The controversy of Korach and his congregation-unlike the controversy of the scholars Hillel and Shammai - is a controversy not pursued in a Heavenly cause. It, therefore, does not endure. (Ethics 5:17) Why is Korach's disagreement with Moshe (Moses) so tainted?
 
Malbim, the 19th century commentary feels that the goal of the disagreement had impure intentions from the beginning. He therefore writes: "In a controversy pursued for unholy ends...even those who have come together on one side are not really united. Each is out to cut the other's throat."
 
Supporting Malbim’s approach is the text in Ethics which describes the controversy as one that existed between Korach and his congregation, not Korach and Moshe. In other words, Korach 's group was racked by dissension from within, each wanting the priesthood for himself.
 
Korach also refused to dialogue with Moshe. (Numbers 16:12) An essential principle of controversy for the sake of Heaven is the recognition that no single person has the monopoly on truth. Although one may be committed to a particular position, he or she must be open and respectful of dissenting views.
 
This is an essential ingredient in all spheres of leadership, especially in politics. Hearing-listening to the other is essential. The real challenge is not listening to those who agree with us, but listening to those who do not.
 
Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, a 16th century commentary offers a final idea. He notes that the text in Ethics states a controversy for Heaven will in the end-"sofah"-endure. In other words, when Hillel and Shammai disagreed they still wanted the halakhic system to endure, hence, their controversy was for the sake of Heaven. This, unlike Korach, whose purpose in disagreeing with Moshe was to destroy the system of the priesthood.
 
So, too, in Israeli politics. Rav Kuk states that the duly elected government of Israel has the status of malkhut, the biblical status of king. (Mishpat Kohen 144:14-17) Thus, an individual has the right to disagree with government policy, but can never regard those policies as null and void. Dissent is acceptable for it sustains the enduring nature of the State. Delegitimization, on the other hand, is not acceptable for it threatens the very fabric of the State.
 
If this distinction is blurred, if the government is declared illegitimate, the consequences are grievous. Citizens would then be able to take the law into their own hands and carve out their own conceptions of what they believe Jewish law demands. We have witnessed such attitudes in the past and unfortunately, even in these trying times, the rhetoric within the chambers of the Knesset can often be disrespectful and inappropriate. Let us pray that those in power and we ourselves realize the fine line between discourse that is destructive, selfish and fleeting and dissent for the sake of heaven, dissent that is constructive, productive, enduring and even holy.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Avi Weiss