GOOD MACHLOKES VERSUS BAD MACHLOKES
Korach
The Weekly Parsha presents… Korach, Mr Machlokes! The bulk of our Parsha concerns Korach’s rebellion against Moshe’s leadership, challenge to the Priesthood of Aharon and his ultimate demise into the depths of the earth.
The Mishna (Avos 5:17) teaches that any Machlokes (argument) that is Lshem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven i.e.) will endure. The Mishna gives the arguments of Hillel and Shamai as an example of constructive and amicable dispute. Hillel and Shammai argued on 3 issues (their disciples argued on over 300!) they each had genuine respect for one another and sought purely to determine the true Halacha. However any argument that is not Lshem Shamayim will not endure. The Mishna names Korach and his cohorts as an example.
Interestingly, the Noda Biyehudah in one of his responsa writes that nowadays there is no such thing as a Machlokes which is purely Lshem Shamayim and therefore any Machlokes, no matter how righteous and noble the reasons is to be avoided.
The Kabbalists explain that the concept of Machlokes came into existence on the second day of creation. Hashem created a firmanent to divide between the lower waters (physicality) and upper waters (the spiritual realms). For this reason the phrase ‘And it was good’ was not said on this day.
The Midrash relates that the response of the lower waters to their separation from spirituality was to cry out, yearning to be by the Divine Throne like their ‘upper’ counterparts. Hashem reassured ‘physical existence’, that through the Jewish people’s performance of Mitzvos within the physical world, they would be re-elevated and rejoined with the spiritual realms, reaching an even higher level of closeness to the Divine than they had ever previously experienced. Thus on the third day when dry land appeared, giving the potential for man’s existence and fulfilment of the Mitzvos, the phrase ‘And it was good’ is written twice; once for the work of the third day and the other for the positive culmination of the division which occurred on the second day.
This is what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos is trying to tell us; Argument is not essentially bad. When the objective is ‘to win the argument’ or arguing for arguments sake, and certainly when the argument becomes personal, this is Korach mentality. However, when arguments are fought to be resolved and overcome, not only is this positive, but facilitates an even greater level of peace and unity than that which had prevailed prior to the argument (similar to the elevation of the lower waters as a result of their separation). Whereas harmony which comes as a result of ignoring problems and avoiding arguments tends to be fragile and superficial. True peace is achieved through properly dealing with the problems which may create discord and division.
Therefore, when Chaza”l describe the sin of Korach they do not say that he was involved in Machlokes, but rather that he was Machzik B’Machlokes - that he strengthened and sought to perpetuate Machlokes for his personal, improper reasons. Moshe on the other hand realised that if the Machlokes could be dealt with, this would only enhance his relationship with Bnei Yisroel and their acceptance of him and the Torah that he taught them. Hence Moshe Rabbeinu had the humility to go to the tents of his challengers, Dasan and Aviram to placate them.
By internalising this teaching we can restore true Achdus to the Jewish people and merit redemption and blessing, together as one.
The Mishna (Avos 5:17) teaches that any Machlokes (argument) that is Lshem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven i.e.) will endure. The Mishna gives the arguments of Hillel and Shamai as an example of constructive and amicable dispute. Hillel and Shammai argued on 3 issues (their disciples argued on over 300!) they each had genuine respect for one another and sought purely to determine the true Halacha. However any argument that is not Lshem Shamayim will not endure. The Mishna names Korach and his cohorts as an example.
Interestingly, the Noda Biyehudah in one of his responsa writes that nowadays there is no such thing as a Machlokes which is purely Lshem Shamayim and therefore any Machlokes, no matter how righteous and noble the reasons is to be avoided.
The Kabbalists explain that the concept of Machlokes came into existence on the second day of creation. Hashem created a firmanent to divide between the lower waters (physicality) and upper waters (the spiritual realms). For this reason the phrase ‘And it was good’ was not said on this day.
The Midrash relates that the response of the lower waters to their separation from spirituality was to cry out, yearning to be by the Divine Throne like their ‘upper’ counterparts. Hashem reassured ‘physical existence’, that through the Jewish people’s performance of Mitzvos within the physical world, they would be re-elevated and rejoined with the spiritual realms, reaching an even higher level of closeness to the Divine than they had ever previously experienced. Thus on the third day when dry land appeared, giving the potential for man’s existence and fulfilment of the Mitzvos, the phrase ‘And it was good’ is written twice; once for the work of the third day and the other for the positive culmination of the division which occurred on the second day.
This is what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos is trying to tell us; Argument is not essentially bad. When the objective is ‘to win the argument’ or arguing for arguments sake, and certainly when the argument becomes personal, this is Korach mentality. However, when arguments are fought to be resolved and overcome, not only is this positive, but facilitates an even greater level of peace and unity than that which had prevailed prior to the argument (similar to the elevation of the lower waters as a result of their separation). Whereas harmony which comes as a result of ignoring problems and avoiding arguments tends to be fragile and superficial. True peace is achieved through properly dealing with the problems which may create discord and division.
Therefore, when Chaza”l describe the sin of Korach they do not say that he was involved in Machlokes, but rather that he was Machzik B’Machlokes - that he strengthened and sought to perpetuate Machlokes for his personal, improper reasons. Moshe on the other hand realised that if the Machlokes could be dealt with, this would only enhance his relationship with Bnei Yisroel and their acceptance of him and the Torah that he taught them. Hence Moshe Rabbeinu had the humility to go to the tents of his challengers, Dasan and Aviram to placate them.
By internalising this teaching we can restore true Achdus to the Jewish people and merit redemption and blessing, together as one.