"[Moshe] went out on the second day." Why is this detail significant?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 18, p. 84): The Torah teaches us that after having killed the Mitzri, Moshe was unafraid (i.e. he did not maintain a low profile). The very next day, he got involved in breaking up a fight - despite that this would attract attention to himself.
Moshe did not refrain from rebuking the evildoer (though this would later bring him great distress!). What does this show us?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael p. 37): This shows us Moshe's trait of uprightness (Yosher); this is why he later merited to bring down the Torah. 1
Refer to 2:11:2.03:1, and the note there.
Who were the two men who were quarrelling?
Rashi: They were Dasan and Aviram, 1 the same men who also left over from the Manna (see 16:20).
Nedarim 64b: Wherever the Torah uses the term "Nitzim" or "Nitzavim," it refers to Dasan and Aviram.
Both of which we know from a Gezerah-Shavah "Anashim" "Anashim," from the episode with Korach (Bamidbar 16:26), where they are mentioned by name. By the same token, the Torah also addresses the men who left over from the Manna until the morning as "Anashim." See Rashi to Shemos 16:20, and Sifsei Chachamim there.
What were Dasan and Aviram quarrelling about?
Oznayim la'Torah (citing Yalkut Re'uveini): Following the incident of the night before, Dasan wanted to divorce Shelomis, and Aviram, who was her brother, objected vehemently. 1
But Dasan and Aviram themselves were brothers (Bamidbar 26:9)! (CS)
Why did Moshe say "Lamah Sakeh" (in future tense), and not "Lamah Hikisa" (in the past)?
Rashi: Because he only saw Dasan raise his hand to strike Aviram; he had not hit him.
Why did Moshe call Dasan a Rasha - seeing as he had not yet struck Aviram?
Rashi: Because someone who raises his hand to strike a fellow-Jew is called a Rasha. 1
Which we learn from here.
Why did Moshe refer to Aviram as "Re'echa"?
Why did Moshe not intervene forcefully, like he did with the Mitzri on the previous day?
Seforno: Because, unlike the episode on the previous day, where he saved his 'brother' from his Egyptian tormentor, here they were both his 'brothers.'
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Two Hebrew men (Anashim)' - [They were] Dasan and Aviram; [the same men] who left the manna overnight." But Rashi writes elsewhere, that the word "Anashim" implies importance (Rashi to Bamidbar 13:3). Clearly, Dasan and Aviram were not upstanding individuals, or worthy of any honor!
Mizrachi: When the word "Anashim' is used to describe people already mentioned by name, it means that they are important. Here, no one is named, so it simply means "men." 1
Gur Aryeh: "Anashim" (or the singular 'Ish') means a master of some thing or some trait. 2 While this is usually used in praise of an upstanding person, it can also be to denigrate a villain as a "master of evil deeds" 3 -- depending on context.
Gur Aryeh questions this approach.
Gur Aryeh admits that in certain contexts the word "Anashim" simply means "men," such as Devarim 13:14, and Devarim 19:17.
Gur Aryeh: Yet, their entire misdeed here was to fight and attempt to hit; does that alone justify labeling them as "masters of evil"?! That is why Chazal compare other acts they committed (culminating in their fight against Moshe during Korach's rebellion); we see that all their deeds were absolutely evil.
Rashi writes: "'Two Hebrew men' - [They were] Dasan and Aviram." How do we know it was they?
Gur Aryeh: The Pasuk refers to the men as "Anashim," which in this context implies "masters of evil deeds" (see 2:13:1.01:2). This could not have been their only evil deed; refer to 2:13:1.01:2 1 .
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 19, p. 85): The Redemption eventually came about through these events; they did not happen by chance! These men must have been Dasan and Aviram, the regular antagonists of Moshe (and of Klal Yisrael as a whole). 2
Rashi writes: "[They were] Dasan and Aviram; [the same men] who left the manna overnight." What was with Dasan and Aviram; why were they constantly antagonizing Moshe?
Gur Aryeh: They were "masters of evil deeds;" refer to 2:13:1.01:2 and 2:13:1.01:2 1 .
Maharal #1 (Ohr Chadash p. 72, DH "Hu Achashveirosh"): When the text repeats a person's identity, 'he was so-and-so,' the emphasis means that he stood out, famous for his deeds. For example, "Hu Moshe v'Aharon" (6:27), for the positive; or "Hu Dasan va'Aviram" (Bamidbar 26:9) for the negative. If you know one side of the coin, you know the opposite as well; 2 corresponding to uniquely good people we find equally bad ones.
Maharal #2 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 19, p. 85): Evil always stands up to directly oppose the good. 3 Just when Moshe and Aharon first arose to greatness, standing above and distinct from the rest of Yisrael, two other people arose to stand out in their wickedness - Dasan and Aviram.
Maharal #3 (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 265, to Sanhedrin 109b): Dasan and Aviram were brazen and contentious. 4 The name 'Dasan' implies 'violates the Das' (i.e. the Torah order); they broke ranks in their brazenness. 'Aviram' implies 'he toughened himself not to do Teshuvah;' a brazen person hardens his heart.
In other words, to fully appreciate the good, one must also recognize how bad the evil is. (EK)
"Hashem made this one opposite that" (Koheles 7:14). In this world there is a balance between good and evil; thus, evil men had to stand up against Moshe and Aharon.
See Maharal (loc cit., p. 266) They were contentious and combative. In Korach's rebellion, they did not aim to become Kohanim (as was Korach's goal), only to rebel against Moshe.
Rashi writes: "Although he had not yet struck him, he is called a Rasha for raising his hand [to do so]." Why is it raising one's hand that labels one a Rasha? (Would he be called a Rasha even as he merely approaches his intended target?)
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 19, p. 85): Merely approaching does not display his evil; people move about for numerous reasons, and his intent to hit is not yet evident. Upon raising his hand, however, the evil has already emerged.
