Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel, For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, 'The halakha is like us,' and the other said, 'The halakha is like us.' A heavenly voice spoke: "These and these are the words of the living God, and the halakha is like the House of Hillel."
A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "Both these and those are the words of the Living God," why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel? It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai. Not only for this reason, but they went so far as to teach Shammai's opinions first.
Like that which we taught, One whose head and majority of his body are in the Sukkah and his table are in the [adjacent] house, Beis Shamai said it is invalid, and Beis Hillel said it is valid. Beis Hillel said to Beis Shamai, Is there not a story in our hands that the elders of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel went to visit R' Yochanan ben HaChornis, and they found him sitting with his head and majority of his body in the Sukkah and his table in the house? [Doesn't this imply it's permissible?] Beis Shamai said back to them, From there you bring a proof? Even they said to him that if this is how you act, you never fulfilled the mitzvah of Sukkah in your life!
[This story is] to teach you that whoever degrades himself, Hashem raises him, and whoever raises himself, Hashem degrades him. Whoever runs toward greatness, greatness flees from him, and whoever flees from greatness, greatness runs toward him. Whoever uses his time wisely, the time stretches out, and whoever procrastinates, the time stands still.
It was taught in a Braisa: For two-and-a-half years the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel argued. These said: Better for man never to have been created than to have been created. And these said: Better for man to have been created that not to have been created. They counted and decided: Better for man never to have been created than to have been created. Now that he has been created, he should sift through his actions. And there are those who say he should examine his actions.
MISHNAH If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid;
ת"ש,אע"פ שאלו אוסרים ואלו מתירים לא נמנעו ב"ש מלישא נשים מב"ה ולא ב"ה מב"ש
....
ת"ש,אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בצרות ובאחיות בגט ישן ובספק אשת איש ובמגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדק בכסף ובשוה כסף בפרוטה ובשוה פרוטה לא נמנעו ב"ש מלישא נשים מבית הלל ולא ב"ה מבית שמאי ללמדך שחיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה לקיים מה שנאמר (זכריה ח, יט) האמת והשלום אהבו
Mishnah: THOUGH THESE FORBADE WHAT THE OTHERS PERMITTED . . . BETH SHAMMAI, NEVERTHELESS, DID NOT REFRAIN FROM MARRYING WOMEN FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH HILLEL, NOR DID BETH HILLEL [REFRAIN FROM MARRY ING WOMEN] FROM THE FAMILIES OF BETH SHAMMAI
....
Come and hear: Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters, an old bill of divorce, a doubtfully married woman, a woman whom her husband had divorced and who stayed with him over the night in an inn, money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah, Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they shewed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace.
(ה) אמר רבי סימון: בשעה שבא הקב"ה לבראת את אדם הראשון, נעשו מלאכי השרת כיתים כיתים, וחבורות חבורות, מהם אומרים: אל יברא, ומהם אומרים: יברא, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה): חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו. חסד אומר: יברא, שהוא גומל חסדים. ואמת אומר: אל יברא, שכולו שקרים. צדק אומר: יברא, שהוא עושה צדקות. שלום אומר: אל יברא, דכוליה קטטה. מה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא? נטל אמת והשליכו לארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (דניאל ח): ותשלך אמת ארצה. אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה: רבון העולמים! מה אתה מבזה תכסיס אלטיכסייה שלך? תעלה אמת מן הארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה): אמת מארץ תצמח. רבנן אמרי לה בשם ר' חנינא בר אידי ורבי פנחס ורבי חלקיה בשם רבי סימון אמר: מאד הוא אדם, הדא הוא דכתיב: וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, והנה טוב אדם. ר' הונא רבה של צפורין אמר: עד שמלאכי השרת מדיינין אלו עם אלו, ומתעסקין אלו עם אלו, בראו הקדוש ברוך הוא. אמר להן: מה אתם מדיינין, כבר נעשה אדם:
Rabbi Simon said: "When the time came for the Holy One Blessed Be God to create the first human being, the angels of (Divine) service broke up into opposing groups. Some among them say: 'S/he should be created.' Some among them say: 'S/he should not be created.' This is what is written: 'Kindness and truth met; righteousness and peace kissed.' (Psalms 85:11)
Kindness says: 'Let humans be created because they will bestow kindnesses.'
Truth says: "Let humans not be created because they are entirely (made of) lies.'
Righteousness says: 'Let humans be created because they will do righteous acts.'
And peace says; 'Let humans not be created because they are entirely dissension.'
What did the Holy One Blessed be God do? God took truth and flung him to the ground. Thus it is written: 'You will cast truth to the ground.' (Daniel 8:12)
The angels of (Divine) service said before the Holy One Blessed be God: 'Master of worlds! Why do You despise Your seal of truth? Let truth rise from the ground as it is written: 'Truth will grow from the earth.' (Psalms 85:12)
Rabbi Hunah the rabbi of Tzippori said: "While the angels of (Divine) service were arguing with one another and occupied with one another, the Holy One Blessed be God created the first human."
God said to them: "Why are you debating? The human is already created."
Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, quoted in Itturei Torah, Vol. I on Genesis 1:26
What is the advantage of casting aside "truth" while "peace" remained which also argued that "s/he not be created."? Yet when we cast aside truth, peace will prevail. The root of argument is that everyone fights for his/her own "truth". But when we push "truth" aside, there is no longer something about which to dispute. Thus there is no argument, and "peace" has no claim to make.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, p. 64-65
Truth on earth is not, nor can be, the whole truth. It is limited, not comprehensive; particular, not universal. When two propositions conflict it is not necessarily because one is true the other false. It may be, and often is, that each represents a different perspective on reality, an alternative way of structuring order, no more and no less commensurable than a Shakespeare sonnet, a Michelangelo painting or a Schubert sonata. In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths. Therefore, each culture
has something to contribute. Each person knows something no one else does. The sages said: 'Who is wise? One who learns from all men- 'The wisest is not one who knows himself wiser than others: he is one who knows all men have some share of the truth,
and is willing to learn from them, for none of us knows all the truth and each of us knows some of it.
(יז) כָּל מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
Any dispute for the sake of Heaven will have enduring value, but any dispute not for the sake of Heaven will not have enduring value.
What is an example of a dispute for the sake of Heaven? the dispute between Hillel and Shamai. What is an example of one not for the sake of Heaven? the dispute of Korach and all his company.
Commentary on Pirkei Avot by Rabbi Marc D. Angel (The Koren Pirke Avot)
Healthy and unhealthy controversy: The controversy of Korah and his cohorts was not for the sake of Heaven. Their goal was to overthrow the leadership of Moses and Aaron in the hope of seizing political power for themselves. They did not offer a positive agenda; rather, they preyed on the fears and frustrations of the public. When controversies are for the sake of personal gain, they are resolved by a show of power. The side that is stronger defeats the opponent; the controversy is over; history continues. These controversies are a zero sum game. One side wins, one side loses.
The Korah model of controversy is contrasted with the debates between Hillel and Shammai. Those disputes were for the sake of Heaven. Neither Hillel nor Shammai was seeking personal power or glory. Each was presenting his interpretation of the Torah and his application of Halakha. Each had cogent arguments to support his view. Although they disagreed strongly on various issues, they were not opponents out to destroy each other but were colleagues in search of truth. The Talmud reflects this idea when it states that both of their views "were the words of the living God." In such debates, a ruling must be reached so that people will know what the law requires. Yet, the "losing" side has not really lost. His opinion is still quoted and taken seriously. While it did not prevail then, it might prevail at another time or in another context. Hillel and Shammai ultimately were on the same side - on the side of truth, on the side of Heaven. Their controversies reflected honest and well-reasoned differences of opinion. What they shared in common far outweighed their relatively few differences of opinion.
Some present-day disputes are clearly in the category of Korah controversies. People fight for power, seek to destroy their opponents, give vent to their egotistical ambitions in cruel and ruthless ways. These controversies are resolved through power struggles. The stronger side will win; the weaker side will be wiped out or forced to surrender. Other contemporary controversies are more akin to those of Hillel and Shammai. As long as the disputants realize they are ultimately on the same side, these controversies can be healthy aspects of our intellectual and cultural lives. We can weigh both sides calmly and reasonably. We can disagree on various points of theology or philosophy and still remain respectful and friendly to each other.
A problem arises when theological and philosophical debates transform themselves into battles for power that call for the total defeat of opponents. On the surface, these controversies may seem to be "for the sake of Heaven"; yet, they are in fact fueled by the desire to crush opposition. Disputants in such controversies do not see the opinions of their opponents as being "words of the living God," but as blasphemies that cannot be tolerated in any way. When theological and philosophical disagreements slip into the category of korah-controversies, this leads to violence and terrorism. Instead of being reflections of a search for truth, they become vehicles for oppression.
In his essay "The Pursuit of the Ideal" Sir Isaiah Berlin addressed the question of how to deal with theological and philosophical disagreements. Berlin favored what he called "pluralism," an acceptance that different people might come to legitimate differences of opinion without seeing each other as mortal enemies or opponents. In his view, pluralism is "the conception that there are many different ends that men may seek and still be fully rational, fully men, capable of understanding each other and sympathizing and deriving light from each other" (The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, Farrar Straus and Giroux, New York, 1997, p.9). In other words, I may be convinced that I have the real truth, but I may still see that others — who do not share my understanding of truth — are good, sincere, and thoughtful people trying to do their best. I can learn from them, respect them, and be friendly with them. We are disputants — not enemies.
In distinguishing between the Korah-type controversies and the Hillel-Shammai-type controversies, this mishna provides insight on the nature of human conflict. By juxtaposing them, it may be alluding to the thin line between these two types of controversies. Power struggles can dress themselves up as religious debates; theological and philosophical disputes can be mere camouflage for egotistical and unsavory oppression of opponents.
(א) וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח בֶּן־יִצְהָ֥ר בֶּן־קְהָ֖ת בֶּן־לֵוִ֑י וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם בְּנֵ֧י אֱלִיאָ֛ב וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת בְּנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵֽן׃ (ב) וַיָּקֻ֙מוּ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַאֲנָשִׁ֥ים מִבְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים וּמָאתָ֑יִם נְשִׂיאֵ֥י עֵדָ֛ה קְרִאֵ֥י מוֹעֵ֖ד אַנְשֵׁי־שֵֽׁם׃ (ג) וַיִּֽקָּהֲל֞וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶם֮ רַב־לָכֶם֒ כִּ֤י כָל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם ה' וּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל ה'
(1) Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; (2) and they rose up in face of Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men; they were princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown; (3) and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: ‘Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’
(יד) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתַי:
(14) He [Rabbi Hillel] used to say: If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, then when?
(יז) לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃ (יח) לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃
(17)You shall not hate your kinfolk in your heart. Reprove you kinsman but incur not guilt because of him. (18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord.