all of the Jews. When who heard what, and when, is considered, even the most careful reader may well not be able to prefer any of the answers proposed to the others; or, indeed, to conclude that any of them explains what happened.
In the opinion of Rashi, who references Mechilta, commenting on 20:1—“God spoke all these words, saying”—all of the Jews hear the Ten Pronouncements, uttered by God in a single instant, and bind themselves verbally to obey each Pronouncement. In the opinion of Sforno, who references Deuteronomy 5:19—“God spoke these words in a loud voice to your entire assembly from the mountain”—all of the Jews hear all of the Pronouncements. In the opinion shared by Ramban, in his commentary on 20:7, and by Rambam (Moreh Hanevuchim 2:32), the Jews hear only the first two pronouncements directly from God, and are taught the other eight by Moses.
When the Jews, terrified, draw back from the mountain is a matter of dispute. In Ibn Ezra’s opinion, in 20:17, they do so when they hear God speaking. Rashi agrees, asserting that in 20:15—“All of the people saw the sounds, the flames, the blast of the ram’s horn, and the mountain smoking”—“the sounds” refers to God’s words. In Ramban’s opinion, in 20:15, they draw back in terror before God utters the Pronouncements.
Opinions differ about how to explain the seeming repetition in 19:9. Rashi says that, to complement their message to God, in 19:8, the Jews send another: that they want to hear God’s Pronouncements directly from Him, not through Moses. Malbim distinguishes between “brought . . . back” (va’yasheiv) in “Moses brought the people’s response back to God” and “told” (va’yageid) in “Moses told the people God’s response.” Va’yasheiv, he says, refers to the response of the Jews to God’s offer, whereas va’yageid refers to some new matter; in this case, the Jews’ wish to experience prophesy at Moses’ level. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra, va’yageid refers to the response that Moses had already brought back to God in 19:8. In Ramban’s opinion, va’yasheiv refers to Moses’ intention—he goes back to God in order to tell Him the Jews’ response—whereas va’yagaeid refers to what he does—he tells Him.
About the function and the identity of the ram’s horn opinion is also divided. Following Mechilta, Rashi asserts that the Jews may not approach the mountain until a loud blast from the ram’s horn is sounded, the sign that the Divine has departed. Malbim asserts that, had they not been terrified (because they were spiritually weak), they could have approached the mountain while the ram’s horn was sounding; indeed, they could have ascended the mountain with Moses, and have experienced Revelation as he did. In Rashbam’s opinion, bimshoch ha’yovel should be translated not as “while the ram’s horn is sounding,” but as “when the ram’s horn stops sounding.” In the opinion of Saadia Gaon, when the ram’s horn sounds, any Jew may ascend the mountain. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra, only when Moses sounds a loud blast on the ram’s horn, when he returns from the second or the third (opinions differ) of his forty-day stays on the mountain may the mountain be ascended; but only by Aaron, two of his sons, and seventy designated elders. In the opinion of Chizkuni, referencing Saadia Gaon, any Jew may ascend the mountain; but only when Moses sounds a blast of the ram’s horn (not the ram’s horn that sounds at Mount Sinai) when the Tabernacle has been erected.
In the opinion of Rashi, the references to the trumpet and the ram’s horn indicate that the ram’s horn used at Mount Sinai was taken from the ram Abraham sacrificed in place of Isaac. Baal Haturim agrees, and notes that that ram’s horn was used again, by Joshua, to bring down the walls of Jericho. In the opinion of Ramban, that cannot be, because Abraham must have burned the ram’s horn with the rest of its carcass when he sacrificed it in place of Isaac.
Opinion is divided on how the Jews are to be sanctified. Ibn Ezra asserts that Moses is commanded to sanctify them by instructing them to immerse their bodies and their clothing. In the opinion of Ramban and Rashi, he is to instruct the men to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives. In the opinion of Malbim, to remain eligible to receive the Revelation directly from God, rather than indirectly through Moses, the Jews are to be sanctified by having their souls elevated through a process of spiritual instruction that is not specified, and that the immersion of their bodies and clothing will betoken.
In his commentary on 19:21, Malbim assumes that a first warning not to touch the mountain exists in the text, and explains at length why, just before the spoken Revelation begins, God commands Moses to warn the Jews a second time about the mountain. Rashi’s opinion about “warn the people” is ambiguous. It may indicate that Moses is warning them for the first time. But Rashi may simply be commenting on ha’eid (“warn”), which means literally “bear witness,” to underscore the rabbinic requirement that Jews must be reminded in the presence of witnesses of known dangers when they are imminent.
Because traditionalist inquiry into the two chapters of Exodus discussed briefly and incompletely above is often, perhaps even typically, confronted with a multiplicity of equally plausible responses, often, perhaps even typically, asserted rather than supported by evidence, as that term is usually understood, to puzzling concerns, traditionalists cannot, in the opinion of the present essay, legitimately expect to attain knowledge to a certainty as regards those concerns, but must perforce settle for plausible speculation; their choices among the responses available often, perhaps even typically, matters of taste; and the possibility not discountable that none of their choices establishes the plain meaning of narrative debated.
That is true, for example, as regards the following concerns: why the arrival of the Jews at Rephidim seems to be recounted in too many words, why they are referred to first in the plural, then in the singular, whether or not the Jews repent at Rephidim, what, if anything, they repent of at Mount Sinai, who the family of Jacob and the Jews are, what the difference is between obeying God and keeping His covenant, why Moses addresses the elders, rather than, as commanded, all of the Jews, what covenant God is referring to when He tells Moses to convey His offer to the Jews, why He tells Moses twice to convey the offer, why He does not mention the family of Jacob the second time, how Moses is to sanctify the Jews, which ram’s horn is sounded at the mountain, whether Jews who touch the mountain will die, or will ascend it and in consequence see God, how they will die, if they will, when the ram’s horn will sound to signify the mountain is no longer dangerous and the Jews may in consequence ascend it, if they may, whether God intends to give the Torah to them directly, or indirectly, through Moses, whom God addresses during the spoken Revelation, when the Jews recoil in terror from the Revelation, how much of the spoken Revelation they hear. About none of these concerns does the Pentateuch speak clearly.
And as that is the case not only as regards the two chapters discussed above, but, as will be shown, as regards other sections chosen at random, and as could be shown, as regards almost every section of the Pentateuch, mysterium is a significant, perhaps even a pervasive, motif in the Pentateuch. The two chapters discussed, for example, are part of a single dramatic unit—the Revelation, and the building of the Tabernacle—that occupies the fifty-seven chapters from Exodus 19 to Numbers 9, each of them full of the sorts of concerns relating to sacred history discussed above (and further complicated by concerns, not yet discussed, relating to the exposition of law). And as that dramatic unit is but one of the many, equally complicated, that constitute the Pentateuch, affirming that, to some significant extent, perhaps even typically, the plain meaning of the text is impossible to establish to a certainty is, in the opinion of the present study, an indispensable prerequisite to a productive encounter with it.
That affirmation must be made equally by secular scholars and by traditionalists. But, as noted, it is much more difficult for traditionalists to make, because much more is at stake for them. Secular scholars undertake to study a text similar in kind to all others. Their intent is entirely intellectual: to understand it. Difficult concerns do not surprise them, given their presumptions about how the text evolved. And whether the concerns in fact defy comprehension remains for them an open question, to be answered as knowledge in a variety of relevant disciplines advances. Traditionalists, by contrast, undertake to study the only book ever written by their God, and therefore the only book perforce perfect, transferred from, so to speak, His head to His Chosen People in an instant about which all of history pivots, and during which a sacred history was narrated and a comprehensive code of conduct was expounded. Their intention is essentially theological: to understand the