On the topic of Machlokes

[muman613]

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://mytorah.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/machlokes/

Pirkie Avos 5:17. Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure. Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute(s) between Hillel and Shamai. Which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his company.

This wisdom elucidates about what a ‘good’ conflict is. In order for a conflict to endure it must be for the sake of heaven. This means that the conflict is over what is acceptable to the Master of the Universe. The example which is given is the conflict between Hillel and Shamai, two of the most famous teachers of Jewish law. These two disagreed on many laws.

I think it would be wise in this context to ask ourselves specifically what it means for a conflict to "endure" and why this would be a good or bad thing (seems to be implied good by the mishna - if so, why?)

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

In other words, wouldn't it be logical to say that arguments which 'don't endure' are arugments which people eventually resolve or at least forget about and move on, not remaining in dispute with one another ?   

Then again the concept of machloket is more than mere "dispute" the English word that translates it, so perhaps this is coloring the way I'm interpreting the passage and leading to the question I'm asking...

[muman613]

In other words, wouldn't it be logical to say that arguments which 'don't endure' are arugments which people eventually resolve or at least forget about and move on, not remaining in dispute with one another ?   

Then again the concept of machloket is more than mere "dispute" the English word that translates it, so perhaps this is coloring the way I'm interpreting the passage and leading to the question I'm asking...

I have listened and read various commentaries on this Mishnah. I believe that when it says 'endure' it means it will be shedding light on the Emet {truth}. The conspiracy of Korach, as I said in my piece, was a conflict which was due to Korachs own sense of self worth and arrogance. In the case of the the conflicts such as Hillel and Shammai, they are both equally trying to shed light on the correct path albiet with a different perspective.

One Rabbi I heard said that in a Machlokes for the sake of heaven both parties emerge and can shake hands and agree on disagreeing. But in a Machlokes not for the sake of heaven both parties try to destroy each other.

I would like to hear what others have learned about this Mishnah...

muman613