with a select treasury of commentaries on all levels of Torah interpretation
Chapter 5 Mishna 17
with select commentaries
Commentaries used in this translation:
Rashi Commentary (1040-1105)
Rambam Commentary (1135-1204)
Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura Commentary (1445-1515)
Tiferet Yisrael commentary (1782–1860)
Rabeinu Yonah (1180-1263)
Derech Chaim - Maharal of Prague (1525-1609) (hebrewbooks.org/14193)
Biur HaGra of Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna - (1720-1797)
Rabbi Avraham Azoulai commentary - (1570-1643)
Rabbi Chayim Yosef David Azoulai (Chida) commentary - (1724-1806)
Chatam Sofer commentary - (1762-1839), along with Ktav Sofer, and others
Ben Ish Chai commentary - (1835-1909)
and many more..
Commentary Level:
- Min - (level 1) for basic commentaries as relating to the plain meaning (Pshat).
- Med - (level 2) elaborates more into the theme.
- Max - (level 3) deeper in, Maharal of Prague.
- Max+ - (level 4) more themes in the text.
- ShortMix - (recommended) short version of level 4.
Link to this page:
+ Increase Font Size | - Decrease Font Size
Chapter 5 Mishna 17פרק ה משנה יז
| Any dispute that is l'Shem Shamayim (for the good/sake of Heaven) shall endure in the end. But one that is not l'Shem Shamayim shall not endure in the end. What is [an example of] a dispute l'Shem Shamayim? This is the dispute between Hillel and Shamai. And one that is not l'Shem Shamayim? This the dispute of Korach and all his congregation. | כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ. |
Bartenura - "l'Shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven)" - when the purpose and goal sought from this dispute is to attain the truth - this endures. For through the argument the truth is clarified, as we find in the argument between Hillel and Shamai that the Halacha follows beit Hillel.
But for an argument which is not l'Shem Shamayim, the desired purpose there is to gain dominion and to love defeating the other. This does not endure in the end as we find by Korach and his congregation whereby their end purpose was to attain honor and dominion but the end was the opposite.
Machzor Vitri - "l'Shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven)" - to arrive at the truth in something or to rebuke people on a sin, but not to rule over people, acquire a name for oneself, or to become arrogant for nothing over one's fellow.
Rabbi Avraham Azoulai - Ahava b'Taanugim - "Any dispute that is l'Shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven) shall endure in the end" - for machloket and love are two opposites. Love comes from peace (Shalom), while machloket comes from hatred. The Tanna makes known to us that all things go after their foundation.
If the foundation is l'shem shamayim, then even machloket which by nature causes annulment - even so it will endure.
But if the foundation is not l'shem shamayim, then even love which by nature causes endurement - even so it will eventually be annulled.
Hillel and Shamai - both agreed on the primary mitzva and service of G-d . They just disagreed on how to get there and how to do it.
The end purpose which both agreed on is seeking the truth. This was the common matter which caused them to endure and be joined them together. Both asked themselves: "what is the reason of Beit Shammai? What is the reason of Beit Hillel?" ..
But the dispute of Korach was not l'shem shamayim. On the contrary, he denied the providence and prophecy of G-d. Thus it does not endure. For falsehood eventualy disappears on its own. Thus, they disappeared from the congregation..
Meiri - "any dispute that is l'Shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven) shall endure in the end" - there is to wonder here - how is it proper to say on a machloket - "it shall endure in the end"? For in the end only one of the views argued on will remain and a machloket (endures) implies both views [remain]..
The answer is if the second person argues not in order to vex (lekanter) or defeat the other person, but rather to find the truth - then his words will endure. For truth will do its way. But when he is not l'shem shamayim and he questions and argues only in order to vex (lekanter) and defeat the other person - it will not endure. Rather, only the words of the first person will endure.
The intent is to exhort one to strive for truth and argue on those who come to annul it and not fear any man, not even those who come to vex (lekanter)..
Ketav Sofer Hachadash, Avot - "What is [an example of] a dispute not l'Shem Shamayim? This the dispute of Korach and all his congregation" - this needs investigation. For it should have said "Korach and Moshe". It seems to me [to answer] that if one looks closely at the order of the verses, he will see that at first Korach came to protest on the high position of Moshe and he wanted to be a ruler over his people. Afterwards the congregation of Korach said [to Moshe]: "you take too much for yourself, etc." (Bamidbar 16:3). They said there is no need at all for a leader and ruler. For "everyone is holy" and everyone is equal.
Certainly if no personal interest was apparent in the dispute of Korach, all of Israel would have been drawn after him due to his smooth tongue.
Thus to rouse their hearts against Moshe, he said at first that there is no need for a leader, we want to be free (hefker). Through this many were drawn after him. But afterwards they detected the deceit in his heart and that he was seeking honor for himself. Therefore, they pulled back. For he and his congregation were not united. They wanted to be without a king and leader while what he wanted in all of this was for himself to be the leader.
This is the way of a dispute not for the sake of Heaven (machloket shelo l'shem shamayim) - each person turns and pulls towards himself. Therefore, even among the disputers peace does not hold and each one leaves the other and the dispute (machloket) eventually disintegrates.
On the other hand, a dispute for the sake of Heaven (machloket l'Shem Shamayim), all of them have only one heart l'Shem Shamayim and one intent and it endures..
Shevet Sofer Korach - it was already asked that it should have said "the dispute (machloket) of Korach and Moshe". The Ramban infers from Moshe's answer: "is it not enough..it is much for you Benei Levi". He answered only the Leviites and he only consoled them". Even though afterwards the whole congregation of Israel complained also and also the first born Jews for the service was taken from them.
In truth, Korach screamed only at the first born Jews for the temple service was taken from them. He pretended that he was not screaming for his own honor and not complaining for himself and that he could not bear to see the injustice being done to others.
For he knew that through this many would join him. Thus the first borns did and complained that Moshe chose the people of his family to be the Kohanim (priests) and elevated his tribe, etc. taking much greatness for themselves.
But Moshe sensed that it was not as Korach said. Rather he was only screaming for his own personal honor. For this was the primary dispute. Therefore Moshe only said: "it is much for you Benei Levi" so that the Jewish people would understand that he is only seeking his own honor.
If in truth, Korach's intent was only for the honor of the first borns in that they were invalidated for the temple service and that this was hard on him, he would not have been punished so severely and he would have been a little bit l'Shem Shamayim in his dispute.
So too for the first borns. If they protested only because of the honor of their peers and deemed they also deserve the privilege to stand and minister unto G-d, they would not have been punished so severely.
But in truth it was not so. Each one did not care about the honor of his fellow and each joined thinking only of his own honor. Thus the whole argument of Korach and his entire congregation was not l'Shem Shamayim and each person had a different intent. Thus the mishna chose the phrase "the dispute (machloket) of Korach and his congregation".
Maharal - "Hillel and Shamai" - in the Talmud: "a bat kol (Heavenly voice) proclaimed: 'these and these are the words of the living G-d'" (Eiruvin 13b)..
For even though Beit Shammai forbids and Beit Hillel permits, nevertheless both are truth. For according to this reason it is forbidden and according to this reason it is permitted.. and both reasons are from G-d who includes opposite things. Thus if one learned the two views, he learned torah from the mouth of G-d..
And when we say the Halacha follows Beit Hillel, this is only practical Halacha of what action a man should do. But nevertheless even though both views have their own reasons, both are completely equal (in truth). Thus it says "these and these are words of the living G-d".. (see there for more).
Yachel Yisrael - machloket (dispute) is as old as the days of the world. For it is not possible for all people to have a single view on all matters. Our sages said: "just like peoples' faces are different, so too their opinions are different" (Bamidbar Rabba 21:2).
Machloket (dispute) stems from the fact that people vary in their thinking patterns and on how they arrive at conclusions.
Likewise each person has his own personal aspirations, wants, and goals which can conflict with those of his fellow. From here the path to machloket is even closer.
The damages of machloket are great. Many are its victims.. The Rambam writes in his letter to his son:
"do not defile your soul with machloket which destroys body and soul and money - what else is left?.. I have seen rulers toppled, families destroyed, ministers removed from their posts, great cities shaken, civilizations separated - due to machloket. Therefore, hate it and flee from it" end quote.
The Chafetz Chaim once said: "the general principle - there is no evil in the world like machloket".
In this mishna, our sages come to strengthen us in the dangers of machloket. Likewise, the mishna teaches us that there is a type of machloket which is good and which builds instead of destroys, namely, a machloket l'shem shamayim".
What is l'shem shamayim?
the Meir Nativ defines this as: "giving oneself over without impurities (vested interest), for a higher purpose in life".
ie a Jew who does not do anything for himself. Everything he does is "l'shem shamayim". So too, a machloket l'shem shamayim means a machloket without personal interests, without intent for personal gain. Rather it is "l'shem shamayim" - to increase the honor of Heaven.
Why is the service of G-d with pure motives and giving oneself over called "l'shem shamayim"?
The word "shamayim" is often seen as another name for G-d. Even though every Jew knows that G-d's glory fills the earth and He is found in the Heavens and in the Earth. But since the Heaven represents that which is beyond us, far away, the infinite, thus the term is used for G-d who is beyond our grasp.
"shall endure in the end" - this is the reward of a machloket l'shem shamayim. The result of a machloket for clarifying the truth without personal bias is - the machloket will endure.
What is this promise? What kind of reward is this that the machloket does not end? Who wants the machloket to endure forever?
According to Rabeinu Yonah it means the arguers endure, they live long days and years to argue on more places in the sea of the Talmud..
Furthermore, even after their death, their words of torah endure forever. People continue to toil in their words and mention their teachings.
In the Talmud: "For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, 'The halachah is in agreement with our views' and the latter contending, 'The halachah is in agreement with our views'. Then a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) proclaimed: 'both are the words of the living G-d, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel" (Eiruvin 13b).
Until today we toil to understand the view of Beit Shammai just like the view of Beit Hillel. Likewise for the reasons of the other Tannaim and Amoraim in every mishna and every sugya where there are different views.
Even though the halacha does not follow him, there is an obligation to understand the different view because his words are also torah.
Many ask: "how can two contradicting views be true and 'these and these are words of the living G-d'"?
The answer is that in the torah there is room for different views. For "there are seventy facets to the torah" - everything in the torah can be explained in seventy ways and each way is correct and true from one angle. However, when one comes to instruct how to act practically (Halacha), we must rule like one of the views. Fo it is impossible to act practically in different ways.
Hillel and Shamai - it does not say "Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai". For only great holy men can testify on themselves that they are l'shem shamayim.
Thus it does not say "Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai". For in some of the disciples it is possible that they had some personal interests. This is the nature of machloket. Even if it starts l'shem shamayim, as time goes on, hitchikers jump on the bandwagon without the honor of Heaven as their motive.. These small people use the machloket to fulfill their personal aspirations and the fire of machloket can destroy.
But Hillel and Shammai themselves loved truth and also peace. They argued and were at peace with each other.
The talmud in Yevamot (14b) testifies on the friendship between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai: "even though Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women of Beit Hillel and vice versa. To teach you that there was love and friendship between them, to fulfill the verse: 'love truth and peace' (Zecharia 8:19)".