Parashat Ki Tisa: Aaron’s Way (and Moses’ Way) of Conflict Resolution
(A d’var Torah delivered by Rabbi J.B. Sacks on March 1, 2024)
What do you think is the best way to get two people in a conflict to be reconciled with each other? We learn of our ancestor Aaron’s method in the rabbinic work Avot D’Rabbi Natan. It is an eighth century or so companion to the beloved section of the Mishnah called Pirkei Avot, a text devoted to the ethical values of our people.
The Avot D’Rabbi Natan imagines Aaron’s conflict resolution strategy in the following way. When Aaron would see two people in conflict, he would go to one of them and offer, “Your friend has just come crying to me, saying ‘Woe is me, that I have offended my friend! Aaron, please go and request forgiveness on my behalf!’” Aaron would sit with him until his anger subsided, and then Aaron would go to the other friend and say exactly the same thing. When the two friends would see each other, they would hug each other, and their conflict would be resolved.[1] This strategy is presented, it seems, to illustrate why Aaron was so universally beloved among the people of Israel and why he gained a reputation as ohev shalom v’rodef shalom, one who loved peace and who pursued it.
When I first encountered this text, I was impressed by Aaron’s zeal to resolve conflicts. But I was quickly bothered by Aaron’s willingness to be dishonest to both sides in order to bring them together.
Moreover, it is hard for me to believe that this conflict resolution strategy could ever have been effective. After even a brief conversation between the two adversaries, Aaron’s subterfuge would probably have come to light. Or, maybe, if this strategy ever succeeded, it was because the two adversaries now had a common enemy, united in their anger at Aaron for lying to them both!
In spite of all this, I now see this story as an example of the brilliance of our sages in telling an imaginative story about Aaron that highlights a character trait that is simultaneously so appealing and so maddening.
On the one hand, Aaron seems to be able to see the best in everyone. The very first time Aaron is mentioned in the Torah is during G!d’s call to Moses at the burning bush. During that pivotal encounter in which G!d tells Moses that his brother Aaron, who is a skilled communicator, is coming out to meet Moses; “when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart.”[2] Aaron is, in fact, the first person in the Torah to be the subject of the verb sin–mem–chet (שמח), meaning “to rejoice.”
On the other hand, this week’s Torah reading, Ki Tisa, highlights the problematic side of Aaron’s tendency to see the best in everyone and to seek peace at all times. In the best-known and most troubling episode of this week’s Torah portion, Moses is atop Mount Sinai, and the Israelites approach Aaron to ask him to make a god for them, because they don’t know what happened to Moses. Aaron’s inclination is to keep the peace. He stalls for time, but eventually he submits to their demands, creating the Golden Calf.
Aaron’s actions can be understood in a number of ways, but perhaps the simplest explanation is that Aaron does what we would expect from someone with a conflict-averse temperament. He doesn’t like to say “no.” In fact, he does not even want to take a stab at calming the distraught people. Sure, Aaron might truly empathize with the anxiety of the Israelites, but he would prefer not to challenge them. Similar to the text in Avot d’Rabbi Natan, Aaron’s tendency is to elevate peace over all other values. Only later on does he come to realize that this was a mistake.
I am grateful that the Torah does not suggest that there is only one way to live our lives. The Torah is full of diverse personalities who each have their own traits and quirks, for better and for worse. The Torah can make it clear that Aaron made a tragic error, and also laud him for the personal qualities that led him to make this error. It’s not that the tendencies to appease, to unite, to reconcile, and to make peace are bad. Rather, Aaron, in this particular case, did not weigh them against other tendencies. Nor did he assess what strategies he might employ or think about consequences.
Nevertheless, at the end of Aaron’s life, we read that kol Beit Yisrael, “the entire house of Israel,” mourned his loss.[3] This complete unanimity of sentiment does not occur after Moses died. Then we simply read that “the house of Israel” mourned his loss,[4] perhaps implying that people generally mourned, but not everyone.
An early midrash[5] explains that this difference emanates from the different styles of these two leaders. Aaron never made people feel bad about themselves. Moses was willing to criticize people when necessary, and as a result, people felt less warmly towards him.
Yet, the entire section of the midrash begins by telling us עתים שאדם שותק, עתים שאדם מדבר, that at times a person should remain silent, but at times a person should speak.
All of this is not to say that Moses’ temperament or Aaron’s temperament is always superior. Indeed, temperament itself is not the issue. And the midrash reminds us that the Israelites were fortunate to have people with contrasting styles on their leadership team. Aaron alone, or Moses alone, or Miriam alone, would not have been as effective as a combination of their different skills and priorities working together, learning from each other, challenging each other and, especially their different approaches to human relations and conflict management.
In this week’s Torah portion, Moses reproves Aaron for having let the people get out of control.[6] At a later point in the Torah, however, Aaron reproves Moses for responding to a tragic situation with insufficient empathy and being too quick to judge.[7] We can imagine that there were other times when these leaders balanced each other and used their strengths to help each other to compensate for their areas of challenge.
I like that our rabbinic tradition frames Aaron’s life and career as one of ohev shalom v’rodef shalom, as someone who loved peace and who pursued it. Would that more nations and leaders, workers and families, took this from their toolbox and applied it more carefully more often.
Yet I wouldn’t recommend Aaron’s conflict resolution method today. Giving misinformation and outright lying is not to be commended. But I am grateful that Jewish tradition gives us insights into the minds and motivations of three-dimensional leaders with contrasting styles. And, surely, it’s to our advantage when we surround ourselves with people who see the world differently from how we do, when we listen and consider. It leads to better decision-making, and it helps us to grow.
Shabbat shalom.
[1] Avot De-Rabbi Natan 12:3.
[2] Exodus 4:14.
[3] Numbers 20:29.
[4] Deuteronomy 34:8.
[5] Sifra, Parashat Shmini 2:37.
[6] Exodus 32:21.
[7] Leviticus 10:19.