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.”

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”