Rashi notes that as teachers of Torah, the tribe of Shimon would spread out to teach children. Similarly, the descendants of Levi, in their role as collectors of tithes and heave offerings, would go around to all of Israel.

But a deeper understanding of Yaacov’s words requires that we take into account two major incidents in the lives of Shimon and Levi. These brothers were the ones who avenged the rape of Dinah by killing the males of Shehem. (Genesis 34) They are also ascribed by some to be the key brothers who conspired to kill Yosef (Joseph). (Rashi, Genesis 42:24) In both these incidents, Shimon and Levi displayed dangerous anger by taking the law into their own hands.

It is relative to their anger that Yaacov addresses his comments. Note that Yaacov uses two terms with respect to Shimon and Levi --- afeetzem (to scatter) and ahalkem (to separate).

Akedat Yitzchak (R. Isaac Arama, Spain 15 c) seems to comment on afeetzem when stating: “Anger and temper, though undesirable qualities, may sometimes prove useful in arousing the heroic in man…It was advisable that the qualities of anger and passion that had been concentrated in Shimon and Levi should be dispersed among all the tribes of Israel…A little spread everywhere would prove useful, but if concentrated in one place, it would be dangerous.” When scattered, the anger will be spread out and directed productively.

Yet, when considering the other term that Yaacov uses, ahalkem, another thought comes to mind. After all, ahalkem means that Shimon and Levi will actually be separated from one another. When living together, Shimon and Levi could wreak havoc, as each would feed off the other’s anger, creating flames of unlimited destruction. But apart, it is possible that their individual anger would fizzle out and eventually disappear. From this perspective, Yaacov is declaring that anger of any sort, is detrimental.

Of course, anger is an emotion. While one cannot control what one feels, action can be controlled. And so, even if one feels anger, the ultimate goal is not to act angry for, as Rav Nahman says, “you cannot make peace with anger.”

Which is it? Does anger have its positive elements as Akedat Yitzchak points out, or should anger be completely obviated as Rav Nachman suggests. What do you think?


Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Avi Weiss