Analogies are a frequently used educational tool, because they are easily understood and internalized. Just say “toe is to foot as finger is to hand,” and a young child now knows that the appendages attached to the foot are called toes. Mathematically, the expression is “A : B :: X : Y,” or “toe : foot :: finger : hand.”
Our Mishnah, however, constructs what we might consider an improper analogy related to this week’s reading. In the Chapters of the Fathers [5:17] it says, “What is an argument for the sake of Heaven? This is the argument of Hillel and Shammai. And not for the sake of Heaven? This is the argument of Korach and his entire congregation.”
Mathematically, that would be “Hillel : Shammai :: Korach : his congregation.” But that is not the argument described in our parsha; Korach does not argue with his own congregation, he argues with Moshe! So how can our Sages claim that the two examples are analogous?
The Medrash Shmuel explains that when we examine the situation carefully, this is entirely correct. “What is an argument for the sake of Heaven? This is the argument of Hillel and Shammai,” both of whom were motivated entirely for the same reason: the sake of Heaven.
Hillel and Shammai were the Chief Judge and President, respectively, of the Sanhedrin, the High Court, during their day. Their arguments were “for the sake of Heaven” because they did not care about winning the argument or personal gain; they only cared about finding the truth.
Turn to Korach and Moshe, however, and the situation is entirely different. Korach was pursuing his own honor, and so were those with him.
But what about Moshe? The answer, of course, is that Moshe, like Hillel and Shammai over 1000 years later, was acting entirely for the sake of Heaven. It was Korach and his congregation who were both on the other side. This is why the Mishnah could not make what we would consider a “proper” analogy, and contrast the argument of Moshe and Korach to the arguments of Hillel and Shammai.
And there’s another crucial point: Korach and his purported followers did not actually agree. Korach was from the Tribe of Levi, and wanted a position given to another in his family. Others with him, however, were from the Tribe of Reuven, and wanted positions for themselves as descendants of the oldest brother. They did not agree on what would happen next; they only agreed that they wanted to replace the leadership of Moshe. Were they to have had their way, a new argument would have broken out immediately between the children of Levi and Reuven in Korach’s group.
So what does that mean? It means that the analogy made in the Mishna is 100% correct, after all. Korach and his congregation had an argument, which was not for the sake of Heaven. They hid it beneath the surface in order to challenge Moshe, but it was there all along.
There are many lessons in this Mishnah and the analogy, but two come to mind with immediate application today. First of all, the fact that Reuven and Shimon argue in one area does not mean they cannot work together in another; the key question is whether they both seek a single, agreed objective. Korach and “his” congregation were not allies, because they had completely different end goals. But it is possible to work together with those who do not share many of our views, towards a shared, agreed-upon goal.
And second, perhaps more importantly, the Torah teaches us here that the existence of an argument does not prove that both sides are wrong. Even though this is obvious when considered, people instinctively imagine the opposite: that the truth must somehow lie in between two opposing views. We learn here that this thought is as wrong as one of the parties may be. Sometimes the argument may be on similar lines to that of Moshe and Korach, as clear as the line between truth and falsehood.
May we always have the ability to see the difference!
Photo Credit: Akshay Gupta on Pixahive
