Dvar Torah Korach: Ein machzikin b’machlokes, Even with a Repeat Offender

Classics and Beyond Korach — Ein machzikin be’machlokes — even with a repeat offender.
ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל
So Moshe stood up and went to Dasan and Aviram, and the elders of Israel 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 go a step further and derive that one must, in the words of David HaMelech: “Bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Seek peace and pursue it” (Tehillim 34:15), as Moshe Rabbeinu did.
The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe ad loc.; 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 (ibid. 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.