Korach: Controversy for the sake of heaven

This week's parsha deals with a controversy (really, a communal fissure) which Korach instituted against Moses' leadership. The rabbis see this as the quintessential dispute "not for the sake of heaven," which the Talmud prohibits:

Sanhedrin 110a
And Moses rose up and went in to Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:25). Resh Lakish said: This teaches that one must not be hold fast in a dispute (mahzikin bemahloket); for Rab said: He who holds fast in a dispute violates a negative command, as it is written, And let him not be as Korah, and as his company (Num 17:5).

In other words, what is prohibited is holding your ground--putting truth (or trying to be right) over peace. Why did Moses go over to Dathan and Aviram? The Talmud assumes it is to make peace, to try to end the quarrel. Pirke Avot distinguishes between this kind of uarrel, which we should end, and a kind which will never end:

Pirke Avot 5:20
Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is the debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

What is the difference between the two? It is not the topic-- both of these controversies are over religious issues. Rather, it has to do with the motivation--is it coming out of an authentic desire to interpret God's will, or out of selfish motives? Korach wanted to be the leader, not because he thought that was what God wanted, or because it would be better for the people; he was just resentful he didn't get to be the leader:

Rashi on Num 16:1
Korah… took: He took himself to one side to dissociate himself from the congregation, to contest the [appointment of Aaron to the] priesthood. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it וְאִתְפְּלֵג,“and he separated himself.” He separated himself from the congregation to persist in a dispute. Similarly, מה יקחך לבך, “Why does your heart take you away?” (Job 15:12) meaning, it removes you, to isolate you from others (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2).
…Now what made Korah decide to quarrel with Moses? He envied the chieftainship of Elizaphan the son of Uzziel whom Moses appointed as chieftain over the sons of Kohath by the [Divine] word. Korah claimed, “My father and his brothers were four [in number]” as it says, “The sons of Kohath were…” (Exod. 6:18). Amram was the first, and his two sons received greatness-one a king and one a high priest. Who is entitled to receive the second [position]? Is it not I, who am the son of Izhar, who is the second brother to Amram? And yet, he [Moses] appointed to the chieftainship the son of his youngest brother! I hereby oppose him and will invalidate his word (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1, Num. Rabbah 18:2).

So this is a controversy not for the sake of heaven--anything that is not a principled dispute, but a personal rivalry.

Avraham Ehrman, Halichos Olam/Journey to Virtue, ch 9:
...Sadly, disputes sometimes degenerate to the point where the parties are divided into two camps, with the adherents of each side united not only by their mutual loyalty but also by antagonism toward their opponents. When a dispute stops being concerned solely with particular issue (money, honor, policy, etc.) and enters the stage where either side relates to the conflict as a personal -- "us" vs. "them" situation, then it has become a machlokes (literally: division).
Mr. Gold and Mr. Silver own two competing stores. Their competition is ruthless, with such claiming that the other engages in unfair business tactics. As long as their disagreement is related to the issues and were not personal in nature, they were involved in a "dispute." However, when they shopped talking to each other and a feud developed between the Gold and Silver families, their dispute has degenerated into a "machlokes " and is strictly forbidden...

We can tell if it is a dispute by our feelings--are we resentful? do we get along otherwise? And how do we treat them--do we honor them? Often, if we fall into a disagreement with someone, we have a falling out, we don't talk to them any more, we think ill of them. What this is saying is that at that point, the mitzvahdik thing is to make peace.

On to the controversy for the sake of heaven--what is it? The quintessential example is that of Hillel and Shammai. A very interesting thing is written in the Mishnah:

Yevamot 1:4:
Bet Shammai allows ‘rivals’ to brothers, and Bet Hillel forbids. If they performed halitzah, Bet Shammai prohibits from [marrying into the] priesthood, and Bet Hillel permits. If they performed levirate marriage, Bet Shammai permits, Bet Hillel forbids. Even though these forbid and these permit, Bet Shammai did not restrict themselves from marrying women from Bet Hillel, nor did Bet Hillel from Bet Shammai. All of the pure and impure [foods] that these declared pure and these declared impure, they would not restrict themselves from placing one on top of the other.

"Rivals" are two wives of the same man. If Bet Shammai prohibited a certain marriage, then the child of such a marraige is (in their view) a mamzer! And if that mamzer went and married someone from Hillel, their children are memzerim. Eventually the whole blood line gets corrupted, and Shammai should never marry a Hillelite on the suspicion of mamzerut, and vice versa. The community would get entirely divided.

This scenario is not so dissimilar from the Israeli courts not accepting conversion outside of certain courts. It creates a division in the Jewish community, and shows a basic lack of respect of other peoples' points of view.

Bet Shammai did think they were right. But they understood that maintaining peace, maintaining community, was more important. They disagreed with Bet Shammai, but their disagreements did not divide them. They could have a principled disagreement without that coming between them.

Ehrman, later in the same chapter, applies this notion to the contemporary Jewish scene:

The principles discussed so far in this chapter apply to disputes involving personal honor, money, property, etc. However, when community leaders and other respected individuals stray from the path of righteousness and influence people to sin, then one is required to make a machlokes with them for the sake of Heaven.
When Moshe Rabbeinu descended from Mount Sinai, he found that some Jews had engaged in the sin of The Golden Calf, creating a looseness and laxness in the people as a whole. Therefore, Moshe initiated a conflict with his battle cry, "Who is for Hashem –come to me!

He continues to say that one must be sure never to overly embarrass the other party, and to treat them with respect. It is interesting reading this as one to whom (maybe) he refers--does he mean all liberal rabbis? Probably (I should ask him). And I am okay with that, as long as it is conducted like Hillel and Shammai--does he believe that my interpretations come from a deep engagement with Torah? Can we trust that orthodox interpretations come from the same, and avoid criticizing and slandering orthodoxy, something that happens all too often in liberal circles?

Isaiah Horowitz has an amazing understanding of this kind of controversy. He says that actually, they are two aspects of a deeper truth which is too complex for the limited human mind to grasp. Practically, one has to become halacha, but both are manifestations of the divine voice of revelation:

Isaiah Horowitz, Sheney Luhot Haberit, Bet Hochmah
I need to reveal secrets… to understand how all the words of sages are the words of the living God. And in this one should look into what they said in the first chapter of Eruvin: “Abba said that Shmuel said, for three years the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed. These said halacha agrees with us, these said halacha agrees with us; a heavenly voice came forth and said to them, “these and these are the words of the living God, but halacha is in accordance with the House of Hillel.” …
In the first chapter of Hagigah: “Masters of gatherings—these are the sages who sit gathered together and study Torah. These declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit. Lest a person should say, “since these declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit, how can I learn Torah?” Thus the Torah says, they were all given by one shepherd, one God gave them and one leader spoke them from the mouth of the Lord of everything, blessed be He. As it says, “God spoke all these things.”
Avodat Hakodesh, Tahlit 23, wrote “That source is always flowing. It has front and back, and it includes all the changes and opposites and changing and reversing aspects, for pure and impure, permitted and forbidden, fit and unfit, as is known to those wise of heart. And the “great voice which doesn’t cease” (Dt 5:19) is drawn from the source and comes from it, and is comprised of all the changing aspects… and all of the prophets and sages received his own [aspect]: this one received pure and this one received impure…
All this is from our perspective… it is impossible [for us] to uphold two sides of a contradiction, and halacha is decided in accordance with one of the two opinions… They are all one from the giver’s (blessed be He) perspective, but from our perspective they are multiple, and halacha is in accordance with Hillel alone.

In other words, truth does violate the law of noncontradiction--sometimes a and not-a are both true. The human brain, though, is wired to only be able to think a or not-a at one time. So this controversy is absolutely necessary for revealing the fulness of God's wisdom. This is the manifestation of divine unity; Hillel or shammai alone only manifest part of the divine wisdom, not the wholeness. and each of us have our own piece of revelation to bring into the world, our own piece of the divine voice that only we can reveal. The challenge is, can we appreciate Shammai and completely disagree with him, at the same time.