No matter how far back we go in time, we will find discussions that wrestle with the same questions on our minds today – why are we here, how can we love, what’s right and wrong, how can we govern with justice and compassion, and the list goes on. For every question there are countless answers.
Why do these disputes seem eternal, and what can we learn from the fact that we can’t seem to find perfect answers? Pirkei Avot teaches that:
(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.
In other words, as long as people are sincerely searching for some truth or noble goal – as opposed to arguing from a place of ego, victory, or lust for power – no single answer will be definitive, and each position may last the test of time. The debate runs so deep that it will continue from generation to generation. As the Talmud says about Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai:
Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
So what about Korach and his congregation? As the rabbis understand him, Korach was a populist who acted like he cared about making the whole congregation equal in his appeal to Moses, but really, he sought power for himself and those close to him. In the end, he and his entourage are defeated and swallowed up by the earth. Their argument did not last.
There is a lesson here for how we should engage in those ever-present political disputes. We ought to ask ourselves: does everyone have to agree with our sense of justice? Does everyone need to share our narrative? Is there a remote possibility that we are only seeing part of the picture and can learn something from those we disagree with? When arguing with ego-driven people like Korach, perhaps we can be a bit more aggressive and try to score points. But when those who disagree with us are ultimately seeking the very same ends that we are, Pirkei Avot teaches us to continue fighting for our position, and at the same time, to do our best to recognize where the other is coming from and be open to the very scary, but real idea that this debate might just endure forever.