Korach: Three Types of Machlokess (or “How Korach Wasn’t as Bad as You Think”)

We’re quick to condemn Korach. But what if his motives weren’t entirely evil? And what if that insight changes how we see machlokess in our own communities?

This week’s Torah content is sponsored by Chaim and Rifka Peck, the awesome parents of two of my NEJA students, in honor of the marriage of my dear talmidim, Chayim Zifkin and Shira Stein. Though they don’t know the couple personally, the Pecks chose to dedicate their sponsorship to their simchah—a beautiful gesture in a time when Israel and Jews around the world are under attack. “Let there soon be heard in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem the sound of joy and gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride.”

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Korach: Three Types of Machlokess (or “How Korach Wasn’t as Bad as You Think”)

If I told you there are three types of machlokess (dispute) – one good, one less-than-ideal, and one bad – and I asked you which category Korach's machlokess falls into, what would you guess? I imagine you'd instinctively go with “bad,” based on the fate suffered by Korach and his followers.

But according to R' Yehoshua ibn Shuib (student of the Rashba, 1280-1340) in his drashah on Parashas Korach, that’s not the case. Korach’s machlokess certainly wasn’t good, but it wasn’t as bad as we think.

Ibn Shuib opens by citing the mishnah in Avos 5:17:

Any machlokess that is l’shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven) will ultimately be established, and [any machlokess] that is not l’shem shamayim will ultimately not be established. What is [an example of] a machlokess that is l’shem shamayim? This is the machlokess of Hillel and Shammai. And [what is an example of a machlokess which] is not l’shem shamayim? This is the machlokess of Korach and his entire assembly.

Ibn Shuib then explains why the Tanna (i.e., the author of the mishnah) classifies Korach's machlokess as she’lo l’shem shamayim:

The Tanna referred to Korach’s machlokess as she’lo l’shem shamayim to teach us that they did not present themselves as envious of [Moshe and Aharon’s] status or as challengers of their appointments, but rather as seeking to serve Hashem just as [Moshe and Aharon] did. But this wasn’t their true intent; their goal was self-aggrandizement. For this reason, the machlokess is described as she’lo l’shem shamayim.

Next, Ibn Shuib outlines the three types of machlokess and offers an unconventional explanation for why Korach’s dispute falls into the second category rather than the third:

There are three types of machlokess. The first is a machlokess l’shem shamayim, such as the disputes between Abaye and Rava, or R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and others. Their intent wasn’t to elevate their own status, but to clarify the true halacha and determine the essence of the mitzvah or the law – not to “win.” And when they saw the truth in the words of other sages, they would concede, as it is often stated: “Beis Hillel retracted and conceded to Beis Shammai,” “R’ Yochanan retracted from that view,” “Rava retracted from that view,” and he said, “The things I said before you were a mistake on my part.” And at the end of their lives, they would instruct their students to retract and concede to their disputants, as we find in Niddah (36b) in the case of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding Sheila bar Avina, and in many other places in the Talmud.

The second type is a machlokess of deception, like that of Korach, who misled the men of his generation by portraying himself as an advocate for the firstborns and the entire congregation – “for all of them are holy, and Hashem is among them” (Bamidbar 16:3) – and accusing Moshe, Aharon, and others of seizing the avodos (divine services) for themselves while excluding everyone else. In doing so, he deceived the people into following him…

The third type is a machlokess of domination, which stirs up strife and seeks control over trivial matters, without any mitzvah-related benefit. On the contrary, such disputes involve sin and transgression, and their aim is to defeat their opponents. This type of machlokess wasn’t mentioned by the Tanna because it’s unworthy of consideration, for it is [even] found among other creatures: animals, beasts, and birds.

But the Tanna did mention the machlokess of Korach because it contained a tzorech mitzvah (a mitzvah-related utility): they claimed to want to serve Hashem, though it was not l’shem shamayim, unlike the sages who dispute over matters of Torah. [Rather,] they engaged in dispute to elevate themselves over their peers and to build a reputation. Since this was somewhat related to a mitzvah she'lo lishmah, he deemed it worth mentioning.

Thus, machlokess falls into three categories, like other things that consist of two opposing ends. The machlokess of Hillel and Shammai, and others like them, lies at the extreme end of the good; the machlokess of dominance lies at the extreme of evil, having no tzorech mitzvah; and in the middle is the machlokess that is not l’shem shamayim. The Tanna included the second type (i.e., Korach’s machlokess, which was shelo l’shem shamayim) and omitted the third, because it contains no good or benefit, but rather sin, transgression, and great harm.

I was astonished and intrigued by Ibn Shuib's classification of Korach's machlokess in the merely "less-than-ideal" middle category rather than the "absolutely evil" extreme. I’d just been so used to thinking of Korach as the villain of the story that I automatically assumed the worst. This really underscores how important it is to evaluate a person's actions on their own terms, rather than letting judgment be clouded by preconceived notions.

The second thing I found interesting is that Ibn Shuib regards Korach's campaign as “somewhat related to a mitzvah she’lo lishmah.” I've periodically explored the topic of "the limits of she'lo lishmah": How far can mitzvah-motives stretch and still count as an "acceptable" level of she'lo lishmah? At what point do ulterior motives outweigh the value of the mitzvah itself? According to Ibn Shuib, it seems that a machlokess can involve deeply destructive motives, but the mere fact that those motives are in service of some tzoreh mitzvah is enough to place it in the “middle” category of she’lo l’shem shamayim rather than in the “extremely bad” category of an animalistic battle for dominance.

The third thing I gained from this was a shift in how I view "politics" within Jewish communities. As we are all aware, machlokess is far too pervasive within the Jewish world, from shul politics to conflicts between different factions of Jewry, to infighting over the positions Jews take on American or Israeli politics. Before encountering this Ibn Shuib, I reflexively sorted all of these into just two categories: noble l’shem shamayim disagreements and animalistic ego-battles. To my mind, the baal ha’bayis (layman) quarrelling with the shul president was no different than two drunk guys at a bar fighting to prove who’s more macho. As long as the motives weren’t l’shem shamayim, what difference did it make what they were arguing about?

But according to Ibn Shuib, there is a key question that must be asked about any machlokess that isn’t l'shem shamayim: Does this involve some tzorech mitzvah? If it does, that aspect alone is enough to lend the machlokess some merit. Such an argument may be fueled by egos and may even lead to great harm and destruction, but to characterize it as purely animalistic would be incorrect. That label should be reserved for personal quarrels with no tzorech mitzvah at all, like the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza (Gittin 55b).

And lest you object, "How can there be any redeeming quality in this machlokess? This person, group, or institution is trying to undermine the very foundations of Judaism!" Ibn Shuib would reply: "Yep! Just like Korach. Korach’s machlokess wasn’t purely evil. Because it involved a tzorech mitzvah, it fell into the middle category. And if that’s true for Korach, then you shouldn’t be so quick to condemn the machlokess you’re reacting to as purely evil, so long as it involves a tzorech mitzvah as well.”

This just goes to show the importance of a mitzvah she'lo lishmah within the Torah system. Even though Korach was undoubtedly mistaken – in his actions, beliefs, and motives – and even though Moshe's authority was threatened to the point that Hashem had to intervene with a miracle to stop Korach's coup, his machlokess still contained a modicum of good.

The implications of Ibn Shuib’s position deserve further thought, but that’s all I have to say for now. So next time you see Jews fighting about something l’tzorech mitzvah, remember that even if they’re being fueled by ego – and even if they’re comparable to Korach – that doesn’t mean their machlokess is devoid of merit. It could be worse.

---

What do you think of Ibn Shuib’s take?

Like what you read? Give this article a “like” and share it with someone who might appreciate it!

Want access to my paid content without actually paying? If you successfully refer enough friends, you can get access to the paid tier for free!

Interested in reading more? Become a free subscriber, or upgrade to a paid subscription for the upcoming exclusive content!

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel