(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם.
אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
(17) Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure. But if it is not for [the sake of] heaven's name -- it is not destined to endure.
What is [an example of an argument] for [the sake of] heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai.
What is [an example of an argument] not for [the sake of] heaven's name? The argument of Korach and all of his congregation.
- Hillel and Shammai were two sages in the early rabbinic period, who also became the eponymous names of two major schools of rabbinic thought and practice. They disagreed on many various issues, but never because separate sects of Judaism. Notably, they ate in each other's home, despite differences in the observance of the dietary laws, and their children freely married each other, despite the difference is aspects of marriage law.
- Korach was a Levite who led a rebellion in Numbers 16, which included certain leaders from Reuven, the tribe descended from Jacob/Israel's first born son, and other tribal leaders. The rebels either died in a fire or were swallowed up by the earth. Rabbinic commentaries all assume that this Korach was attempting a coup.
(א) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת הַהִיא מִתְקַיְּמִים וְאֵינָם אוֹבְדִין, כְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁלֹּא אָבְדוּ לֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְלֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ אָבְדוּ. וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי, פֵּרוּשׁ סוֹפָהּ, תַּכְלִיתָהּ הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵעִנְיָנָהּ. וְהַמַּחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, הַתַּכְלִית וְהַסּוֹף הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵאוֹתָהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת לְהַשִּׂיג הָאֱמֶת, וְזֶה מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַוִּכּוּחַ יִתְבָּרֵר הָאֱמֶת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וּמַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, תַּכְלִית הַנִּרְצֶה בָּהּ הִיא בַּקָּשַׁת הַשְּׂרָרָה וְאַהֲבַת הַנִּצּוּחַ, וְזֶה הַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ שֶׁתַּכְלִית וְסוֹף כַּוָּנָתָם הָיְתָה בַּקָּשַׁת הַכָּבוֹד וְהַשְּׂרָרָה וְהָיוּ לְהֶפֶךְ:
(1) Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined (literally, its end is) to endure: That is to say that the [parties to] the argument are destined to endure and not perish, as with the argument between Hillel and Shammai, [whereby] neither the students of the School of Hillel nor the students of the School of Shammai perished. But Korach and his congregation perished. And I heard the explanation of “its end” is its purpose that is sought from its subject. And [with] the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim that is sought from that argument is to arrive at the truth, and this endures; like that which they said, "From a dispute the truth will be clarified," and as it became elucidated from the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
(15) When the rabbis critique the “disagreement of Korach and his group,” they are referring to this breakdown of communication that we have just traced. In Pirkei Avot 5:17, we read that such a disagreement will not have positive results whereas disagreements such as the ones between Hillel and Shammai will. The difference, say the rabbis, is that the latter was “for the sake of Heaven,” whereas the former was not. No doubt that is what is ultimately behind good communication, but the practical difference is that Hillel and Shammai were not asking rhetorical questions and walking away from each other. They argued back and forth to express their perspective and to hear what the other had to say. When Korach opened the discussion by making rhetorical swipes at Moshe, the chances for edification or even resolution were certainly quite slim. When Datan and Aviram [also] refused to speak to Moshe, the chances disappeared altogether.
(ג) במדרש (במדבר רבה פרשה ב') מאי דכתיב נרננה בישועתך ובשם אלהינו נדגול (תהילים כ׳:ו׳). בשעה שנגלה הקב"ה על ישראל בסיני לתת להם תורה ומצות ירדו עמו שנים ועשרים אלפים מרבבות של מלאכי השרת שנאמר רכב אלהים רבותים אלפי שנאן (שם ס"ח) והיו כלם דגלים דגלים שנאמר דגול מרבבה (שיר השירים ה׳:י׳). כיון שראו אותם ישראל מיד נתאוו ליעשות דגלים כמותן דכתיב הביאני אל בית היין ודגלו עלי אהבה (שם כ') אמר הקב"ה חייכם אני אעשה אתכם דגלים כמו שהתאויתם דכתיב ימלא ה' כל משאלותיך (תהלים שם) מיד א"ל הקב"ה למשה משה עשה אותם דגלים כמו שנתאוו שנא' איש על דגלו באותות:
...Whenever we polarize a particular activity, - if polarization is for the sake of Heaven-, it becomes acceptable in Gods eyes. Similarly, apparently negative forces, phenomena such as the angel of death, Satan, the Self-Interested Drive/yetzer hara, are necessary, because they fulfill a useful function and advance the cause of God...
Various statements in our Mishnah have to be understood in a similar vein. "Any quarrel which is for the sake of Heaven, will endure." (Avot 5:17) The meaning is that although the venue, i.e. quarrelling, is normally a forbidden venue, it does advance God's causes when it is employed for that purpose (i.e. interpreting Torah).
To sum up: exclusive concentration on the source of our salvation [i.e. God, Torah, etc.] is necessary for successful completion of one's purpose. The crux of the matter is that both our observances and our studies should be...for the sake of the subject matter, for its avowed purpose.
Rabbi Meir says that many attributes are conferred on the person whose preoccupation with Torah is [for the sake of the subject matter, its avowed purpose] (Avot 6:1). Since true love is based on the two people having many likes and dislikes in common, family members are apt to love one another because they have so much in common both by heredity and by common environment. True friendship also is based on this community of interests.
When we act [for the sake of the subject matter, its avowed purpose], we qualify for this community of purpose with our Creator, we become God's partner, so to speak. If we do not act in this way - though wicked people also often have much in common - the nature of their self interest dictates a diversity of approach, competition etc. Therefore, their purposes will not be achieved in the long run.
Similarly, even a Torah scholar who is motivated by selfish considerations will ultimately not achieve his goal, and does not qualify for the complimentary attributes listed by Rabbi Meir....
(א) כל מחלוקת וכו'. לומר כי מה שאמר כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים הכונה שלעולם יתקיימו במחלוקת והיום יחלוקו בדבר א' למחר בדבר אחר ומחלוקת יהיה קיים ונמשך ביניהם כל ימי חייהם ולא עוד אלא שאורך ימים ושנות חיים יוסיפו להם:
(1) Every argument, etc. [This is] to say about that which it said, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure" - the intention is that they will endure in their argument forever. And [so,] today they will argue about one thing and tomorrow about another; and argument will endure and continue between them all the days of their lives. And not only this, but [also] 'length of days and years of life will be added to them.'
(א) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת הַהִיא מִתְקַיְּמִים וְאֵינָם אוֹבְדִין, כְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁלֹּא אָבְדוּ לֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְלֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ אָבְדוּ. וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי, פֵּרוּשׁ סוֹפָהּ, תַּכְלִיתָהּ הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵעִנְיָנָהּ. וְהַמַּחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, הַתַּכְלִית וְהַסּוֹף הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵאוֹתָהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת לְהַשִּׂיג הָאֱמֶת, וְזֶה מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַוִּכּוּחַ יִתְבָּרֵר הָאֱמֶת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וּמַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, תַּכְלִית הַנִּרְצֶה בָּהּ הִיא בַּקָּשַׁת הַשְּׂרָרָה וְאַהֲבַת הַנִּצּוּחַ, וְזֶה הַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ שֶׁתַּכְלִית וְסוֹף כַּוָּנָתָם הָיְתָה בַּקָּשַׁת הַכָּבוֹד וְהַשְּׂרָרָה וְהָיוּ לְהֶפֶךְ:
And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
(1) And God called the firmament, heaven: God did not want that it should be called with the name, firmament - [rakiya] since that name indicates division and disagreement, as per (Exodus 39:3), "And they flattened (yiraka'au) the gold [into thin plates]" - for that which was to cover the earth. Since any [rakiya] is a covering that separates between two things. And for this reason, it does not state, "that it was good" on the second day, since disagreement was created on it; since there is no good except in a place where we find unity. And therefore on the third day, "that it was good" is stated twice, once for the work of third day and once for the finishing of the water, that has an aspect of unity in it, as it is stated, "let the waters gather to one place," and because of this unity, "that it was good" is mentioned. But on the second day - from which comes out all differences, and which is the beginning of all difference and disagreement - "that it was good" was not said about it. And God did not want that [the sky] should be called firmament, which indicates a cover that separates and divides between brothers; and it was called with the name, heavens [shamayim], which indicates peace, since shamayim is composed of the words, fire [esh] and water [mayim], who made peace between between themselves and joined together, and from them was created skies.
And this is what the Rabbis, of blessed memory, state (Avot 5:17), "Any disagreement that is for the sake of the heavens [shamayim], etc.;" which means to say that a disagreement whose purpose is peace, as is the teaching of the name, shamayim; and [this is] easy to understand. And according to its simple meaning, "that it was good" was not stated on the second day, since there was no new creation on it, since the firmament was already created on the first day, and the reason for [no creations happening on the second day] is because the second day is the beginning of all difference and division; hence the Holy Bountiful One did not want to implant a nature of difference in any creation.
Rabbi Joshua Kulp
(1) This mishnah discusses legitimate and non-legitimate disputes. While reading the mishnah we should keep in mind that the Mishnah is the first Jewish book which records disputes between different viewpoints without claiming that one viewpoint is necessarily illegitimate. 150 years before the Mishnah was composed, Judaism had certainly been rife with disputes which caused splinter movements, such as the early Christians and the Dead Sea sect. Part of the overall goal of the Mishnah’s composers was to say that sages can disagree and still live together. We will soon see a classic example of this philosophy when we begin to learn tractate Yevamot/Levirate Marraiges.
In Judaism debate is legitimate. Indeed Jews are famed worldwide for being an argumentative people, and this is considered (at least by most Jews themselves) a positive attribute. What is problematic is not debate itself, but debate that does not attempt to reveal the truth, and especially God’s truth. Debate that is only self-serving, an attempt to be victorious over the other side is considered to be illegitimate. The debate that is for the sake of Heaven, which stems from a desire to seek the truth, will endure. The classic example of this are the debates between Shammai and Hillel. This debate endured in several ways. First of all, in the time of the Mishnah, there were probably still scholars who followed Shammai. The debate literally endured, because scholars were still arguing about who is right. Second, students of the Mishnah and Talmud continue to study the debates of Shammai and Hillel. Although by the time of the Talmud law usually follows Hillel, the debate endures as study material throughout the generations.
Korah and his congregation rose up against Moses’s leadership in Numbers 16. Their intent was not a pure complaint against the perceived autocratic style of Moses’s leadership. Rather it was a blatant attempt to gain power for themselves. As our mishnah teaches, it was not a dispute for the sake of Heaven, but rather for their own profit. Therefore, the dispute did not endure, for Korah and his congregation were all wiped out (either by the earth swallowing them or by fire).
Note that the mishnah does not say “the dispute of Moses and Korah”, but rather only mentions Korah and his congregation. This is in contrast to the previous section where both Hillel and Shammai were mentioned. This discrepancy is because Moses and Korah were not operating out of the same motives. Moses disputed with Korah not for his own glory, but for the sake of Heaven. Therefore the mishnah could not mention them together.
(ב) כִּי הַשָּׁלוֹם תָּלוּי בְּדַעַת וְכַנַּ"ל. וּמַחֲלֹקֶת הוּא הֶפֶךְ הַדַּעַת. אַךְ יֵשׁ מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהוּא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁהוּא בֶּאֱמֶת דַּעַת גָּדוֹל מְאֹד, יוֹתֵר מֵהַדַּעַת שֶׁל שָׁלוֹם, כִּי בֶּאֱמֶת זֶה הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת הִיא אַהֲבָה וְשָׁלוֹם גָּדוֹל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (קידושין ל:): אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה – לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ אוֹהֲבִים זֶה לָזֶה. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (אבות פ"ה): מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם; הַיְנוּ שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת הִיא אַהֲבָה כַּנַּ"ל. וְזֶה: סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם, בְּחִינַת אַהֲבָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (במדבר כ״א:י״ד): אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה כַּנַּ"ל.
(2) <The point is> that peace is dependent upon daat/knowledge, as has been explained, while dispute is <the absence of> daat/knowledge. Nevertheless, there is dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, which in truth is very great daat/knowledge, even greater than the daat/knowledge of peace. For in fact, such dispute is great love and peace, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Kiddushin 30b): “et vaHeV be’Sufah” (Numbers 21:14)—they do not move from there until they become oHaVim (lovers). This is the meaning of what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: “Dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in SoFaH (the end) prove constructive” (Avot 5:17). This is the aspect of love, as it is written, “et vaHeV be’SuFaH,” as explained above.
This above comment relies on a word play between two readings of the entire verse in Numbers. The verse in its traditional reading translates as: "Therefore the Book of the Wars of the Eternal speaks of “…Waheb in Suphah, and the wadis: the Arnon," where the meaning of the phrase Waheb in Suphah is unclear, but the first word in this phrase shares key root letters with the word ahavah, which means love, and Suphah sounds and looks like the word sof, meaning "end," and is a key term in our primary source. Rabbi Nachman wants us to re-read the verse as meaning that the "Wars of the Eternal," which alludes to healthy debate between sages," will leave to a healthy and loving relationship between the disputants.