Q&A: D-i-s-p-u-t-e-s
D-i-s-p-u-t-e-s
Question
1
And let him not be like Korach and his congregation
From when is an argument legitimate, proper, necessary, and welcome,
and from when does it fall under a prohibition?
2
And let him not be like Korach and his congregation
Why is it that families in Israel, including rabbis, called themselves by the name Korach?
It seems like the opposite of “let him not be like Korach and his congregation”
Answer
That would require a whole article. The Sages say it was not for the sake of Heaven. In any case, there is no prohibition here. As far as I recall, the main enumerators of the commandments did not count it.
It is forbidden to behave like Korach, but what is the problem with the name?!
Discussion on Answer
So aside from Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, there really is no prohibition here.
By the way, the dispute spoken of here in its plain sense is not a dispute in the contemporary sense (holding different opinions). The intent is challenging a role or a divine determination. Not for nothing does Sefer Yere'im count this as a prohibition against disputing the priesthood. True, among the Sages, who applied this to disputes for the sake of Heaven like those of Hillel and Shammai, it seems to take on the contemporary meaning. And perhaps there too it means challenging the majority position of the House of Hillel, and not merely holding a different opinion.
I saw that the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol counts it as prohibition 157. Sefer Yere'im also counts this prohibition as a ban on disputing the priesthood. Nachmanides likewise writes in his glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot that this is the plain meaning of the verse and its primary intent, and in his view the Sages associated with this prohibition the ban on maintaining a dispute by way of aggadah and as an asmachta.