Parshat Korach: Good Conflicts, Bad Conflicts

This week’s parsha bears the name of a man who led a rebellion against Moshe and his brother, Aaron. Korach was unhappy with the fact that he was passed over for a prominent position that he felt rightfully belonged to him. He expressed his dissatisfaction by challenging Moshe’s authority and accusing him of nepotism. He puts together a coalition of like-minded people who were not happy with Moshe for their own various reasons.

The simple fact of the matter is that positions of authority distributed by Moshe were directives from God and not of his own making. After much argumentation and confrontation, the issue was Divinely resolved through a miracle. The earth opened and swallowed up Korach and his associates. 

The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers) references this event as a prototype of disagreements and arguments. The Mishna contasts good arguments versus bad arguments.

Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will endure and be long-lasting. And any which is not for the sake of Heaven – in the end will not endure. What type of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? The arguments of (the Talmudic sages) Hillel and Shammai. What type of dispute was not for the sake of Heaven? The arguments of Korach and his cohorts.

The commentaries note the lack of symmetry in the Mishna when comparing disagreements “for the sake of Heaven” and those that are not. The initial part of the Mishna makes sense – it mentions the arguments of Hillel and Shammai. But the second part of the Mishna should have stated “the arguments of Korach and Moshe”, not “Korach and his cohorts”. Korach wasn’t at odds with his supporters. They were his allies and were on his side against Moshe. He was arguing against Moshe and this is how the Mishna ought to have been written: What type of dispute was not for the sake of Heaven? The arguments of Korach and Moshe.

The solution to this lies in understanding the personalities of those doing the arguing, as well as their purpose and agenda behind the disagreement. If two parties have differences and their main goal is to figure out the truth of the matter, then even though they oppose each other, they are actually on the same team. The disagreement is an expression of their love for truth and the proper course of action that needs to be achieved. Each party is attempting to understand all possibilities before deciding an outcome.

When arguing this way, the person they are arguing with is not an adversary to be bested, but a foil to refine their own view and perspective. Each side is more than happy to accept the other’s viewpoint. This is what Hillel and Shammai were doing when arguing with one another. It is why the Talmud elsewhere says of them – even of Shammai who loses most of the disagreements – “Both these and those are the words of the Living God.” They might not agree with one another, and indeed there are countless differences between Hillel and Shammai, but they both contribute essential wisdom from their respective outlooks. It is a win-win scenario – even though one side might lose the disagreement – because the goal of getting to the truth has been achieved. 

On the other hand, those who are not seeking the truth are really fighting for their own ego and position. These folks, even when they appear to be on the same side and allies to one another, are really not. They are not interested in achieving a common good but only in fulfilling their personal agendas. Inasmuch as they are acting only for selfish motives and goals, teamwork is non-existent and this is why the Mishna states that the argument is between “Korach and his cohorts”.

In reality they are anything but his allies. As soon as they dispose of Moshe, and anyone else in their path to power, they will be arguing amongst themselves since each person will become an impediment to the ambitions of the other.

Thankfully this is the case with Israel’s many enemies. Witness how many of Iran’s allies and friends came to her assistant in the recent 12-day war. Russia? China? Syria? Hezbollah? Zero. None. It didn’t serve their purpose so they quickly abandoned any pretext of coalition and friendship. 

Furthermore, how often have we seen that when hatred for Israel isn’t their focus and goal, they immediately begin to fight violently and horrendously among themselves, perpetrating atrocities to one another far worse than anything from their perceived enemy, Israel. When Israel isn’t the common enemy, then conflict arises by the many factions at odds with each other as we witnessed in Syria, in Yemen, in Sunni vs. Shiite, in Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, in Iraq… and on and on it goes.

One of the most difficult things in life is to have the self-discipline and sincerity to analyze one’s motives in a disagreement. A genuine sense of honesty is crucial to assess if one’s arguments are to get to the truth-of-the-matter or if they are ego driven. Are you arguing like Hillel and Shammai or like Korach and his lackeys? Are your arguments for Heaven, or are they for Hell?

Hillel and Shammai were only interested in truth. Their disagreements were “for the sake of heaven” and their views and insights are still studied, influencing people until this very day and thereby enduring for thousands of years. Korach and his associates were only concerned with advancing their personal agendas . Hence, they and their silly designs disappear into the nethermost part of the world – their half-baked viewpoints and ambitions buried forever with them deep into the earth, never to be heard of again.

And it really doesn’t matter
If I’m wrong – I’m right!
Where I belong – I’m right!
Where I belong

See the people standing there
Who disagree and never win
And wonder why they don’t get in my door
-The Beatles