Parshas Eikev 5786
- Torah Tavlin
- 3 days ago
- 2 min read
ואשר עשה לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב בן ראובן אשר פצתה הארץ את פיה ותבלעם ... (יא-ו)
When recounting the miracle of the ground swallowing Korach and his supporters, Moshe only mentions Dasan and Aviram. Why is Korach, the primary instigator, omitted? A story is told of a child who was getting teased. In an attempt to win his peer’s approval, he offered to buy them all candy. Delighted, the children eagerly accepted. Later, the boy returned home to find his father frantically searching for a missing gold coin which he had planned to use for his son’s wedding!
Ashamed, the boy confessed that he had used it to buy candy. Although the father understood his son, he was outraged that the storekeeper had not returned the proper change. He confronted the storekeeper, who insisted that the boy had paid with an ordinary coin. Customers overheard the heated argument, whispers spread quickly that the owner was a ganav, and the store lost many customers. The given psak was “Hamotzi M’chaveiro Alav Haraya” leaving the burden of proof on the father, nevertheless, much of the town remained convinced that the storekeeper was dishonest and they boycotted his business. Humiliated, heartbroken, and financially ruined, he left town, suffered a heart attack, and passed away.
Years later, a Meshulach arrived at the door of the father. He recalled how on a previous visit, he had persuaded the boy to exchange the gold coin for two ordinary coins, a bargain in the child’s eye. Those coins, not the gold one, were given to the storekeeper. Who is to blame? Not the child, who didn’t understand the difference, nor the father who had no way of knowing. The storekeeper had been honest all along! The real blame rests with the hockers. They had no skin in the game, no firsthand knowledge, yet they inserted themselves into a dispute that was never theirs. The same lesson emerges from Korach’s rebellion. Korach may have believed he had a legitimate grievance, but Dasan and Aviram had no personal stake in the dispute. By joining the fight and inflaming the conflict, they bore responsibility for escalating it. Often, Machlokes is sustained by the sidelines, not the principals themselves. We can be builders of shalom rather than contributors to conflict.