Torah Teachings

When reading Parshat Korach, imagine for a moment what would have happened if Korach and Moses had paused.  What if these two men had sat down and spoken with one another, not as enemies, but as leaders and partners for Israel's future, to understand each other and work through their differences?  What does our tradition teach us about these kinds of disputes?

Judaism makes space for redemptive dialogue and disagreements called machloket l’shem shamayim, or a dispute for the sake of heaven.  In Pirkei Avot (Avot 5:17), we read about two kinds of conflicts that do and do not fall into this tradition.  The one that does is between Hillel and Shammai.  So even though they regularly engaged in disputes, at times passionately, their interactions bore fruit despite their disagreements.  The one that does not “was the controversy of Korach and all his congregation.”  Here, Korach and his followers were not interested in seeking mutual resolution; taking a “we are right and you are wrong” approach, thus, the fruits of their dispute were soured.  It would appear that Korach stopped listening to Moses, and perhaps vice versa, prompting the termination of their relationship and the following consequences. 

Hillel, who led with middat harachamim, or emphasized mercy, and Shammai, who stood on middat hadin, emphasizing strict justice, never broke off their interactions, although they regularly disagreed.  In one case, they argued about the remarriage of an aguna whose husband was presumed deceased (aguna is a woman who is “trapped” in a marriage because she cannot obtain a “get,” or a certificate of divorce).  Hillel said she could remarry based on indirect evidence of death. Shammai required a witness with direct testimony that her spouse was dead to remarry, a more “machmir," or stricter stance.  Without question, some loathed Shammai’s teaching because of the injustice to women in general (this actually is still the case today, primarily in the Orthodox community).  So while Hillel’s position won the day, it was not about right and wrong, per se, but more about conflicting convictions of Jewish law.  While there is always a sense of right and wrong, and there needs to be, Judaism often views the resolution of disputed matters as which view produces more “life,” regardless of the issue.  

While the topic of the aguna may not be an issue for the vast majority of us today, immigration or how we relate to Israel’s military action in Gaza certainly are.  What about America's bombing of Iran?  Reactions have offered a variety of opinions as well as moral and ethical justifications for each way.  However, disagreements aside, these are machloket that represent a person's core beliefs and differing convictions, just as was the case with Hillel and Shammai above.  We are good to remember that those who disagree have a reason.

While none of us agree with everything we hear, from my vantage point, I am experiencing good “Jewish community based” engagement and healthy disagreement, but sadly, I also see the opposite. Judaism may not provide absolute answers to our disagreements, yet it does give us a clear but sometimes trying solution on how to correctly argue by asking us, despite our disputes, to seek common ground and mutual conviction, hence machloket l’shem shamayim. The story about Korach teaches us what happens when disputes lead to sinat habriot, or hatred of another, seeing the other and their convictions as no longer worthy of interaction or respect.  I encourage engagement and not avoidance. Korach missed that lesson, and the results were not kind.