Korach: Lessons in Debate from Moshe and Hillel

A fourth rebellion in a year—but this one was different. Moshe fell on his face in response, and the famous commentator Rashi says: “but now at the rebellion of Korach, his hands sank down (he felt himself powerless).” How many times can he go to bat for the Jewish People?

This episode comes on the heels of the sin of the spies, and it is this episode that the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers) singles out as the prime example of what a dispute should not look like—while the debates between Hillel and Shammai are held up as the ideal.

We are a people with many things to debate—some of them on hold since October 7, but some still simmering beneath (and at times above) the surface. What can we learn from Korach, Moshe, Hillel, and Shammai that might help us debate constructively?

Korach and Moshe: Choosing the Right Battles

The Torah introduces Korach’s rebellion with a subtle but telling phrase:

“וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח” – “And Korach took…” (Bamidbar 16:1)

Rashi, quoting the Midrash, explains that Korach “separated himself”—he took himself aside from the community. This wasn’t a movement for unity or for G-d’s will. It was a campaign for control.

Korach’s challenge wasn’t rooted in principle—it was rooted in ego. According to Rashi, his rebellion was sparked by jealousy over the appointment of Elitzafan ben Uziel. He masked his ambition in the language of equality: “For the entire community is holy.” Yet his rhetoric, though appealing, was a pretext for personal gain.

When Moshe hears Korach’s words, the Torah tells us:

וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו

And Moshe heard, and he fell on his face.” (Bamidbar 16:4)

This time, Moshe doesn’t argue. He doesn’t plead. He doesn’t even respond with words. Rashi explains that this was the fourth rebellion—and Moshe felt powerless. He had already stood up for the people after the Golden Calf, the complaints about food and water, and the sin of the spies. But now, something had shifted.

This wasn’t about fear or survival. It was about pride, provocation, and power. Korach’s rebellion was driven by ego, not the nation’s needs. And Moshe understood that not every argument is worth engaging. Sometimes, silence is the wisest response.

We, of course, learn that Korach played his cards very badly—but more than that, this was an argument that was completely unnecessary. It was not what was needed after the trauma and punishment of the spies. It should not have happened. Moshe left it to G-d to resolve—and it ended badly for Korach and his supporters.

Hillel and Shammai: The Argument for the Sake of Heaven

The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (5:17) draws a sharp contrast:

כָּל מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם? זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם? זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ.

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 a dispute for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which is one that is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his congregation.

Why are Hillel and Shammai the model?

The Gemara in Eruvin 13b explains that the halacha follows Beit Hillel because they were modest and patient. They taught both their own views and those of Beit Shammai—and they taught Shammai’s view first.

This wasn’t just a method of learning. It was a model for living. Hillel’s greatness wasn’t only in his intellect—it was in his ability to listen, to honor the other, and to make space for disagreement without descending into division.

That’s the kind of disagreement that endures. That’s the kind of debate we need.

Empathy and Light

The late Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks zt”l once wrote:

I don’t need you to agree with me. I need you to care about me.

That’s the essence of machloket l’shem shamayim. Not agreement, but care. Not uniformity, but empathy—and a shared desire to reach the best answer for what G-d would want of us.

To this, Rav Kook adds a vision of light.

The righteous do not complain about darkness. They increase light.

We’re not here to win arguments. We’re here to build a future. That means listening more than speaking. It means spending less time assigning blame and more time seeking understanding.

Rav Kook’s genius was his ability to see light where others saw darkness. He saw the beauty in the pioneers, even when others dismissed them. He believed that every Jew has a contribution to make.

We must increase the light—by showcasing the beauty of Torah, by protecting our nation’s security, and by building an open, diverse civil society rooted in Jewish values.

No one owns the full truth. All Jews have a voice. We must find ways to bring everyone into the tent of tradition—even if it means compromise and complexity.

Our Moment of Choice

Like Korach’s time, we face division today. And some of the issues before us can’t wait. The question of the draft, for example, is not just a policy matter—it’s a question of national identity, of shared responsibility, of what it means to be part of Am Yisrael. It is also a real issue of concern for a community who have closely guarded their values and community for centuries in a pursuit of Holiness and the honour of Torah. I have my strong views as a religious Zionist and father of a soldier, but I also need to listen and learn. We need empathetic dialogue to find solutions that honour all perspectives. I am not saying decisions aren’t at some point needed but we should reach there through the Hillel way. Hillel and Shammai had some pretty huge debates so we won’t be the first.

For the conversations that must happen now, we need to follow the example of Hillel. We must listen, empathize, and present opposing views fairly. We need to look for the light, and spend less time in the darkness of what’s already happened. The past is behind us. The future is still ours to shape.

At the same time, we must also learn from Korach. Not every issue needs to be addressed all at once. For example, some policy debates might wait until communal trust is rebuilt. And all of them need the approach of Hillel—humility, patience, and a genuine desire to build rather than break.

Conclusion: The Right Way to Disagree

King David said it best:

הִנֵּה מַה טּוֹב וּמַה נָּעִים שֶׁבֶת אַחִים גַּם יָחַד

How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity. (Tehillim 133:1)

Let’s pick our battles carefully. Let’s fight them with dignity. Let’s disagree like family—because we are family. We have a chance to strengthen our nation and turn pain into purpose.

It won’t be easy. But it’s possible. And it’s worth it.