Arguments for the Sake of Heaven
The Mishnah in Pirkei Avos[1] identifies two differing types of machlokes (argument):
Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will endure (להתקיים סופה), but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not endure.
What does the Mishnah mean by saying that if it is for the sake of Heaven, the dispute will endure? Why is that considered to be a good outcome? If anything, this pure type of dispute should cease in the end!
R’ Yonasan Eybeshutz explains that the words להתקיים סופה do not refer to the dispute, but to the parties involved. This is not a description of the outcome of the dispute, but of its trademark. How can one tell if the dispute is motivated by pure intentions, as each side invariably will claim that it is? The answer is simple, see if the two sides endure together at the end. If their motivation is pure, then the dispute itself should bring them closer together, for each side has helped the other discover the truth! Indeed, in this regard, they were all on the same side throughout the dispute. If, however, the dispute is for less noble motives, then it can only serve to distance them from each other.
This, then, is the simple test. See if the two sides can bear to sit next to each other at a shul dinner. If the dispute is for the sake of Heaven, they should have no problem doing so. If, however, one party feels impelled to get up when the other one sits down, you know that there is more to the dispute than the matter under disputation.
Indeed, the classic example of a dispute for the sake of Heaven is identified in the above Mishnah as the dispute between Hillel and Shammai. These two Sages argued endlessly over the entire range of Torah topics, and both had very strongly held opinions. Yet, the Gemara[2] notes, they had no objections to their children marrying each other. The dispute was entirely for the sake of uncovering the Torah truth, therefore there was no reason in the world why it should lead to the families avoiding marrying into one another.
Korach, by contrast, is mentioned by the Mishnah as epitomizing a dispute that is not for the sake of heaven. Not only did his goals and interests not coincide with those of Moshe and Aharon, they didn’t even coincide with the others in his own group! Whatever prestige or position he thought he would gain through his campaign against Moshe, he ended up with the ignoble distinction of serving as yearly reminder as to the toxic nature of machlokes.
As Jews, we are entitled – and encouraged – to learn, discuss and debate what is right and correct. The thing we need to avoid is when the dispute moves away from being about “what is right” to “who is right.”
[1] 5:17.
[2] Yevamos 14b.