Każdy argument ze względu na Niebo —koniec ma trwać [dla stron tego sporu], jak w sporze między Beth Hillel i Beth Shammai, gdzie żadna ze stron sporu (uczniowie) nie została utracona (w przeciwieństwie do Koracha i jego zboru, którzy zaginęły). Lub: „koniec”—pożądany koniec argumentu. W sporze ze względu na niebo pożądanym celem jest osiągnięcie prawdy. I to zostało osiągnięte w sporze między Beth Hillel i Beth Shammai— że halacha jest zgodna z Beth Hillel.] I argument, który nie jest ze względu na niebo —[upragniony] koniec, [moc i miłość do podboju] nie trwa. [I tak znajdujemy w argumentacji Koracha i jego kongregacji. Ich celem było osiągnięcie chwały i mocy—i odwrotnie, co się wydarzyło]. Jaki jest argument na rzecz Nieba? Spór między Hillelem a Shammai. I (co to jest argument), że nie jest to dla Nieba? Argument Koracha i całego jego zboru.
Bartenura
Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined (literally, its end is) to endure: That is to say that the [parties to] the argument are destined to endure and not perish, as with the argument between Hillel and Shammai, [whereby] neither the students of the School of Hillel nor the students of the School of Shammai perished. But Korach and his congregation perished. And I heard the explanation of “its end” is its purpose that is sought from its subject. And [with] the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim that is sought from that argument is to arrive at the truth, and this endures; like that which they said, "From a dispute the truth will be clarified," and as it became elucidated from the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
This is all clear, as these matters are from the angle of reward and punishment. So that anyone who disagrees not with the intention to contradict the words of his fellow but from his wanting to know the truth, his words will endure and not end.
THE DISPUTE OF HILLEL AND SHAMMAI. Their students did not fully absorb their ways and teachings, and from that point on disputes became more common among the Torah scholars. This is why the mishna chooses their dispute as an example. Accordingly, the beginning of the mishna does not contradict the end.232Just as in the previous mishna, it would seem that any dispute that is not on the same level as a dispute between Hillel and Shammai is not “for the sake of Heaven”. The end of the mishna, however, makes it clear that only a dispute like that of Korach and his followers is considered “not for the sake of Heaven.” Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies that the dispute of Hillel and Shammai is merely an example, and other disputes that are for the sake of truth and not for personal gain would likewise be called “for the sake of Heaven.”