Arguing the Truth

(17) 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. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

Because of what did he dissent? Because of Elizaphan, the son of his father's brother, who had been appointed prince (nasi) over his clan. So it says (in Numb. 3:30), “And the prince of the ancestral house for the Kohathite clan was Elizaphan ben Uzziel.” Korah said, “Father had four brothers.” It is so stated (according to Exod. 6:18), “And the sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel.” “As for Amram, the first-born; his son Aaron and his sons attained the high priesthood, and his brother Moses [attained] the kingship. So who deserves to get second [place]? Should it not be the second [son]? Now I am Izhar's son. I deserved to be prince of my clan, but he has appointed the son of Uzziel. Should the youngest of father's brothers become superior to me? See, I am dissenting and declaring everything invalid, whatever he had done.” Therefore, there was dissent.

(Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] took.” What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (zizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the two parashiot which are in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.”

Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1:)

“Now Korah […] took.” Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” ...

(3) They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard.”—Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.— (4) And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.”

Lest we be scattered over all the face of the earth - However, we must understand why they feared that someone might leave to another land. And it is understood that this was related to the uniformity that was among them. And since the opinions of people are not identical, they feared that people might abandon this philosophy and adopt another. Therefore they sought to ensure that no one would leave their society. And one who veered from this uniformity among them was judged with burning, just as they did to our forefather Abraham. And the "same words" can also be seen as the fact that they would kill whoever did not think like them. And more is explained on verse 6.

(6) and ה׳ said, “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.

They are one people. The explanation of "people" is that they all follow one custom [minhag], as it is written later on Gen. 28:3 in the explanation of 'and you shall be a congregation of peoples'.

And now nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do. If they finish the tower they will come to a second thought, to prevent by force other thoughts than this one. And this is a thing [that brings] killing, and violent destruction of the settlement, and it does not help that at this moment they are together with one opinion.

(5) And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.

When a debate revolves around the attribution of a doctrine to a particular individual, there is only room for one truth. However, when two Amoraim enter into a halakhic dispute, each arguing the halakhic merits of his view, each drawing upon comparisons to establish the authenticity of his perspective, there is no absolute truth and falsehood. About such issues one can declare that both represent the view of the living God. On some occasions one perspective will prove more authentic, and under other circumstances the other view will appear to be more compelling.

Trans: Friedman, Mark D.. Come Now, Let Us Reason Together: Uncovering the Torah’s Liberal Values (p. 134). )

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.