Parashat Korach (5760)

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Korach, 5760

Which disputes are legitimate

In Pirkei Avot (5:17), Korach and his congregation’s dispute against Moses our teacher serves as a symbol of a dispute not for the sake of

Heaven:

Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end endure, and one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not in the end endure.

What is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Hillel and Shammai. And one that is not for the sake of Heaven—

the dispute of Korach and all his congregation.

In the Talmud, a situation is described in which the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel killed one another (some interpreted this as a description

by way of hyperbole of the intensity of the argument), and yet this dispute is described here as a dispute for the sake of

Heaven, one that will in the end endure. Korach and his congregation, by contrast, used no violence whatsoever; they merely raised

claims—apparently justified ones—against Moses’ conduct, and precisely their dispute is described as one

that is not for the sake of Heaven.

An interesting conclusion can be drawn from this: a dispute for the sake of Heaven is a dispute whose causes, or

motives, are justified, even if it is conducted stormily, and even violently. A dispute that is not for the sake of

Heaven is a dispute whose motives are impure, even if it is conducted pleasantly, and even if

perhaps it presents relevant claims in good taste. In short: the motives determine the character

of the dispute, and not only the manner in which it is conducted.

In today’s world it seems that the accepted classification is exactly the opposite. The sides involved in a dispute

are often measured according to the civility of their speech and the manner of their expression, and less according to the claims

themselves and the motives that underlie them. One who argues against the very existence of the State of Israel, or

against its Jewish character, but does so in an erudite, calm, and ‘enlightened’ tone, is a legitimate party,

even when his claims are sometimes extraordinarily malicious and dangerous (spiritually and physically). By contrast,

one who advances elementary claims, than which none could be more legitimate, but at times sounds not quite so

‘tolerant,’ is immediately denounced as illegitimate.

In the postmodern era, in which no truth is considered superior to any other (except for the claim of the absence

of absolute truth, which is itself of course absolutely true in the fullest sense. Woe to anyone who disputes it!),

almost every argument ends with a sentence like: ‘Well, it is time to conclude. Of course we did not succeed

in persuading one another, as expected; however, the main thing is that we met and heard one another. And now

to the commercials…’. A debate is not conducted for the sake of clarification, but for the sake of maintaining the illusion of tolerance

and openness (which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with our ‘multicultural’ reality). In such

a situation, it is clear that the only way to evaluate any side in a debate is by its mode of expression and not

by its contents. The rhetoric of the debate becomes more important than the contents themselves. Verbal

witticisms and barbs constitute the essence of a debate conducted merely for the sake of sparring. No one

listens to the other, since there is no purpose here of clarifying the truth, because nowadays there is no such thing

as ‘truth.’ Each person has his own truth, provided he expresses it eloquently. At most,

this is ‘show business,’ and nothing more.

I am opposed to gentleness (on the substantive level, not the tactical one)! When difficult issues are on the table,

one may forgo gentleness, and not emasculate the substantive layers of the debate, reducing it merely to

the form of expression. One who would dismantle the State of Israel, or who would strip Israeli society of the meager

remnants of its Judaism, even if he did so gently, is in my eyes no more legitimate than one

who speaks sharply in support of other positions. The time has come for us to examine arguments according to their content and not according to

the form in which they are expressed. When the debate is conducted between arguments rather than between arguers, the

positions will be clarified, and those that are not legitimate will be sifted out (there definitely are such positions. It is not true that everyone has his own truth).

The legitimate positions will remain, and that is as it should be, for they will in the end endure.

It is true that a sharp tone sometimes makes it difficult to clarify the arguments themselves, and diverts the discussion onto tracks

that are not substantive, but this is only a tactical and psychological question. If we nevertheless try

to examine the arguments themselves, even if they are stated bluntly, then no problem will arise. We

ourselves create the problem by tending, when we hear a sharp mode of expression, to shift

onto tracks that are not substantive. One can adopt a sharp tone and express substantive claims through it. That is certainly

preferable to a calm and moderate tone that is not substantive. True, Ecclesiastes wrote: ‘The words of the wise, spoken gently, are heard’ (Ecclesiastes 9:17),

but that should not be the only measure of the things that are said.

In situations in which one side in a debate does not appear legitimate in the eyes of the other, it is reasonable that a

sharp argument will develop. Between legitimate positions, and certainly for one to whom everything is legitimate, it is easier

to maintain an academic tone of debate. More than that, toward sides that are not legitimate even the Sages

do not recommend speaking gently. The wicked son in the Haggadah, who raises an apparently legitimate question,[1] is given

a cold shower that is not exactly in the spirit of the above-mentioned injunctions of the Sages. It is also worth noting the manner

in which the Holy One, blessed be He, dealt with Korach’s congregation: He would not have won our award for tolerance. Food

for thought!!!

Have a peaceful Sabbath

May be placed in the repository for sacred texts in any synagogue or rabbinical academy. Comments and responses will be gladly received.

———————–

[1] It is interesting to note that the Haggadah’s response to the wicked son is: ‘Had he been there, he would not have been redeemed,’

‘been’—in the third person. The wicked son asks a question and leaves. When the answer is given, he is already no longer around.

One of the signs of an illegitimate question (= not for the sake of Heaven) is when the questioner does not expect

an answer at all. This is a kind of populist polemic that does not try to persuade, and does not expect answers.

An illusion of openness. What the Sages recommend doing to such ‘legitimate’ questions, as is well known,

is to blunt the questioner’s teeth. And perhaps they intended that we do so, in the words of the wise, ‘gently’…!?

Biton44.doc