Korach - 5772

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive outcome. Any dispute which is not for the sake of Heaven will have no constructive outcome. What is an example of a dispute for the sake of heaven? This is the dispute of Hillel and Shammai. What is an example of a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his company. (Pirkei Avos Chapter 5)

This comparison of the two types of dispute requires understanding. This Mishna gives the impression that we are essentially dealing with the same phenomenon; only the intentions of the participants are different. In the one case, the intention is altruistic; in the other case, the intention is self-serving. But this hardly seems to be so. Hillel and Shammai were engaged in the pursuit of truth in the interpretation and application of Torah. Korach and his company were attempting to undermine the authority of Moshe Rabbeinu which places the entirety of Torah in doubt. How could the same word be used to describe both?

The Hebrew word Machlokes is generally translated as “dispute” or “controversy”, but a more precise translation would be “division”. The monolithic nature of a group or community becomes divided and splintered as each member tries to assert his own personal vision. This is the common denominator of the two episodes. In both, each of the protagonists had a unique way of seeing things; thus, they become divided from one another. When the division leads to the questioning of authority, it is a negative thing; the opposing visions become the engines for competition for positions of leadership.When this division, however, facilitates the expansion of horizons in understanding Torah, it is a positive thing; the truth emerges from the dialectic between the two opposing viewpoints.

The question arises: In selecting an example of the Machlokes for the sake of Heaven, why does the Mishna cite the dispute of Shammai and Hillel? Isn’t every Halachic dispute for the sake of Heaven?

Maharal (Derech Chaim) offers an explanation which is genuinely frightening in its implications. He explains that a disputant can only be deemed as acting for the sake of Heaven if his arrival at a given conclusion was the outcome of a totally altruistic search for truth. But what if he arrived at the conclusion because he was too tired – or perhaps, too lazy – to devote all his energy to the issue at hand? To the extent that personal comfort becomes a factor in the process, the conclusion is not the outcome of a quest that was conducted one hundred percent for the sake of Heaven.

Only the disputes of Shammai and Hillel themselves attained this level of perfection. Regarding their students, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 88b) teaches that the students of Shammai and Hillel did not adequately apprentice under their masters – Maharal takes this as a personal failing – and as a result there was an explosion of Machlokes. While Shammai and Hillel themselves debated three or four points, their disciples, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel argued in over 250 instances!

Regarding issues of Torah ideology, people often embrace positions without thinking or without adequate research. Yet, they assume that their taking that position is for the sake of Heaven. The words of Maharal should give us pause. Following the path of least resistance undermines the claim of pure altruism.