By the way when making this thread, I wasn't demanding that everyone should be on this level where they never get angry, <snip>
"this level" no doubt a level you deem to be very high.
from what you said, it looks like you really think that jews should -ideally- be on a "level" of never getting angry. That would include jews in war then.
that seems a bit silly.
I said ideally. And anyway it is not silly at all. Even in the situation where one kills their enemies during war, it is also for the good. The kavanah is that better that I kill my enemy before it kills me and my family. Also with that attitude the soldier is much more efficient and focused. Not acting stupid and fighting efficiently and correctly. Doing what needs to be done as opposed to what one feels with their emotions.
I said that you said ideally.
Unfortunately, human beings are not robots or vulcans. If you pretend to be one, you can become apathetic and do nothing, or harm yourself with a bad diet!
Emotions can drive us to do things, good things.
Anger can cause chemical reactions that are very beneficial for fighting.
So what do you say to the Chazal who equate Anger with Idolatry? I dont think there is anything beneficial from anger because it clouds the reasoning ability. Have you ever gotten angry? It is very bad for the soul and for all those around. You claim it is good for fighting but an angry fighter is not one who is thinking logically. I dont think anger is the appropriate term for what you are thinking. I think that an increase in adrenaline can be beneficial to a fighter because a fighter needs to be aware of what is going on around him.
I think that the wisdom of Chazal over-rides your claims...
PS: Your argument is one of 'the yetzer hara is really good' because sometimes it leads to good things {like having a family, etc.}. But we know that a yetzer hara which is not controlled is most certainly not for the good.
I can't give a full analysis.. due to insufficient information.
But it was rabbi kahane that said, one shouldn't abandon common sense.
When Moshe saw the jewish people with the calf, he would have felt angry, and smashed the tablets..
When shimon and levi defended dina's honour, they must have felt angry.
(note, as rabbi binyamin kahane points out, yaakov doesn't condemn the act, he is just concerned about the reaction)
It's common sense that they felt anger.
That anger was indignation. Anger at injustice. Righteous anger.
So if you want to try to explain chazal, you have to do it taking those things into account too.
Assuming their reactions were right. Maybe, they were angry, but didn't act while completely overcome by it.
It may well be that there is a pacifist stream within judaism. If you look at the artscroll translation of the letter the RAMBAN wrote to his son, it has commentary too, you see it is very pacifistic. Like turning the other cheek.
There is a story - in a commentary - of a rabbi lying down on a ship and somebody defecated on his face. He said it was the best day of his life, because he didn't get angry. (I think he didn't do anything, except wipe/wash it off). Biblically, it looks to me like a Chillul Hashem, rabbi kahane would say so for sure.
I have read about not being angry but feigning anger.. That way you get the same reaction from the other person but you are in control of it.
