This week’s Torah reading of Numbers 16–18 begins with a rebellion against Moses’ authority led by his cousin, Korah. Although Korah incurs God’s wrath and receives a terrifying punishment, his rhetoric seems, especially to the modern reader, a noble expression of egalitarian ideals. After accusing Moses of nepotism in appointing his brother Aaron as high priest, Korah declares, “All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?”

Howard Kreisel examines various ancient and medieval rabbinic attempts to find evidence of Korah’s wickedness, and then turns to a talmudic passage holding up Korah’s revolt as “a dispute not for the sake of heaven,” which it contrasts with the “dispute for the sake of heaven” exemplified by that between the respective schools of the early rabbis Hillel and Shammai.

A clue to how to differentiate between these two types of disputes comes from a different [talmudic statement], also reflecting on the controversies between Hillel and Shammai. After noting a dispute between the two schools of the two sages regarding what is permitted and forbidden in certain cases of levirate marriage, we read [that] “the school of Shammai did not refrain from taking wives from the school of Hillel, and the school of Hillel did not refrain from taking wives from the school of Shammai.”

[A] colleague of mine told me a poignant story. On one of his travels, he met two Ḥasidim who belonged to a dynasty which currently is suffering a severe schism. . . . They saw him studying Talmud in the airport lounge, and they fell into conversation. The Ḥasidim related to him that the schism has become so severe that members of one faction will have nothing to do with members of the other, neither marrying them or doing business with them. My colleague was surprised by this and cited the [passage] about the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

“I see you missed the main point,” the elder Ḥasid responded. . . . “When a controversy is for the sake of heaven, then neither party has any difficulty in maintaining close ties with the other; both sides are united in their quest for truth even if they do not see eye to eye. But when the controversy is not for the sake of heaven, as is the case here, but for the sake of wealth and power, then neither side wants to have anything to do with the other.”

Since the war began, there has been a tension between Israel’s two primary goals: the destruction of Hamas and the liberation of the hostages. Many see in Israel’s renewed campaign in Gaza a sacrifice of the latter goal in pursuit of the former. But Meir Ben-Shabbat suggests that Israel’s attacks aim to bring Hamas back to the negotiating table:

The timing of the attack, its intensity, and the extent of casualties surprised Hamas. Its senior leaders are likely still wondering whether this is a limited action meant to shock and send a message or the beginning of a sustained operation. The statement by its senior officials linking the renewal of fighting to the fate of the hostages hints at the way it may act to stop Israel. This threat requires the Israeli political leadership to formulate a series of draconian measures and declare that they will be carried out if Hamas harms the hostages.

Ostensibly, Israel’s interest in receiving the hostages and continuing the fighting stands in complete contradiction to that of Hamas, but in practice Hamas has flexibility that has not yet been exhausted. This stems from the large number of hostages in its possession, which allows it to realize additional deals for some of them, and this is what Israel has been aiming its efforts toward.

We must concede that the challenge Israel faces is not simple, but the alternative Hamas presents—surrendering to its dictates and leaving it as the central power factor in Gaza—limits its options. . . . Tightening and significantly hardening the blockade along with increasing pressure through airstrikes, evacuating areas and capturing them, may force Hamas to make its stance more flexible.

But Ben-Shabbat also acknowledges the danger in this approach. The war’s renewal puts the hostages in greater danger. And as Israel makes threats, it will be obliged to carry them out.