; Krauch et al., 2018).

Regardless, the increased ventromedial PFC activity combined with thalamus-insula connectivity
presumably indicates participants’ efforts to attenuate their angry feelings (for example, to accept
unfair offers) in order to increase their monetary gain in a task (Gilam et al., 2015). In support of
this, participants with high anger traits who had been provoked still chose to button-press for

68
money as opposed to button-press for retaliation (Gan et al., 2016). This would suggest, and
remains to be explored, that reward alternatives can help attenuate anger expression or aggression.

Traditionally, the appetitive approach system is assumed to be evoked by positively valenced

stimuli and generally associated with positive affective experiences (Elliot, 2006). However,
approach motivation can be also activated by negative stimuli and the instigation of approach
motives can constitute a negative affective experience (Carver, 2004; Elliot et al., 2013). The
potential involvement of the reward network, or what we term here, the habit network, is present
in only two studies that induced script-driven anger imagery and recall of anger-inducing
autobiographical memories, showing activation of the putamen, the caudate and the globus
pallidus (Fabiansson et al., 2012; Krauch et al., 2018). Interestingly, the habit network seems to be
specifically linked to personal and internally induced anger experiences.

4.6. Internally versus externally induced anger

From the review of the literature, we note that experimental paradigms using anger inductions are
either internally or externally generated. Internal anger induction procedures rely on each
individual’s mental imagery and recall of autobiographical memories, and are associated with
activation of the insular and limbic-subcortical parts of the salience network, in particular, but also
in the parietal parts of the mentalizing network, the ventromedial and ventrolateral PFC of the self-
regulation network, as well as the striatal habit network (Denson et al., 2013, 2009; Fabiansson et
al., 2012; Herpertz et al., 2017).

External induction procedures induce anger by provocation from outside, for example with unfair
monetary offers (Gilam et al., 2015), social exclusion (Radke et al., 2018), frustrating unsolvable
tasks and insults (Denson et al., 2013). Notably, both anger induction approaches activate similar
networks, but external induction shows a more widespread activation, tending to activate dorsal
ACC, possibly due to conflict between wanting to perform well in the task at hand and distraction
by the social provocation.

Across induction types whether internally or externally induced, the pattern of activation relevant
to the self-regulation network, including the ventromedial PFC, the inferior frontal gyrus, and the
dorsolateral PFC, was common to all inductions, in line with recently proposed domain general
scaffolding for how the human brain constructs an experience of anger (Gilam and Hendler, 2017).

69
4.7. Imaging studies of high trait anger and IED
Since disproportionate bouts of anger and reactive aggression in response to provocation are core
symptoms of IED, imaging studies on this population can give insight into the function and
structure of neural networks of high trait anger. Functional MRI studies documented
disproportionate reactivity to emotional stimuli with impaired PFC response by individuals with
IED. In two studies there was exaggerated amygdala reactivity and diminished OFC activation and
poor amygdala-OFC coupling in response to a social threat signal (Coccaro et al.,
2007; McCloskey et al., 2016). Another study found that to high-arousal unpleasant images
increased activation in the left-lateralized ventral fronto-parietal attention network in individuals
with high trait anger as compared to controls (Alia-Klein et al., 2018). During a color-word Stroop
task that provides challenge to inhibitory control, error-related activity was especially high in IED
in the dorsolateral PFC that correlated with trait anger expression (Moeller et al., 2014). In one
study, men with threshold diagnosis and subclinical symptoms of IED, showed higher resting state
connectivity efficiency in left lateralized regions of the habenula, thalamus, dorsolateral PFC, right
temporal pole, as well as a trend for decreased connectivity clustering in mentalizing network
nodes (Gan et al., 2018).

There is some evidence that cortical to subcortical connectivity is structurally impaired in

individuals with high trait anger. As compared to psychiatric controls, individuals with IED had
lower white matter integrity in long-range connections between the frontal and temporo-parietal
regions (Lee et al., 2016). Gray matter volume was found to be significantly lower also in the OFC,
ventromedial PFC, ACC, amygdala, insula, and uncus (Coccaro et al., 2016). A study examined
the volume and shape of the amygdala-hippocampal complex, using morphometric analysis of
structural 3-Tesla MR scans, and found morphometric deformation suggestive of cell loss in
amygdala and hippocampal structures bilaterally in IED participants (Coccaro et al., 2015). A later
study found trait anger has been associated with gray matter volume in the right amygdala, as well
as in the lateral occipital cortex and middle frontal gyrus (Wang et al., 2017).

4.8. Summary of neurobiology of anger: common and unique elements of

feelings
Genetically-informed studies have found that the heritability rates for state or trait anger are
moderate, and higher heritability has been reported for anger control. Nevertheless review of the
polymorphisms or whole-genome associated with anger (Table 1) are limited by small sample

70
sizes and candidate genes; therefore nothing much can be summarized except for noting that more
studies should ascertain genetic correlates of anger.

It is difficult to separate anger from its common consequence (aggression) and to separate anger
from other negative feeling states (fear, for example, which is also induced by perceived threat) to
understand unique dynamics and the neurobiology of anger. Other negative feelings cause an
individual to withdraw: fear, sadness and disgust propel individuals away from the provocation,
and often show right-lateralized EEG (Mathersul et al., 2008). Looking at Table 2 and Fig. 2, the
fMRI review produced clear left lateralization particularly in the mentalizing and the self-
regulation networks but also in salience network involving left-lateralized insula activation. This
is reminiscent of anger’s general motivational orientation towards approach behavior (Carver and
Harmon-Jones, 2009) with left-lateralized asymmetry during anger (for a review, see Harmon-
Jones and Gable, 2017). Researchers have found increased activation in left anterior cortical areas
during the actual experience of anger (Harmon-Jones and Sigelman, 2001), and correlations of this
lateralized activation with trait anger (Harmon-Jones, 2004; Harmon-Jones and Allen, 1998) and
provocation-induced aggressive behavior (Verona et al., 2009). Results from neuro-imaging
studies corroborate these findings (see the meta-analysis by Murphy et al., 2003). This left
lateralization is quite unique to anger, reflecting a readiness to confront the source of provocation
(Harmon-Jones and Sigelman, 2001).

Whether discrete emotions correspond to distinct brain regions (Izard, 2010) or to generalized
brain networks (Lindquist et al., 2012), it is apparent that the experience of anger and correlations
with trait anger involve multiple brain regions that form networks that may be linked back to
elements of anger (e.g., the salience network with autonomic arousal). Most studies documented
enhancement of limbic and other regions of the salience network with concomitant impairment in
the self-regulation and mentalizing networks, with some morphometric studies showing structural
impairments in some of these networks. The emergent pattern validates theories on reactive
aggression (Siever, 2008). Yet this pattern is also common in addiction and other externalizing
behavior disorders.

Possibly the self-regulation impairment is overlapping externalizing disorders while

disproportionate emotional response involves different subcortical regions in different phenotypes
(e.g., amygdala involvement in IED, striatal involvement in addiction). Nevertheless there are not

71
enough studies to substantiate a region-specific uniqueness to anger. The network activations
in Fig. 2 are reminiscent of feeling states during appetitive or rewarding cues, when wanting is
stronger than liking as in addiction to substances (Berridge and Robinson, 2016). Indeed, the
conflict between desire to retaliate and self-regulation induced by feelings of anger suggest that
these feelings have reinforcing properties and that in order to stop escalation toward unwanted
behaviors, PFC brain networks are actively recruited to regulate choices and behaviors associated
with anger feelings. In the section below on the linguistic framework of anger, the conflict between
intensity of feeling and self-regulation is reflected in language that describes anger.

5. A linguistic framework for feelings of anger

With the current state of neurobiology research of anger as a backdrop, our team was specifically
tasked to review the language that people use to express anger-related feelings and components.
The Human Affectome Project taskforce agreed that any attempt to create a linguistic inventory of
articulated feelings would need to first define feelings in a manner that can help us understand the
full range of terms. The resulting definition is as follows:

5.1. Linguistic themes of feeling angry

Using the definition of feelings as a starting point, the linguistics team of the Human Affectome
Project undertook a formal linguistic analysis and ultimately proposed nine broad categories of
feeling states (Siddharthan et al., 2018). We reviewed the expressions extracted for the Anger
category and found that anger words could generally be grouped along a continuum that refers to:
the degree of arousal, the speed of escalation, outward displays, and sources of provocation.

The degree of arousal is a very important component of anger feelings, as reviewed above; not
surprisingly, it is reflected in language with terms reflecting the degree: mild anger (e.g., annoyed)
at one extreme and intense anger (e.g., feelings of fury) at the most extreme, with moderate levels
of anger conveyed by a word like “angry”. The linguistic expressions of arousal tended to operate
within a temperature metaphor, such as in heat escalation (“boiling up”).

The speed in which anger escalates and is expressed, which reflects the components of display and
regulation of anger, is another notable observation that came from our analysis of anger words. A
gradual escalation of anger is expressed as a building of pressure or bringing the internal state to a

72
boiling point. Also notable were word senses that referred to anger-related displays (e.g.,
rancorous) and behavioral outbursts (e.g., rage).

Lastly, some words were related to different sources of provocation that reflected attributions
about the social provocations, such as experiences of social threats (e.g., alienation) or unfair
treatment (e.g., indignation) and the resulting feelings of anger directed at the sources of those
threats (e.g., animosity, misanthropy) (Supplemental Materials: anger spreadsheet). These
metaphors involving heat, escalation and building-pressure are also found in self-report
questionnaires (e.g., STAXI, Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire), which are primary
operationalizations of the phenotype and themselves constitute a corpus of linguistic phrases
related to anger surveyed among populations of individuals (Buss and Perry, 1992; Spielberger,
1988).

5.2. Motivators of anger: need for safety and need for dominance and reward
It is argued that anger has had an adaptive role in improving conditions for optimum life fitness
and survival. As with fear, anger can be motivated by a need for safety. There is a functional logic
underlying anger and the motivation to use anger depending on perceived formidability of the
target or threat (e.g., the extent of body size and apparent body strength or power through
authority). Thus, anger is displayed to compel a target to bargain, so as to avoid the threat posed
by anger and to incentivize the target to withdraw. For example, the recalibrational theory of anger
is described as an attempt to reverse engineer anger (Sell, 2006; Sell et al., 2009). In essence, the
theory posits that anger is a response designed to bargain for better treatment. At the same time,
anger can be an effective instrument of threat for the purpose of intimidation and domination of
others.

The superordinate goal of this action tendency is to obtain control, and the “primary actions”
employed to achieve this goal are “attacking, intimidating, hurting, biting, scratching, reactance”
(Frijda and Parrott, 2011). Indeed, anger that is elicited by a provoking situation is predicted by
higher behavioral activation but not by behavioral inhibition scores and comprises the pursuit of
appetitive goals, responsiveness to reward, and a tendency to seek out new reinforcers and act
quickly (Carver and White, 1994). Interestingly, children who tended to react exuberantly to
emotionally positive situations at age five were also more anger-prone in negative situations and

73
positive emotions–exuberance significantly predicted externalizing problems two and three years
later (Rydell et al., 2003).

5.3. Cultural variation in anger feelings and displays

The recalibrational theory describes anger as a social bargaining tool (Sell, 2006; Sell et al.,
2009, 2017). Displaying anger is purportedly designed to gather the target’s attention, and the most
common response to anger is a rapid information exchange. The theory also holds that apologies
typically extinguish anger. From this perspective, anger responses coordinate facial expressions,
vocal changes, verbal arguments, the withholding of benefits, the deployment of aggression, and
a suite of other cognitive and physiological variables in the service of leveraging bargaining
position into better outcomes. Sell et al. (2017) recently conducted twenty-three experiments to
test the theory’s predictions about anger using participants from the US, Australia, Turkey,
Romania, India, and Ecuador. Using vignettes describing anger-inducing scenarios, the team found
that subjects across all six cultures similarly judged that anger would intensify when: (i) the cost
was large, (ii) the benefit the offender received from imposing the cost was small, or (iii) the
offender imposed the cost despite knowing that the angered individual was the person to be
harmed. So, this theoretical framework for anger appears to have a degree of validity across
different cultures.

Although the anger is evident across most cultures, anger responses are highly contextualized and
therefore subject to variation across cultures (Alonso-Arbiol et al., 2011; Bender et al.,
2012; Boiger et al., 2013). Distinct cultural variations in anger have been shown in research. For
example, Kirchner et al. recently compared anger response differences between American and
Japanese respondents, in a study designed to explore the transformation of high-intensity shame
into anger (a phenomenon known as "humiliated fury”) (Kirchner et al., 2018). The research team
conducted two studies and compared the occurrence of shame-related anger in North American
cultural contexts (where shame is devalued, and anger is valued) to its occurrence in Japanese
culture (where shame is valued, and anger is devalued). In both studies, shame predicted anger for
American respondents but not Japanese participants. Japanese respondents only reported shame-
related anger when presented with North American cultural contexts, suggesting that shame-
related anger is a culture-specific phenomenon.

74
In fMRI study, de Greck et al. (2012) scanned Chinese and German healthy subjects to determine
whether or not these cultural differences would foster distinct brain activity Analyses revealed
several brain regions that showed comparable hemodynamic responses across groups. However,
their results confirmed some cross-cultural differences, specifically enhanced emotion regulation
mediated by the left dorsolateral PFC during empathy to anger faces among participants from the
interdependent culture vs. individualized culture. The tolerance of anger in the individualized
culture was associated with increased activity of the right inferior and superior temporal gyrus and
the left middle insula (de Greck et al., 2012). Together these results support features of anger
experience common across cultures and other elements of distinctions in the processing of anger
across cultures with different world views.

6. Conclusions

In this review of the neuroscience of anger we introduced the components of anger feelings
(see Fig. 1). We also find in the literature that chronic anger that is a ubiquitous experience in some
individuals is associated with the development and worsening of major disease states (Mostofsky
et al., 2014). In terms of psychiatric symptoms, high trait anger is associated with treatment
resistance and frequent relapse of psychiatric symptoms, relative to low trait anger (Fernandez and
Johnson, 2016). Although anger is common in numerous disorders, only one psychiatric disorder
features bouts of anger as a core symptom. That is, IED is quite prevalent in the general population
and almost equal in prevalence across men and women (Kessler et al., 2006). In sum, regulating
and coping with anger is crucial for the brain (reducing psychiatric problems) and for other organs
in the body, making a strong case for appropriate anger regulation generally being more
advantageous to optimal living than chronic anger expression.

Our first literature search on common genetic markers of anger traits (Table 1) captured mostly
monoamine candidate gene studies, limiting our knowledge of genome-wide association that might
open the door for other unknown genes or the interaction across hundreds or thousands of genes.
One genome wide study found a link with Fyn signaling pathways (Mick et al., 2014), although
the effect size was quite small, as is typical in such studies relating genome to behavioral
phenotypes. We conclude that more genetic and epigenetic studies are needed that are genome-
wide using larger samples and varied populations to ascertain the full picture. Reviewing brain-

75
candidate gene studies of anger, we found that these documented network impairments analogous
to impairments found in individuals with high anger and aggression.

In our second literature review (Table 2, Fig. 2) we summarized fMRI studies of human brain
networks activated specifically during experimentally induced anger feelings. These networks
correspond nicely to components of anger that were introduced in the beginning of the manuscript:
the salience network amygdala and insula involvement captured components of autonomic arousal
and stress reactivity, the mentalizing network captured cognitive components and self-referential
anger experiences, and interactions between salience and self-regulation and mentalizing networks
through connectivity of the ventromedial PFC with thalamus and insula. It was found, as in many
reviews and experiments on anger, that there is a strong left lateralization in active and suppressed
brain networks, possibly as a result of the strong approach tendency in anger feelings (Carver and
Harmon-Jones, 2009). Notably, anger feelings appear to trigger opposing processes between PFC
top-down control and subcortical limbic pressure. Particularly compelling, a recent study
demonstrates that modulating activity in ventromedial PFC with transcranial direct-current
stimulation led to decreased aggression retribution, and mitigated the increase in self-reported
anger following provocation (Gilam et al., 2018).

Just as anger triggers specific body and brain responses, anger is expressed through specific
language in humans (Supplemental Materials: anger spreadsheet). It was observed that anger
words could generally be grouped along a continuum that refers to the degree of arousal, the speed
to escalation, types of anger display, and source of provocation. Linguistic expressions capture
arousal and pressure terms, and loss of regulation. The language also reflects the different possible
sources of provocation and attributions about social situations that may lead to anger, such as being
ignored or alienated.

Despite these interpretations of the literature, research is not available that explicitly tests
associations between language displays and particular patterns of neural activation or arousal.
These types of studies would advance knowledge of the ways in which language reflects the
psychobiological experiences of humans. The language analysis further suggests that anger is
motivated by both a need for safety and a need for dominance, depending on individual personality
traits and on the situation at hand. Thus, anger is expressed to manage fear (reduce threats to
safety), or to increase a sense of reward from the act of dominating others. We note that self-report

76
questionnaires that characterize state or trait anger are a linguistic corpus in themselves, as they
use language to describe the feeling and have individuals endorse the feeling and the degree to
which it describes them. Thus, research on the gene and brain correlates of individual differences
in self-report anger are themselves a guide to mapping language to neuroscience. The main
problem is that studies of anger are few and disparate, relative to research on the behavioral output
of anger (e.g., aggression). There is clearly a need for an integrated model of affect that
encompasses anger, and, as such, more studies are needed on the experience and the regulation of
anger feelings.

References see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763419302167

77
 THE TWELVE STEPS

Adapted from the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, pages 59 and 60.
1. We admitted we were powerless over rage-that our lives
had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves

could restore us to sanity.

3. Decided to turn our will and our lives

over to the care of God as we understood God.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to us, and to another

human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became

willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible,

except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and

when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious

contact with God as we understood God, praying only for knowledge
of God's will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps,

we tried to carry this message to rageaholics, and
to practice these principles in all our affairs.

78