According to Rambam, Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen met at Har Sinai. What seems to be a simple meeting of two brothers is described by Chazal as an encounter of two individuals with complementary character traits. “This is what is written, Chesed v’emes nifgashu, tzedek v’shalom nashaku, ‘Kindness and truth met, righteous and peace kissed’” (Tehillim 85:11). Kindness” refers to Aharon, and “truth” refers to Moshe. This is what is meant by “kindness” and “truth” met – “And he (Aharon) met him (Moshe) at the mountain of G-d.” “Righteous” refers to Moshe and “peace” refers to Aharon. Thus, “kiss” corresponds to “and he kissed him” (The Midrash cites the corresponding pesukim which indicate that Moshe and Aharon were the exemplars of these individual middos, character traits.)
We must add that this does not mean that Moshe Rabbeinu represented only emes and tzedek, and Aharon HaKohen represented only chesed and shalom. Clearly, Moshe was also dedicated to kindness and peace, as Aharon was devoted to truth and righteousness; rather, the intent of the Midrash is to underscore the primary attributes emblematized by Moshe and Aharon.
Horav Aharon Soloveitchik, zl, observes that, when dealing with people, one must have recourse to the four middos represented by Moshe and Aharon. He distinguishes, however, between Jews and non-Jews with regard to the predominant attitude one must employ. When confronting Jews, the dominant attitude should be that of Aharon – a disposition of chesed and shalom, although, at times, emes and tzedek must be utilized. When confronting gentiles, the middos which best represented Moshe, emes and tzedek, should prevail.
Let us now view the pasuk in Sefer Tehillim to understand the Psalmist’s specific choice of words: “Kindness and truth met; righteous and peace kissed.” Why does David Hamelech choose these two disparate terms of reconciliation? The Rosh Yeshivah explains that the term “meeting,” implies more than a simple coming together. It bespeaks an encounter which involves negotiations and even, at times, slight concessions. “Kissing,” however, has a deeper meaning. It implies an alliance, a coming together of the minds in such a manner that total harmony reigns. Now we must see how these specific terms relate to chesed and emes, and tzedek and shalom, respectively.
In order to understand the distinction between these terms we must first see how the Torah views these terms and in what context. Emes mei eretz tazmach v’tzedek miShomayim nishkaf, “Truth will sprout from the ground and righteousness will look down from Heaven.” What is the meaning of this pasuk? Does truth grow from the ground? Is righteousness a Heavenly attribute? Chazal (Midrash Rabbah, Bereishis 8:5) quote this pasuk to explain the well-known Aggadah which relates that, when Hashem was about to create Adam HaRishon, man, the middah, character trait, of emes protested. Man is prone to prevaricate. Why bring his lies into the new world? Hashem’s response was to cast emes to the earth, from where it could grow.
Chazal are teaching us that, indeed, the cultivation of truth in others is a slow, often tedious, process. Similar to the cultivation of a tree which grows from the earth – it does not happen overnight. When teaching others, emes must be fostered gradually. This, the Rosh Yeshivah explains, is why there is no mitzvah of tochachah, rebuke, towards a person who will not heed the reproof. It is a waste, because if he does not possess the middah of emes as an inherent part of his psyche, it is all for naught. One must be truthful with himself in order to accept rebuke.
Tzedek, however, “will look down from Heaven.” Righteousness and justice must be held as they appear in all their glory, in all their brilliance. These are terms that are Heaven-sent, their source determined by Heavenly rules and perfection. While emes refers to spreading a true idea to others, tzedek refers to one’s personal rectitude. When it comes to just/righteous behavior, there is no room or time for development. One cannot excuse his unjust, unrighteous behavior by attributing it to development issues. “It takes time to develop a sense of justice” is a disingenuous excuse. One’s personal ethical conduct must be inspired and guided by the lessons gleaned from – and implied by – the Divine idea of righteousness and justice. Veritably, one must be patient in imbuing others with moral values; one cannot hesitate (or neglect altogether) to demonstrate the principles of righteousness and justice in his own actions. An individual whose sense of right and wrong, justice and righteousness, have yet to be refined has no business inspiring others.
To recap: Between truth and kindness, which represent our dedication to the principles of truth and our devotion to dealing kindly with others, there can be a meeting, a sort of reconciliation, because truth is developed gradually. It cannot, however, develop into a solid alliance. Truth and kindness can meet, but not ally with one another. An alliance with a weakened – yet underdeveloped – truth is the same as compromising the truth, and we brook no compromise with regard to the truth. This means that, unequivocally, we do not concede the truth of the Torah just so that we may better relate to those who are not committed to the truth of the Torah. There can, likewise, be no spiritual alliance with those who deny the existence of Torah min haShomayim, the Authorship of the Torah. (This applies to both the Written and Oral Law). Meeting – yes; alliance – no, for alliance bespeaks compromise on our part. On the other hand, between shalom, true peace which is predicated upon justice and fairness – and tzedek, righteousness, there can certainly be a full alliance.
