Their disinclination to consider, as a practical matter, efforts to demonstrate the inherent limitation, not of inquiry itself, but of the knowledge, as opposed to the plausible speculation, it can provide is understandable, because, they believe, the Pentateuch, illuminated by the Talmud (the Mishnah, and the commentary upon it, the Gemara) is the only absolutely reliable guide to sacred history and to conduct, and because in consequence in proportion as they cannot understand its plain meaning, they cannot understand, to a certainty, their history, or know how to live.
The inherent intellectual limitation of traditionalist inquiry into sacred history may be underscored by its response to the concerns in the two chapters of Exodus discussed briefly above.
About how to explain two details of the seeming wordiness of 19:1-2 traditionalists differ.
As several of them note, the first three of the four verbs in 19:1-2 are in the plural, whereas the fourth, which repeats “camped,” is in the singular. Thus, the Jews “came” (ba’u) to Mount Sinai, having “travelled” (va’yisu) from Refidim, and “camped” (va’yachanu) in the desert. But they “camped” (va’yichan) near the mountain. On how to explain the grammatical shift opinions differ. Rashi explains it by asserting that the Jews stand at the mountain “as one person with one heart”—that is, to say, in perfect unity. Ibn Ezra explains that the second “camped” refers to the leaders of the Jews, who camp nearer to the mountain than do the others, and who are so few in number they are referred to in the singular. Ramban suggests that the second “camped” may show that the Jews had separated themselves from the eirev rav, the “mixed multitude” of non-Jews who had gone out of Egypt with them.
Because none of the opinions above is supported by evidence in the text, and because in consequence any one of them may be preferred to the other two, or all three may be disregarded, it is not possible, having read them, to explain the shift from plural to singular.
About the repetition of “Refidim” opinions also differ. Rashi, referencing Mechilta, notes that, because the arrival of the Jews at Refidim is mentioned in Exodus 17:1, and because they journeyed from there to the Sinai Desert, it seems unnecessary to mention in 19:1 that they journeyed from Refidim. In the opinion of Mechilta, it is mentioned to show that just as, having rebelled against God at Refidim, they repented, so they approach Mount Sinai repentant. In the opinion of Chizkuni, there is no evidence that they did repent at Refidim. In the opinion of Ramban, because the text uses the formulaic language “They journeyed from . . . and camped at” when recounting the journeys of the Jews in Numbers 33:1-49, no inference regarding repentance should be drawn from the use of the same language in Exodus 19:2. And if they did repent at Rifidim, it is not clear for what sin they are repenting when they stand at Mount Sinai.
Opinions regarding 19:3—“This is what you must say (to’mar) to the family of Jacob and tell (ve’tageid) the Israelites”—are so various, it is not possible to know what the verse means. Rashi conflates two readings in Mechilta: that “the family of Jacob” (le’beit yaacov) refers to the women, and “the Israelites” (livnei yisrael) refers to the men; and that the gentleness of to’mar as a tone of address differs from the stringency of tone of ve’tageid. Mechilta simply records both readings. Malbim asserts that “the family of Jacob” refers to most of the Jews, whereas “the Israelites” refers to Jews of high spiritual standing. Ibn Ezra asserts that “the Israelites” refers to “the elders” (hazkeinim), the communal leaders (ziknei ha’awm) to whom Moses conveys God’s message in 19:7. Chizkuni asserts that tomar refers to future events, whereas vuhtahgade refers to the recounting of history.
To account for the second of the seeming repetitions in 19:3—“Now if you obey Me and keep My covenant”—Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and Sforno assert that “obey Me” refers to obeying God’s commandments, whereas “keep My covenant” refers to living up to some unspecified covenant God and the Jews will enter into after He has made the Ten Pronouncements. In the opinion of Mechilta, “obey Me” refers to obeying God’s commandments, whereas “keep my covenant” refers to obeying specific commandments; in Rabbi Eliezer’s view, to observe the Sabbath; in Rabbi Akiva’s, to practice circumcision and to avoid idolatry. Ramban, Rashi, and Or Hachayim focus on one of the two phrases, and thus do not openly acknowledge that a repetition exists. Ramban asserts that “keep My covenant” refers to the covenant that God made with Abraham in Genesis 17:4-14, and thus implies that “obey Me” refers to some unspecified commitment to be made by the Jews, perhaps at Mount Sinai. Rashi agrees with Ibn Ezra that “keep My covenant” refers to living up to some unspecified contract God and the Jews will enter into after He has made the Ten Pronouncements. But unlike Ibn Ezra, he does not comment on “obey Me.” Or Hachayim, responding to the literal translation of shamoah tischmehu—not “obey Me,” but “listen, listen”—asserts that the first “listen” refers to the Written Torah, and the second to the Oral Torah, and thus that “obey Me” in Kaplan’s translation refers to obeying God’s commandments.
If it were permissible to edit the text, the seeming lacuna in 19:5 could be dealt with by moving “even though all the earth is Mine” and adding a few words to 19:6, so that the passage would read as follows:
“Now if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be My special treasure among all nations, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Me. I can arrange that, because all the world is Mine, and therefore I can do as I wish.”
Because, however, traditionalists believe that the text cannot be edited, it resists understanding. In the opinion of Rashi, the lacuna indicates that God does not love non-Jews. In the opinion of Mechilta, Sforno, Ramban, and Or Hachayim, it forestalls the mistaken impression that God loves only the Jews, but emphasizes that His love for them is unique in intensity and in kind.
Commenting on the seeming redundancy of the closing instruction in 19:6—“These are the words that you [Moses] must relate to the Israelites”—Rashi, following Mechilta, explains that it charges Moses to say neither less nor more than God has commanded him to say. Malbim asserts that the closing instruction refers only to the closing words of 19:6; that is, that Moses is to convey all of God’s words to all of the Jews, with the exception of “You will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Me,” which only the men are to hear.
Opinions differ about why, though instructed to convey God’s message to all of the Jews, Moses summons the elders, and why not they but all of the Jews respond to the offer from God that he conveys. In the opinion of Mechilta, Moses summons the elders to show his respect for them; and then presumably goes with them to the other Jews. In the opinion of Or Hachayim, he goes first to the elders because he is afraid the other Jews will not accept God’s offer, and needs the assurance that acceptance by the elders will provide. In the opinion of Malbim, Moses separates the Jews into groups, by degrees of spiritual elevation, then addresses each group separately. In the opinion of Chizkuni, he summons the elders simply to accompany him. (Therefore 19:7 should perhaps read not, as in Kaplan’s translation, “Moses . . . summoned the elders of the people, conveying to them all that God had spoken,” but “Moses summoned . . . the elders, and in their company conveyed to the people all that God had spoken.”)
The variety of equally plausible opinions about whether, during the spoken Revelation, God is addressing Moses, all of the Jews, or both, makes it difficult—perhaps impossible—to choose between them. As noted, God proposes to speak only to Moses—“I will come to you” and “speak to you”—then speaks to an unspecified audience—“God