Shemot 19 presents an apparent contradiction: the people are strictly forbidden from ascending Har Sinai or touching it, yet immediately afterward they are told that when the shofar sounds, they shall ascend the mountain. Classical commentators attempt to resolve this by either relocating the ascent to a later, unrecorded shofar blast (Saadia, Rashi, Ibn Ezra) or by reading the verse to mean that ascent is only permitted after the shofar stops (Rashbam, Bekhor Shor). Both approaches face significant textual and linguistic challenges. Professor Jonathan Grossman instead argues that the verse means exactly what it says: the long shofar blast during Maamad Har Sinai was intended as God’s invitation for the entire nation to ascend the mountain and experience direct revelation. Drawing on parallels to the shofar at Yericho—where the blast signals divine arrival and human approach—Grossman shows that the Torah uses a consistent narrative pattern in which the shofar marks the moment when sacred space becomes accessible.

Moshe’s retrospective account in Devarim supports this radical reading: the people were meant to ascend, but fear prevented them. Rather than accepting God’s invitation to meet the divine “face to face,” they recoiled from the overwhelming manifestation of fire, sound, and smoke, requesting that Moshe serve as intermediary. This shift had lasting spiritual consequences, perhaps even paving the way for the Golden Calf by depriving the people of the direct encounter meant to anchor their faith. The chapter thus becomes a profound meditation on the tension between divine desire for closeness and human fear of the transcendent—the tragedy of a relationship that could have been immediate, but became mediated instead.

Shemot 18 becomes a key case study for the exegetical principle ein mukdam u’meuchar baTorah—that the Torah does not always follow chronological order. While Rashi argues that Yitro’s visit occurred after the giving of the Torah, the Ramban reads the chapter as presented. The episode raises broader interpretive questions: What evidence supports saying a narrative is out of order, and what literary or theological purpose would that serve? The chapter’s legal language suggests it belongs after Sinai, but its placement next to the Amalek story creates a deliberate literary contrast. Like modern narrative theory’s distinction between fabula and syuzhet, the Torah may rearrange events to highlight themes rather than chronology.

The juxtaposition of Yitro and Amalek highlights two opposite responses to hearing of God’s actions: Amalek attacks the vulnerable, while Yitro recognizes God, rejoices, and seeks connection. Their stories embody moral paradigms that go beyond doctrinal belief. Through Moses and Yitro’s relationship—rooted in mutual compassion for the vulnerable—the Torah contrasts societies that welcome and protect strangers with those that prey upon them. Whether or not the chapter is chronologically displaced, the narrative teaches that a people’s moral worth is measured by their treatment of the stranger and the needy, with Yitro as the model of moral sensitivity and Amalek as its antithesis.

Shemot Chapter 17 highlights a central tension in the Israelites’ journey from Egypt to Sinai: while the Egyptians came to recognize God’s transcendent power through the plagues, the Israelites themselves had not yet achieved an intimate understanding of God’s immanent care in their daily lives. The episode of Massah and Meribah, where the people quarrel over the lack of water, illustrates this epistemic gap—their question, “Is God among us?” reflects a need to perceive God as present and responsive, not merely as a cosmic force. This chapter, situated mid-book, underscores the ongoing two-stage divine program: Israel must become God’s people and learn to experience God’s closeness, a process that continues through Sinai, the giving of the covenant, and ultimately the construction of the Mishkan, where God’s presence dwells among them. The narrative portrays a theological journey from recognition of divine power to personal, lived knowledge of God.