Hillel and Shammi could not talk to Moshe and the claim that they were different to Korach in this aspect is false! If you choose to create a platform on which to preach, at least you could preach the truth!
While Beis Hillel certainly seems to have had the qualities you describe, I wonder if Beis Shammai had the same approach. For example, see Sukkah 28, where they say that anyone who follows a view against their own in Hilchos Sukkah "was never yotze the mitzvah in their lives" - doesn't sound like an approach that recognizes the possibility of other views. (To be clear, I'm sure Shammai had wonderful middos, based on his mishna in Avos about greeting others kindly, but this is about his approach to machlokes).
Regarding the point about unity, I would suggest adding another point - the most important ingredient for unity is a shared sense of purpose. This can be externally imposed - like after oct 7 - in which case it dissipates once the threat becomes less acute. Alternatively, it can come from within, where everyone recognizes the same ultimate goal and appreciates the importance of different contributions in reaching that goal. For example, Yaakov's berachah to his children highlighted different roles for each child - leader, soldier, businessman, etc. - and ends off by noting that each shevet's berachah was meant to benefit the entire nation - ish asher k'birchaso beirach osam.
My feeling has been that we're great at externally imposed unity, but we're still struggling on the internally motivated unity. This is largely because different hashkafos have different perspectives on the goal we're meant to be working towards, each with sources to back up their approaches - focusing mainly on talmud torah narrowly and mitzvos generally as part of developing towards olam haba, and developing Eretz Yisrael into a country that reflects the ideals and values Hashem wants us to express in the world, as communicated through Torah and mitzvos. the latter includes serving in the army/other forms of sherut leumi as well as all sorts of careers (specifically those oriented towards yishuv ha'olam); the former would downplay the importance of both). Because of the different ultimate goals, it's challenging for me to see how unity is going to be achieved.
As an aside, I don't think unity (achdus, oneness) is the same as basic love and appreciation for other Jews. I can love another Jew and appreciate them as a member of my extended family, without feeling b'achdus with him. The alternative of achdus is not hatred.
Thank you, this is an important comment. In terms of your first point about Beit Shammai, I don't think that respectful dialogue and acknowledging that the other side read the source fairly (if incorrectly) means acknowledging that following the other opinion should be permitted bedi'avad; I can say that I disagree with you, and someone who follows your opinion has not fulfilled his obligation - and still acknowledge that this opinion represents a fair reading of the sources. Accepting that someone read the sources without any agenda and that it's a reasonable reading does not inherently mean that in the world of psak, that opinion is acceptable. Its existence enriches our spiritual life - but the world of psak is cut and dry and works differently. No one says that bedi'avad one can follow Rabbi Yosi HaGelili regarding chicken and milk, but no one would dare excise it from Shas based on the assumption that it shouldn't be part of Torah dialogue. In the realm of learning, rejected opinions that were formulated honestly have a crucial role; in the realm of psak, they often do not.
Apropos to the context, I respectfully disagree. To use your example, the Gemara says that the inhabitants of Rabbi Yosi Haglili's town followed his psak and were rewarded for it. For another rav to come and say anyone who relies on R' Yosi Haglili is eating treif - especially in front of R' Yosi Haglili himself, as occurred in the story with Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel about the sukkah - would not seem to be arguing with a sense of mutual respect and appreciation for the other side. He doesn't have to recognize the legitimacy of the other view for his own followers, but that wasn't Beis Shammai's point - he was saying that the view wasn't even legitimate for those who followed Beis Hilllel
Hillel and Shammi could not talk to Moshe and the claim that they were different to Korach in this aspect is false! If you choose to create a platform on which to preach, at least you could preach the truth!
Respectfully, I don't know what you're saying. I'm quoting a mishnah in Masechet Avot. What about it do you find objectionable?
While Beis Hillel certainly seems to have had the qualities you describe, I wonder if Beis Shammai had the same approach. For example, see Sukkah 28, where they say that anyone who follows a view against their own in Hilchos Sukkah "was never yotze the mitzvah in their lives" - doesn't sound like an approach that recognizes the possibility of other views. (To be clear, I'm sure Shammai had wonderful middos, based on his mishna in Avos about greeting others kindly, but this is about his approach to machlokes).
Regarding the point about unity, I would suggest adding another point - the most important ingredient for unity is a shared sense of purpose. This can be externally imposed - like after oct 7 - in which case it dissipates once the threat becomes less acute. Alternatively, it can come from within, where everyone recognizes the same ultimate goal and appreciates the importance of different contributions in reaching that goal. For example, Yaakov's berachah to his children highlighted different roles for each child - leader, soldier, businessman, etc. - and ends off by noting that each shevet's berachah was meant to benefit the entire nation - ish asher k'birchaso beirach osam.
My feeling has been that we're great at externally imposed unity, but we're still struggling on the internally motivated unity. This is largely because different hashkafos have different perspectives on the goal we're meant to be working towards, each with sources to back up their approaches - focusing mainly on talmud torah narrowly and mitzvos generally as part of developing towards olam haba, and developing Eretz Yisrael into a country that reflects the ideals and values Hashem wants us to express in the world, as communicated through Torah and mitzvos. the latter includes serving in the army/other forms of sherut leumi as well as all sorts of careers (specifically those oriented towards yishuv ha'olam); the former would downplay the importance of both). Because of the different ultimate goals, it's challenging for me to see how unity is going to be achieved.
As an aside, I don't think unity (achdus, oneness) is the same as basic love and appreciation for other Jews. I can love another Jew and appreciate them as a member of my extended family, without feeling b'achdus with him. The alternative of achdus is not hatred.
Thank you, this is an important comment. In terms of your first point about Beit Shammai, I don't think that respectful dialogue and acknowledging that the other side read the source fairly (if incorrectly) means acknowledging that following the other opinion should be permitted bedi'avad; I can say that I disagree with you, and someone who follows your opinion has not fulfilled his obligation - and still acknowledge that this opinion represents a fair reading of the sources. Accepting that someone read the sources without any agenda and that it's a reasonable reading does not inherently mean that in the world of psak, that opinion is acceptable. Its existence enriches our spiritual life - but the world of psak is cut and dry and works differently. No one says that bedi'avad one can follow Rabbi Yosi HaGelili regarding chicken and milk, but no one would dare excise it from Shas based on the assumption that it shouldn't be part of Torah dialogue. In the realm of learning, rejected opinions that were formulated honestly have a crucial role; in the realm of psak, they often do not.
Apropos to the context, I respectfully disagree. To use your example, the Gemara says that the inhabitants of Rabbi Yosi Haglili's town followed his psak and were rewarded for it. For another rav to come and say anyone who relies on R' Yosi Haglili is eating treif - especially in front of R' Yosi Haglili himself, as occurred in the story with Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel about the sukkah - would not seem to be arguing with a sense of mutual respect and appreciation for the other side. He doesn't have to recognize the legitimacy of the other view for his own followers, but that wasn't Beis Shammai's point - he was saying that the view wasn't even legitimate for those who followed Beis Hilllel