פרשת קרח
From this week’s Parsha, we see how damaging “Machlokes” can be and how much destruction a quarrel can precipitate. We see the bitter end of Korach, Dasan, Aviram, and the other 250 individuals who joined their side in this dispute. The Torah is so emphatic about the importance of staying away from strife, that it commands us not to emulate Korach in any way for the rest of history. The Torah is teaching us, with this commandment, how far we have to go to extinguish any arguments in the Jewish people, and all the more so to never be the instigator of any discord. We also learn from Korach that even when it comes to matters which are spiritual, we must attempt to never become embroiled in any Machlokes, even for the sake of Heaven. This can be seen clearly from the fact that Korach’s goal was to enhance his spiritual pursuits, not his physical ones. He wanted to serve in the Kehuna. Furthermore, Korach himself was a Gadol who served at the head of the Sanhedrin, and had actually reached the level of Ruach Hakodesh. Yet with all that, he was incorrect in his decision to fight for his cause as is evidenced by what happened to him!
The Maharal adds a haunting point. The Maharal quoting Rashi points out that even the little children of the individuals who were involved with Korach were punished and were swallowed up by the earth. But the Maharal asks, we know that a child is only eligible to be punished from the age of twenty and onward. Why then were the children punished? The Maharal explains that strife actually is Gehenom. He proves this from the fact that both discord and Gehenom were created on the second day of creation. So what happened to the children was not a punishment, but merely a result of the involvement with that strife which is like fire – one is burnt regardless of his age.
Let us look to the Mishna in Avos to gain further understanding about Machlokes? The Mishna says that an argument which takes place for the sake of Heaven will endure forever whereas an argument which is selfish will not last long. The Mishna goes on to give us examples. What is an example of a non-selfish dispute? The dispute between Hillel and Shamai. And what is an example of a selfish disagreement? The disagreement between Korach and his followers. Why did Chazal specifically choose Korach as the example of selfish squabbling? It seems clear that Korach had the strongest “Hava Amina” to be justified in his struggle against Moshe. Korach was a holy man who surely had good intentions for the most part. His arguments were sound and reasonable and his entire goal seemed to be one of noble intentions. Yet even so, we see that in order for an argument to endure, it must be completely for the sake of Heaven like Hillel and Shamai.
I believe there is another interesting facet which can be learned from the Mishna. The Mishna says that the key to having an argument which is for the sake of Heaven is to have one which “will endure”. The simple understanding is that this is a result. But one could explain that this is in fact the litmus test to determine whether or not the argument really is for the sake of Heaven. In other words if even after the dispute is resolved, the parties that were involved still talk to each other the way they used to and live in harmony that is a sign that the Machlokes was for the sake of Heaven. The Gemorah in Yevamos (14) says that indeed Hillel and Shamai used to intermarry between their two groups and when one would come over the other’s house, he would be informed if the food that he was eating was forbidden according to his opinion, even if the guest himself wouldn’t eat such a food and the host held that it was permissible. From here we see clearly one reason why Hillel and Shamai were chosen to represent “disagreement for the sake of Heaven” – because even though they disagreed, they remained respectful of each other at all times.
Let us look further into the Mishna in Avos to help determine when can one be sure that he is indeed acting completely for the sake of Heaven? What is another reason why Hillel and Shamai were chosen as the paradigm for arguments for the sake of Heaven? Were there not any other Tannaim who differed for the sake of Heaven? The Gemorah in Eruvin, (13) says that the reason why Bies Hillel merited for the Halacha to be like them is because they showed tremendous respect to Beis Shamai, always introducing Shamai’s words before their own and bolstering Shamai’s position. R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz explained this Gemora in a very interesting way. We know that a judge may not listen to one of the litigants when the other litigant is not present. The reason for this is so that the judge shouldn’t become biased by hearing one side before he can hear the other side to counter. R’ Chaim wittingly pointed out that this is certainly true when one is listening to his own arguments, he will definitely be more partial to his own side then his friend’s side because he heard his own side first, so to speak. Therefore, one who wants to remain objective is required to first say out his opponent’s position better then his opponent himself could have said it before he states his own position. This is the only way, according to the Torah, that one can remain truly receptive to what his friend is trying to say and this is also why the Mishnah chose Hillel and Shamai as the paradigms. Only when one humbles himself completely to the point that he can hear his friends words better then his own and speak out his friends side before his own, like Hillel did, can he achieve this lofty level of “arguing for the sake of Heaven”. Practically speaking, it is very difficult to hear another person’s side with this degree of objectivity so one must subject himself to a rigorous set of safeguards involving his friends and his Rebiim to ensure that his intentions are pure.
Perhaps we could conclude with the powerful words of R’ Moshe Feinstein. Someone in the community once approached R’ Moshe and asked him whether or not it was a good idea to take sides in a skirmish that was going on in the local Shul. R’ Moshe responded by saying that since getting involved with the quarrel would put lives in jeopardy, because if he makes a mistake he will probably cause death, he would need to consult with the Sanhedrin of the 71 elders who are the only judicial body permitted to answer such weighty questions. And since they are not around, it would probably be a good idea not to get involved. From R’ Moshe’s severe words, we see how careful we must be when we get involved with any sort of disagreement.
May God help us to always act for the sake of Heaven and bring peace onto this earth!