The Pirkei Avot describes the controversy of Korah and his cohorts to have been “not for the sake of Heaven.” Their goal was to overthrow the leadership of Moses and Aaron in the hope of seizing political power. They did not offer a positive agenda; rather, they preyed on the fears and frustrations of the public.
The Pirkei Avot contrasts the Korah model with that of the debates between Hillel and Shammai. Those disputes were “for the sake of Heaven.” Neither was seeking personal power. Although they disagreed strongly, they were colleagues in search of truth. The Talmud reflects this when it states that both of their views “were the words of the living God.”
Just as in antiquity, we have our share of controversies today. Some are clearly in the category of Korah controversies—not for the sake of Heaven. People fight for power and seek to destroy their opponents. A problem arises when theological and philosophical debates transform themselves into battles for power. 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.
Sir Isaiah 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. Perhaps if we can learn to see our conflicts in the Hillel-Shammai model, we can develop a more harmonious religious and social discourse. Healthy controversy reflects an honest search for truth. Unhealthy controversy reflects the desire for power and ego gratification.
