Parshat Korach delineates the first formal rebellion against the leadership structure of Klal Yisrael. Considering the gravity of this conflict, also reflected by the severe outcome that befell Korach ve-adato, it is curious that the Torah provides scant information about the origins, content, and objectives of Korach's agenda. "Ki kol haedah kulam kedoshim ubetocham Hashem" (16:3) is certainly an intriguing and consequential theme, but one whose specific parameters are certainly obscure, as the wide range of interpretation demonstrates. The complaint of "rav lachem...u-madua titnaseu al kehal Hashem" underscores the accusation of elitism and unfair diffusion of authority and power, but remains acutely vague. It is left to Chazal to flesh out Korach's agenda and arguments. Their broad and varied insights reinforce the impression that the Torah's muted presentation of the debated details was likely intentional. Notwithstanding the trigger of this specific grievance, perhaps only a pretext, the Korach challenge was perceived then and throughout the ages as a core confrontation about the nature of halachic authority and the character and integrity of halachic observance that transcends particular issues and arguments. For this reason, Korach's rebellion demanded unequivocal resolution and harsh consequences, as the parshah demonstrates.
This perspective is underscored by the Torah's very introduction to the controversy (16:1) - "vayikach Korach...ve-Datan va-Aviram ...ve-On ben Pelet benei Reuven". As the commentators note there is no object connected to the verb "vayikach"! This inspired Unkelos to render "vayikach" as "ve-itpaleg" (he fragmented the national unity), as Rashi approvingly notes. This interpretation is undoubtedly more than an intriguing explanation of an anomalous usage. Perhaps Chazal understood that the Torah profoundly conveys that despite the pretext, Korach's agenda and actions were independent of any real or imagined objective. He fomented dissention and rebellion for the sake of disunity and cynically employed argumentation as a mechanism to undermine the principle of halachic authority, and to attack the singular halachic concept of objective halachic norms.
Thus, the Mishnah in Avot perceives the Korach-instigated controversy as the paradigm for insincere, manipulative conflict (machloket shelo le-sheim shamayim). The Semag codifies "ve-lo yihiyeh ke-Korach ve-adato" (17:5) as an independent transgression among the 613 mitzvot (based on Sanhedrin 110a - "kol hamachzik be-machloket over be-lo taaseh", in contrast to Rashi ad loc). Rashi (16:1), citing Chazal, asserts that Yaakov's lineage was omitted with respect to Korach - "she-lo yizacher shemo al ha-machloket". While association with dissention is always unpleasant, the status of Korach as a serial and cynical antagonist, as the ideologue of machloket, further precludes any linking with Yaakov-Yisrael, the bechir ha-avot (the premier and integrative [midat tiferet] of the Avot).
While sincere and constructive argumentation, epitomized by the fierce yet idealistic debates of Shamai and Hillel (see Eruvin 13b, characterized in the same Mishnah in Avot as exemplifying "machloket le-sheim shamayim") is oft-admired for its immense contribution to halachic thought, and ultimately for intensifying the bonds of love, mutual respect, and unity of commitment among disputants (Kiddushin 30b - the milchamtah shel Torah), unjustified flouting of authority and unprincipled disputation is perceived as immensely destructive. Small wonder that the fate of Korach ve-adato is so dire. Certainly, the unjustified undermining of peace and unity, two indispensable halachic values, constitutes a sufficiently egregious breach to warrant such a harsh response. [The aspiration of "mishpat echad yihyeh lachem", the prohibitions of lo titgodedu, and of zaken mamrei reinforce these themes.]
There is an additional dimension, as well. Targum Yonaton (16:2) projects that "vayakumu lifnei Moshe" indicates that the core violation of Korach and his camp was that they brazenly violated halachic protocol by rendering halachic decisions in the presence of Moshe! ("vayakumu be-chuzpah ve-horu hilcheta be-anpoi Moshe al eisek tichlah"). [See Berachot 31b, Yoma 53a and Ketuvot 60b. See, also Pesikta on 16:1 - "mikan kol ha-meharher achar rabo ke-meharer achar ha-Shechinah". See Sanhedrin 110a where this principle is rooted in Bamidbar 21:5.]. At first glance, this view is puzzling, as it seems to trivialize the transgression (See Chidushei ha-Grim 16:2). Upon reflection, it is evident that the issue is hardly one of etiquette, but is symptomatic of the deeper divide between the two camps. Korach denied the very notion of rabbinic authority and of mesorah. His "kol haedah kulam kedoshim" mantra and his disruptive "common sense" (Rav Soloveitchik's famous characterization) arguments about tzitzit and mezuzah precluded a perspective of Torah predicated on an inner logic that issues from detailed objective norms that reflect Hashem's Will and a singular Divine system of values. Moshe's effort to underscore that certain principles and institutions are immutable (Rashi's citation of the midrash on "boker" - 16:5) fell on deaf ears. Korach's brazen rejection of halachic etiquette constituted an intentional symbolic challenge to the very fundamental core tenets of halachic mesorah, authority, methodology and the very concept of avodat Hashem by means of maaseh mizvot - strict attention to the demands of specific norms. His attack on Moshe's authority and his negation of Moshe's singular role in mesorah embodied an entire ideology that reduced religious commitment and spirituality to accessible generalities. Moreover, as Rashi cites from the Tanchuma, Korach emphasized only the mass exposure to "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" - just sincere belief, and only what was experienced directly from Hashem - in his argument supporting equal spiritual access to every Jew (see Imrei Avraham on Korach for an elaboration of this insight). His exploitation and method of argumentation quintessentially exemplified "machloket shelo lesheim shamayim", well beyond simple insincerity. It not only disrupted Klal Yisrael's unity and undermined a climate of harmony at a crucial and formative moment of national development, but implicitly challenged the foundational principles of Torah life.
The arguments of Hillel and Shamai, the paradigms of machloket le-sheim shamayim that constitute "eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim chayim" (Eruvin 13b), employed a common vocabulary, a shared methodology, and were motivated by a unified passionate commitment to halachic life and law as the centerpiece of meaningful existence. Despite and because of the intensity of debate, kevod shamayim and Hashem's Will were strengthened and expanded in the course of these lively, even ferocious debates, lehagdil Torah u-lehadirah. The contrast to Korach's ideology of dissention and unconstrained argumentation that masked his fundamental disregard for the singular character and fundamental principles of Torah life could not be greater.