Divrei Torah for the Shabbos Table
ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל – “So Moshe stood up and went to Dasan and Aviram, and the elders of Yisroel went after him.” (Bamidbar 16:25)
After his initial conversation with Korach and his congregation, Moshe made a separate attempt at reconciliation by sending a message to Dasan and Aviram, two of the prominent members of the group, asking them to come meet with him. Though they refused and responded with impudence, Moshe arose and went out to meet them.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) notes that from Moshe’s conduct, we learn the concept of: “Ein machzikin be’machlokes — One should not hold onto an argument,” that one must make every effort to end a quarrel and bring it to a peaceful resolution. Even though Dasan and Aviram rejected Moshe’s request to meet, Moshe persisted and tried again, even going out himself to meet with them.
Isn’t it obvious that we must do all that is within our power to end a quarrel? Do we need a pasuk to teach us this? Furthermore, why is the only lesson to be gleaned from Moshe’s conduct that one cannot hold onto an argument?
We should actually go a step further and derive that one must, in the words of Dovid HaMelech: “Bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Seek peace and pursue it” (Tehillim 34:15), as Moshe Rabbeinu did.
The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe; see also Menachem Tzion by Rav Menachem Bentzion Zaks) suggests an additional and more profound way of reading the Gemara. The word “machzikim,” which is translated here as to hold or maintain, is also related to the term “chazakah” where there is an established pattern that we can assume will continue into the future, or until disproven.
The concept of chazakah applies to many areas of halachah, such as the marital status of a person, the halachic status of an item, ownership of a property. The notion of chazakah is that status quo is maintained. The way a person has acted in the past is how we assume he will act in the future.
It follows that the Gemara is telling us that we should not apply the law of chazakah to the disputants in an argument. We must not presume that the confrontational manner of a person will continue unabated and unchanged, and that there is no purpose in trying yet again to reason with the fellow. “Ein machzikin be’machlokes.” We do not apply the law of chazakah to a quarrel; we do not allow the past and prejudicial history of a person to affect how we will deal with him now.
Dasan and Aviram had a history of antagonistic and hostile behavior toward Moshe. On three previous occasions, they acted toward him in an argumentative manner.
The first time (Shemos 2:14) was when Moshe tried to stop them from fighting with each other, and they said to him, “Who appointed you as a dignitary, a ruler, and a judge over us?”
The second time (Shemos 5:20–21) was when they confronted Moshe and Aharon when Moshe and Aharon left Pharaoh’s palace. Dasan and Aviram complained that they were not helping matters, but making things worse; they spoke to Moshe and Aharon in an aggressive manner, stating, “May Hashem look upon you and judge.”
The third time began earlier in this perek, when they joined Korach in his insurrection against Moshe and said to him (Bamidbar 16:13), “Is it not enough that you have brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey to cause us die in the wilderness, yet you seek to dominate us, even to dominate further?” (See Toras Moshe for one more example.)
Moshe had every reason to apply the rule of chazakah and presume that these two would remain hostile and unrepentant until the end. However, rather than giving up and assuming that some things and some people will never change, he made yet another attempt to work things out.
We, too, can learn that when dealing with quarrels and fights, no assumptions can be made; a chazakah does not exist. We have no right to claim, “I’ve done all I could. There’s nothing more I can do; they are never going to change!” We cannot allow a person’s past history to be a barometer for the future. All attempts at reconciliation or another suitable solution must be made.
* * *
Further on in this week’s parsha (17:17–25), after the above incidents, Hashem told Moshe to instruct Aharon and the nesiyim of the twelve shevotim to mark and place their staffs in the Ohel Moed. Hashem said that only one staff would blossom, as a sign of whom Hashem had chosen as the Kohen Gadol. Sure enough, only Aharon’s stick blossomed, even sprouting buds and producing ripe almonds.
If Hashem promised that the staff of the chosen one would blossom, why was there a need for it to also sprout buds and almonds? (See Rashbam on pasuk 23.)
It’s true that we could have said that the Torah is merely describing the natural progression of a fruit tree — from the expected blossoms, which fall off, to the further development of buds, and finally fruits — but the Gemara (Yoma 52b) seems to indicate otherwise.
The Gemara teaches that several very valuable artifacts were kept beside the Aron HaKodesh, one of which was Aharon’s staff, with its almonds and its blossoms. Thus, when the Aron HaKodesh was buried before the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh, Aharon’s staff was among the items buried along with it.
The Tosfos Yeshonim points out that we can never have almonds and blossoms at the same time, if the blossoms fall off when the fruit develops. So how could the stick have both almonds and blossoms? He explains that some blossoms must not have developed into the fruit and merely remained on the staff as flowers.
So now we are left with additional questions: Why did the stick have to be saved for posterity? And what do we learn from the fact that the fruit and blossoms were on the stick at the same time?
Rav Gedaliah Schorr (Ohr Gedalyahu) says that human nature is such that upon achieving greatness, people plateau and slack off from their rigorous efforts that went into achieving such greatness. After setting their sights on a certain goal, they feel that they can finally take a breath and view the world from the rarified air of their newly realized position.
By telling us about the stick of Aharon, which kept blossoming even after it already bore fruit, the Torah is teaching us that a person must always be in a state of perichah, of blossoming and growth, even if he has already produced fruit and achieved greatness. The chosen ones are those who do not rely or rest on the chazakah of what they have done, but are always looking to grow and see what more can be done. Even after Aharon reached a high madreigah, he did not rest on his laurels but continued to strive to reach even higher heights.
This mirrors what we discussed earlier, about “Ein machzikin be’machlokes.” Just like we may not rely on chazakah when it comes to the negative activities in a person’s past, but we must continue to pursue peace with him, so we cannot rely on chazakah when it comes to the positive accomplishments in our own past, but we must continue to pursue greatness and growth.