Our parsha ends with the tragic episode of the megadef, a product of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother, who, in the heat of an argument he had with an Israelite with a Jewish father, cursed Hashem. Hashem prescribed a death sentence upon him and taught that all who would do so in the future would suffer a similar fate. Curiously, the Torah then continues to present seemingly unrelated, additional laws of damages including murder, killing of animals and the wounding of people. How are these disparate topics related?
Kli Yakar suggests that by discussing the laws of wounding here, the Torah is implying that the Jew of purer lineage was also guilty of perpetuating the argument that ultimately led to the megadef engaging is his blasphemy. (See also Emes LeYa'akov by Rav Ya'akov Kamenetsky for a similar approach.) The Torah, in effect, is warning us that wounding and even murder are often consequences of strife and conflict. By talking about the compensation for wounding and the punishment for murder, the Torah is underscoring the evil of discord and its disastrous consequences. It is also for this reason that neither of the disputants is named; they are merely described as "a son of an Egyptian" and "a son of an Israelite." Because of the sinful actions of both of them, their names are not worthy of being recorded. Kli Yakar further notes that the Torah alludes to a frequent cause of strife and conflict. Chazal (Kiddushin 70) teach us "כל הפוסל, במומו פוסל - All who accuse others of having some deficient quality, have that same quality themselves."[2] This is alluded to by the seemingly redundant verses concerning one who wounds another. One verse states, " כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו —as he has done, so shall be done to him" (24:19), and another states "כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו - when one places a blemish in another, so shall be placed in him (ibid. 20)." Homiletically, the latter refers to the physical assault and the payment the perpetrator owes as a result. The former alludes to the cause of the quarrel leading to the assault whereby one party accused the other of having a certain deficiency: "as he has done" - verbally. The Torah testifies that that same deficiency "shall be done" by others to the perpetrator, namely, they should attribute that same deficiency to him.
The danger of needless disputes is underscored by Rav in Sanhedrin (110a) who teaches: "All who perpetuate discord violate a negative commandment, as the verse teaches: 'And he shall not be like Korach and his followers' (Bamidbar 17:5)." Rishonim debate whether this prohibition is actually a Biblical one (Semag Lavin 157 and Sha'arei Teshuva 3:55) or a Rabbinic one with the verse being used as an asmachata (Rambam, Shoresh 8 of Sefer Hamitzvos). Even if it is a Rabbinic prohibition, but like all Rabbinic prohibitions, it reflects fundamental, underlying Torah concepts. Peace is extolled as generating reward in this world and the next (Pei'ah 1:1), as the mission of Eliyahu Hanavi at the end of days (Ediyos 8:7), as the goal of the entire Torah (Gittin 59b), as the greatest vessel containing blessing (last Mishna in Shas, Uktzin 3:11) and in countless other Talmudic and Midrashic sources (see Otzar Ha'agadah, entry on Shalom).
To be sure, sometimes machlokes or conflict is warranted. Rema (O"C 1:1) tells us that one should be bold in his service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and not pay heed to those who mock his service of G-d. Nonetheless, Mishna Berura (5) quotes from the Beis Yosef that he should not argue with those misguided individuals since one should distance himself from azus or brazenness since it will often be used in a sinful way. Additionally, this seems to reflect the above ideas of not causing needless conflict. However, Beur Halacha notes that this is only true on the individual level. One who is attempting to harm a community spiritually certainly must be combatted, and, even so, only after peace overtures have been rejected. Clearly, even such battles need to be done with prudent Rabbinic guidance so that the goals of such conflict are accomplished, and the opposite result is not chas v'shalom achieved. Similarly, Rabbeinu Yona in his Sha'arei Teshuva (3:56) prohibits sitting idly by when wicked people threaten to destroy that which is holy. One of his prooftexts is the rallying cry of Moshe Rabbeinu "mi laShem eilai" (Shemos 32:26) calling upon members of Klal Yisrael to battle the sinners who worshiped the Golden Calf. Here too, careful consideration, upon consultation with Torah leaders, must be made before breaking the proper norm of darchei shalom even for a justified purpose.
The Mirrer Rosh Hayeshiva, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, in his Sichos Mussar (Machlokes, Chukas 5732), presents an important point to consider even when debates are justified. What is the litmus test if a person is engaging in a dispute truly for proper motives or just for his own bruised ego? If the person is willing to concede that the other person is correct if he discovers that that is the case. The mishna in Avos (5:17) famously teaches that the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai were "for the sake of Heaven", and, as such, would last, meaning both opinions would be taught. Rav Chaim notes that a proof that the debate was solely for the sake of Heaven is that Beis Hillel would quote Beis Shammai's opinion first - meaning, they first heard the logic of their opponents' position, and, only after being convinced that they could not accept it, disagreed. This is an important piece of soul-searching that one involved in an argument has to make for himself before proceeding. Will I accept the other side's position if it is proven true?
In an enlightening series of sefarim and periodicals from the Machon Toras Ha'adam l'Adam, an article quoted a respected Rabbinic authority who writes that there is no room for strife in arguing with a group of people who are following outstanding Rabbinic personalities, even if that group's views are diametrically opposed to a different group's viewpoint. Heeding this important directive would certainly lessen strife in our broader community.
On an individual level, the Chafetz Chaim advises us to often go beyond the letter of the law when disputes arise with associates, neighbors and the like. One should devote part of their budget to "shalom gelt," money devoted to forego legitimate monetary claims in order to preserve peace and not fall into disputes. To be sure, each case needs to be analyzed on its own, and one certainly is not expected nor advised to forego all legitimate monetary complaints or to relinquish all of their legitimate rights. But the overarching principles of shalom and avoiding unnecessary conflict, as highlighted by the above-mentioned implicit aspect of the tragedy of the megadeif and of the entire Korach debacle, should be primary principles guiding our conduct.
The son of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu zt"l was once libeled by the editor of a certain newspaper. After the latter lost a lawsuit filed against him, he audaciously went to Rav Eliyahu claiming he did not have the funds to pay! Rav Eliyahu rebuked him stating, "If you are motzi shem ra (slander), you pay!" Then, unexpectedly, the Rav asked the man to wait. Returning soon after, he said, "Here is the money. Use it to pay my son, and don't tell him I gave it to you!"
Rav Shteinman zt"l would often advise people to be mevater or forego their rights as a source of merit for salvation, stating, "one never loses from being mevater!" Once a dispute arose between the head of a chessed organization and one of its directors. The machlokes extended for a lengthy period of time until, exasperated, the organizational head decided to fire the director. When he sought Rav Shteinman's advice, the Rav thought for a while and declared, "You are justified in firing him. But, you and your wife haven't been blessed with children for so long. Why not be mevater and, in that merit, you should have a child!" Indeed, the firing did not take place and the organization's head and his wife were blessed with their first child a year later! Many current stories testify that the time that one does not answer insults is an eis ratzon for prayer. Those taking advantage of those times instead of continuing the conflict have often been blessed with miraculous salvation.
Our Gedolei Yisrael illuminate for us the goal of avoiding strife, sometimes combining kindness with gentle rebuke but with the ultimate goal not of "putting people in their place," but of achieving reconciliation and peace. May we always merit finding the right balance between legitimate defense of our rights and ways of pleasantness and avoiding needless conflicts. "דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום - Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all of its pathways are those of peace."
[1] Also see N'kama and N'tira: Parameters and Preventatives for expansions on the themes discussed here.
[2] Humorously, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l once sent someone to Rav A. Y. L. Shteinman zt"l for guidance stating that the latter had Ruach Hakodesh. Rav Shteinman inquired of the man who had sent him and why. After hearing what Rav Chaim had said about him, Rav Shteinman quipped, "כל הפוסל, במומו פוסל"!