Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure…And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation. (Avos 5:17)

Perhaps one of the most spoken-about issues in this week’s parsha is the harm caused by machlokes. I would like to focus on that from a halachic and hashkafic perspective.

What does the Torah mean by saying we should not be like “Korach v’adoso.” Not to be like Korach is understandable. But what is the Torah teaching us by telling us we shouldn’t be like his assembly?

The Divrei Malkiel (Malkiel Tzvi Tenenboim 1847-1910) (3:73) answers by giving us an insight into how a fight develops. I would note that during the government lockdowns of corona, there were many sports figures who found it difficult to play without having fans to cheer – and boo – them. Without that chorus coming from the stands, blood didn’t course through their veins as it normally would during a game. So too, when there is a disagreement, it doesn’t necessarily turn into a fight without observers taking sides, which adds fuel to the fire and makes the conflagration even greater. Based on this, the Divrei Malkiel teaches us that not only is there a prohibition to have a fight with others, but so too is there a prohibition to take sides in a disagreement. And this is what the Torah means that it is forbidden to be both like Korach, and even his assembly.

This concept transcends our lives to the point that there are those who point out something peculiar: When Korach and his assembly were put to death by being swallowed up in the ground, the wives and children also perished. The question is asked why were they also swallowed up? They didn’t sin at all!

Rav Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) answers this question by telling us that being a leader of an argument is not just a sin in its own right, but is a way of life. Someone who is brought up in such an atmosphere does not see anything wrong with arguing and therefore will lead a corrupt lifestyle. This is comparable to the ben sorer u’more, the wayward son. This boy chose a path that its ultimate end is one of decadence and therefore he is put to death before he sins – not because he did something wrong (in the past), but because he will inevitably do something wrong (in the future).

He also quotes a Rashi which tells us that a person who had the bad trait of anger was passed up for being a king, not because of the sin that he did, but because of the lack of sterling quality, which is necessary for kingship.

I would like to add something that I once heard, which I later saw written by Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg (1931-2020). When Chazal instruct us not to be machzik b’machlokes – perpetuate an argument – who is that referring to? Based on what we have said until now we would say that it applies not only to the central figure in the argument, but also to those participating on the side. But he takes this another step and says that it includes even the righteous man who is being attacked, for he also has an obligation to quell the argument. This idea is seen in this week’s parsha, that Moshe Rabbeinu (who was obviously right – and Moshe knew it) still went out of his way to try to placate Doson and Aviram who already had a reputation for being agitators. It seems from Chazal that if Moshe would not have done so, he would have been considered a machzik b’machlokes!

After thinking about all that we have said until now, I think it is a worthwhile piece of advice to avoid getting into or joining any arguments, whether you are right or wrong. This is because once an argument begins, it is very hard to come down from your high horse!