The story in Charleston is unfathomable. Without knowing all the details, we find an evil person hating an innocent group of people simply because of the color of their skin. He loathes them so much that he stands up at a Bible study group in a church and murders them in cold blood. There are no comforting words. We are all potential victims of such hate, certainly we in the Jewish community. We are no strangers to such hatred. As such, we all empathize with the AME church and its members in Charlestown. I have two friends who serve as the Orthodox rabbis there. I know they will represent us well as we cry with them and offer our support in every way. It’s not hard to try to picture this happening to us. We are experienced in heart break, but we also know how to pick up the pieces and limp forward.

As I was listening to the radio this morning, I kept asking myself how someone can hate total strangers so much. Mental illness can figure in. We can’t ban ideas in our wonderful country. Anyone can find anything online. People can be indoctrinated by evil. People are indoctrinated by evil. Free speech can be a scary virtue.

We talk about sinas chinam, baseless hatred, which usually means I hate you because you are different from me. Racism can be classified in this malevolent category. We are also familiar with hatred based on some precedent –justified hatred, perhaps - based on objectively evil things you may have done to me or to those close to me.

I believe both categories can be found in the opening of this week’s parshah.

If you look closely at the cryptic opening verses of the Korach story, we are a bit puzzled.

"ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב ואון בן פלת בני ראובן. ויקמו לפני משה ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים נשיאי עדה קראי מועד אנשי שם. ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמר אלהם רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם ה', ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה'" (במדבר ט"ז:א-ג)

Now Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehas, the son of Levi, and Dasan and Avriam, the sons of Eliav, and On, the son of Peles, sons of Reuven, took men. And they rose up before Moshe, with certain of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, regularly summoned to the congregation, men of renown. And they gathered themselves together against Moshe and against Aharon, and said to them, You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Whey then do you lift up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Bamidbar 16:1-3).

I’m most interested in distinguishing verse 2 from verse 3. The verb in verse two is vayakumu, they rose up. In verse 3 we find vayikahalu, they gathered themselves. I believe that a close reading seems to present a redundancy. Why do we need verse 2 (bolded above)? The first verse is famously ambiguous. We have no object. We know that they took but don’t know what it was. The sages address this question head on. Verse 3 describes this group pouncing on Moshe and Aharon and presenting their polemic explicitly  mentioned in the verse. What does verse two add?

Maybe it adds that the challenge came from the crème, from the elite of the nation, men of renown. It also gives us the number of those challenging Moshe. Finally, it also tells us that it was addressed to Moshe, while verse 3 describes a presentation to Moshe and Aharon.

While there is a dearth of commentary on verse two, a few of the grammar-focused sages did indeed shed some light on this cryptic verse.

Ibn Ezra suggests that ‘before Moshe’ implies a public challenge. Both Ibn Ezra and Da’as Zekeinim (and perhaps Rashi hints at it as well) imply that the nesi’im, the tribal leaders were part of the rebellion. The text did not want to explicitly implicate them.

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin presents two options how to understand the distinction between the two verses. Korach and his band knew that they would not be taken seriously if they tried to claim that the most humble man on earth was seeking glory for himself. Therefore, they added Aharon to the mix. Second, he advanced, when Aharon heard that the issue pertained to his position, one that he did not seek (see Vayikra 9: 7 and the commentaries there) he recused himself.

Rav Hirsch wrote: “The peculiar order of succession in which the participants in the uprising are introduced probably shows the degree of their participation. Korach appears as the instigator of the whole affair, as the parshah opens up with him. Dasan, Aviram and On attached themselves to him as additional agitators for the rebellion. These four presented themselves to him as additional agitators for the rebellion. These four presented themselves before Moshe, after they had won over 250 men from the people who supported their stand as agitators of the masses.”

Malbim advanced that verse two presents a different argument. They felt, in the good spirit of bureaucracies, that Moshe acted unilaterally, without consulting with them. He should have solicited their sagacious opinions.

Based on some of my own observations on how uprisings and rebellions begin, I believe these two verses are two different phases of rebellions.

As the Malbim posits, the first phase of insurrection focuses on the hubris of the agitators. They were upset because their egos were bruised. The Rambam wisely advises that while we ought to exlusively remain on the golden path of moderation, we need to adopt extreme behavior to avoid haughtiness and anger.

I will not be offering evidence for my suggestions because it will force the need to cite unsavory events and disclose inappropriate behavior. But I have seen and learned about many such events; often they begin with a group of individuals who believe that they are important and their voices need to be heeded, by virtue of their personalities, their renown and their often narcissistic view of themselves. Korach was such an individual. He was wealthy, he was of blue blood. Our sages considered him very wise and the text identifies him as an impressive individual (verse 2). The insurrectionists did not really bring any arguments or polemics in verse 2. Their claim is built on the fact that they disagree and we learn how important they are. There is no attempt at logic, or persuasion.

Sometimes this group or person will try to challenge based on who they are. Sometimes they will try to build a coalition of other "important" people. Their main argument is that they are being injured or hurt by the target of their wrath. It’s baseless hatred, but, of course, it’s not baseless; baseless hatred is another word for one’s anger and ego writing checks they can’t cash.

 Phase two is when they cite the reason for their drastic action, which is often merely an excuse. The verbs used in verses two and 3 are also instructive. In verse 2, or phase 1, vayakumu, they arose, is employed. They were sitting, now they were standing. They shifted, they made their move. They stood up – they announced their intentions. It represents a verb one can do on one’s own. We arise every morning out of bed. But phase 2, in verse 3, is described as vayikahalu, they gathered. Now they are a group, a band, a clique. They are now making their claim: they realize that their own renown will not suffice. They need to make an argument and they need numbers on their side. “There are many others behind us.” “We are very important people.” “You can’t survive our arguments and the betrayal of trust by THESE people.” "The institution will not withstand our argument and our rebellion. The schism is too great. You must listen to us."

We saw this in last week's parsha. The ten scouts attempted to intimidate by being very vague and subtle. Kalev saw the rouse and challenged them and declared that the land is a good one and a safe one. At that point, the scouts got angry and started making their “case,” citing their “evidence.”

Not every leader has HASHEM on their side. There was a clear winner in the case of Korach and his Band v. Moshe and Aharon. Often, the institution is the loser. Indeed, many schisms are so destructive, the institutions simply can’t recover.

Racism is an abysmal scourge that must be rooted out fully from our midst. Like malignant cancer cells, anything left will metastasize. It is based, I believe, on verse 2 of the parsha. “You are not me. I should be chosen, not you.” That leads to the contagious attempt to proselytize hate, which leads to the terrible violence we have found in Charleston and in all other circumstances when egomaniacs, racists, and bullies who are mentally off, follow through on their demented narcissism. May we see an end to such heartbreaking and senseless violence in our day!