Efrat, Israel- "And they rose up in the face of Moses” [Num. 16:2]
    
When is dissension and argument positive, healthy debate and an outgrowth of "these and those are the word of the Living G-d [B.T. Eruvin 13]", and when is dispute a negative, venomous cancer which destroys the very underpinning of our nation? Korach's rebellious dissent is negative, as the Talmud states: "Rav said: One who is unyielding in maintaining a dispute violates a negative command, as it is written, `And let him not be as Korach, and his company.'" [B.T. Sanhedrin 110a] But can we glean from this statement operative guide-lines as to when it is right and when it is wrong to argue?
    
We all know the story of Korach. This rebel against Mosaic authority and Aaronic Priesthood influenced 250 leading Israelites to stand up against the established - and Divinely ordained - leadership.
    
A contest is held between the upstarts and Moses to determine who is the chosen of G-d. Moses is vindicated and Korach and his cohorts are consumed by a Divine fire. After this, G-d commands that the 250 fire pans of the rebels which were used in the contest be pounded into plates to cover the altar: "To be a memorial to the children of Israel, that no stranger who is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before G-d; do not be as Korach, and his company, as G-d said by the hand of Moses, concerning him." [Num.17:5].
    
This verse serves as Rav's proof text regarding an unyielding disputant. According to Rav’s interpretation, the words "As God said . . . concerning him" refer to Korach. The Torah is therefore saying, that no one should ever again maintain a dispute in the way that Korah did. One may raise a dissenting opinion, but when the accepted leader rejects it, the dissenter must back down. This view would maintain that the problem of Korah was that he would not give in.

Rashi suggests a different understanding. He takes the pronoun “him” to refer to Aaron; the problem with Korah’s argument was that he was challenging G-d’s chosen Kohanim – descendants of Aaron – as the only legitimate priests. Such a challenge can never be allowed in the future.

Rav Isaac Bernstein, z"l, of London, in a masterful lecture, cited the Hatam Sofer, who claims that it is the attitude of the dissenter - and not the subject of his dissent - which makes the difference. This Sage bemoans the fact that all too often, when two people argue, one (or both) of the parties involved will claim that only he has a direct pipeline to G-d; only he has the right opinion, and the other view must be totally de-legitimized. These individuals claim that they are arguing "for the sake of heaven, in the name of G-d and Torah".

Supporting his interpretation, the Hatam Sofer reads the verse, "don't be like Korach, and his company, (who argued that) G-d spoke by the hand of Moses (only) to him;" to Korah. It is forbidden for any individual to maintain that God speaks only to him, that only he knows the truth, and that there is no possibility of truth to his opponent's case. An illegitimate debate is one which seeks to de-legitimize the other side, declaring that only one side has the whole truth. The Hatam Sofer proves his point from the case of Rabbi Eliezer in the Talmud --who actually did have a pipeline to G-d [B.T. Bava Metzia 59b]-- but was nevertheless bested in debate by the Sages – because, in the final analysis, halakha is determined by the logic of the majority of the Sages, and not by voices from heaven.

The Talmud records that Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with his contemporaries on the status of a particular oven. He was absolutely convinced that he was right, and to prove his claim, he asked and received a series of signs from heaven demonstrating the accuracy of his halakhic opinion. Nevertheless, since his was a minority view in the face of a majority ruling, his refusal to relent led to his excommunication. The case of Rabbi Eliezer is brought to teach that even if you are certain that G-d is on your side, you dare not read the other view out of the realm of legitimacy.

Rabbi Bernstein, further directs us to another fascinating source. The mishnah in Tractate Sukkah states: "If a man's head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah but his table of food were inside the house, Bet Shammai declared such a meal on Sukkot to be invalid and Bet Hillel declared it valid. Bet Hillel says to Bet Shammai: `Was there not an incident wherein the elders of Bet Shammai and elders of Bet Hillel visited Rabbi Yochanan the son of the Horoni, and they found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body in a sukkah, and his table of food inside the house, and they did not make any comment about it. Did this not imply that the Academy of Shammai had acquiesced in this case to the Academy of Hillel! ' Bet Shammai said to them: 'Actually, the elders of Bet Shammai said to Rabbi Yochanan `If this is how you perform the mitzvah of Sukkah, then in your whole life, you never fulfilled the commandment' [Mishnah Sukkah 2:7]." And so Bet Shammai never gave in to Bet Hillel!
    
Rav Naftali of Vermaiser in his "Maleh Ratzon", explained this mishnah as follows: the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel were indeed present together at the sukkah of Rabbi Yochanan, and they all saw that their host conducted himself in accordance with the ruling of Bet Hillel. Although Bet Shammai, disagreed with Bet Hillel, they said nothing - because of their respect for Bet Hillel and because they understood the validity of a dissenting opinion. Only after the elders of Bet Hillel left the sukkah did the elders of Bet Shammai clarify their own position. This sensitivity displayed by the representatives of the two major academies in Mishnaic times emphasizes the fundamental pluralism in the Talmud: two views may be at loggerheads, but all must respect and learn from - rather than revile and de-legitimize - their opponents. And two opposing sides in a debate can and must respect and socialize with each other, even to the extent of marrying into each other's families!
    
Can we say that we have adequately absorbed the lessons of the dangers of dispute and dissension? Has Korach and Korachism truly been consumed by fire, never to be heard from again? Would that it were so!