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. The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.
ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי - כשהיו ב"ש מביאין ראיה לדבריהם מן התורה וב"ה מביאין ראיה ממקרא אחר והיו ב"ה דורשין את המקרא של ב"ש למה בא ולא היה קל בעיניהם כאותה ששנינו במסכת ברכות (ד' י:) ב"ש אומרים בערב כל אדם יטה ויקרא ובבקר יעמוד שנאמר בשכבך ובקומך וב"ה אומרים כל אדם קורא כדרכו שנאמר ובלכתך בדרך אם כן למה נאמר בשכבך ובקומך בשעה שדרך בני אדם שוכבין ובשעה שדרך בני אדם עומדין: שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן - דקאמרי להו מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש והדר זקני ב"ה:
(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.
(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 refused to speak to Moshe, the chances disappeared altogether.