In preparation for the revelation at Mount Sinai, the people of Israel are commanded to demarcate Mount Sinai and limit their proximity to it: "You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the edge of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. `No hand shall touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.' When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain" (Exodus 19: 12-13).
In a stern and somewhat troublesome manner, this verse describes the prohibitions relating to the limitation on drawing close to the mountain – not only the prohibition against going up onto the mountain, but also the prohibition against touching it. On a simplistic level, the prohibition against drawing close aims to create an atmosphere of holiness. The creation of a buffer and a separation is not only intended to draw apart; it has a positive element, as well. Separation makes room for the possibility of spiritual elevation.
The Mekhilta emphasizes the importance of all the details of the prohibition and defines the role that each of them plays:
"You shall set bounds for the people." I might think that it is only from the east? Therefore the verse teaches "all around."
"Saying." This teaches that they were to be warned regarding this matter.
"Beware that you do not." This teaches that it was a negative commandment.
"Go up on the mountain." Perhaps it is forbidden to go up, but it would be permitted to touch? Therefore the verse teaches "or touch the edge of it."
Perhaps it was forbidden to go onto the mountain or touch it, but they could enter carried on a stretcher? Therefore the verse teaches "Go up on the mountain or touch the edge of it."
(Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Yitro 3)
According to the Midrash, the word "all around" comes to prevent the possibility of circumventing the mountain and ascending onto it in another way. The prohibition against touching comes in addition to the prohibition against going up onto the mountain and stands on its own. The prohibition against going up onto the mountain also stands on its own, so that it is forbidden to go up onto the mountain, even if it does not involve contact with the earth, for example, on a stretcher. The multiplicity of details, according to the Mekhilta, translates into multiple prohibitions. According to the Mekhilta, the point of the prohibition against touching is not to keep the people from going up onto the mountain, for it is possible to go up without touching or touch without going up.
The Maharal continues the path of the Mekhilta, but he develops the central argument of the Midrash in a different direction. He suggests that the verse is formulated so as to prevent any possible lacuna in the law prohibiting access to the mountain, and to prevent exploitation of loopholes, including the prohibition against touching the mountain:
"…or touch the edge of it," meaning "even its edge." For the verse does not mean to teach specifically that touching the edge is forbidden, but that if one jumped and did not touch the edge it would be permitted, for this would make no sense (Gur Aryeh, Exodus 19).
The Maharal explains that the prohibitions and barriers found in the verse are intended not only to strengthen the prohibition and create sanctity, and not only to prevent loopholes, but also to prevent unnecessary sophistry. The words "…or touch the edge of it," he emphasizes, does not mean to imply that there is a specific prohibition against touching the mountain’s edge, so that someone who was to jump to a higher spot on the mountain would fulfill the commandment. The odd prima facie assumption underlying the Maharal's interpretation reveals that he believes that the prohibition is directed at people who seek every way to circumvent it.
It seems that the Maharal is trying to make a comment on the sinner himself. He sends us on a quest to uncover about “which of the sons” was the Torah speaking. It is possible to gain an understanding of the sinner by examining the punishment with which he is threatened. The problematic nature of the sin of going up onto the mountain is expressed in the punishment that the sinner is to receive: "He shall surely be stoned or shot through." The author of Panim Yafot (R. Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz, who also authored the Hafla’ah) connects these forms of punishment with the character of the sinner:
"You shall not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:17). The use of the unusual language "You shall not allow…to live" rather than “Surely she should die” demands explanation. Since people who dabble in sorcery can conceal themselves by means of their magic in order to avoid the death penalty, special strategies must be used to ensure that they do not live…
This also is how the verse "whether beast or man, he shall not live" should be interpreted. Since the verse began with the statement "Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the edge of it," and continued with the statement "whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death," it would be impossible to follow him onto the mountain to carry out the punishment. For this reason, we must engage in special strategies in order to kill him… (Panim Yafot, Exodus 22:17).
The Panim Yafot compares the sorcerer and the magicians who deserve a death penalty to those who climb onto Mount Sinai, who also must die. The sorcerers conceal themselves and therefore cannot be easily caught, which is similar to those who go up onto the mountain. The initial comparison is practical – these are people who it is difficult to catch. A deeper level of this teaching, however, requires us to examine and compare two figures who try to adhere to the highest holiness, whose sanctity truly does grant them power, but power that emanates from sin based on the use of an inappropriate path.
From the Mekhilta we learned that each of the prohibitions stands independently, and that this system of prohibitions should not be viewed as a broad, interdependent system in which one prohibition supports and envelops the other. On the contrary, what we have is a combination of separate issues.
From the Maharal we understood that the formulation and style of the verses speak to a specific individual, identified by the Torah as problematic.
From the Panim Yafot we derived that the situation against which the Torah spoke was connected with the attainment of holiness in improper ways.
From the combination of these insights, we can seek to learn and understand the character against which the prohibition of the Torah was directed, while simultaneously realizing that the two prohibitions operate on two different levels and relate to two distinct personalities. Furthermore, we must accept that there is a fundamental distinction between going up onto the mountain and touching it.
The problem with going up onto the mountain is the desire to attain a high level of holiness instantaneously; a desire for the holiness to be readily available and convenient. The problem with this desire is the lack of confidence in the process. It represents a mistaken perception of God's reality, even as it recognizes the existence of spirituality as an attainable idea. It is clear to the one going up onto the mountain that there is no need for contact with the bottom of the mountain to grasp the holiness.
This stands in contrast with the one who touches the edge of the mountain, whose mistake is based on a tangible and faulty understanding of the concept of holiness, similar to people who wish to kiss their rabbi’s hand. They believe that they can rely on him to fulfill their spiritual needs, that there is no need for their own personal effort, since others have made the long journey in their place.
Those who want to go up onto the mountain do not want to touch, and those who want to touch are not those who want to go up. These are two different sacred quests – one who wants to tear down the barriers in his desire to be exposed to the core of holiness while skipping the obligatory prerequisites that establish a sense of obligation. The other is the irrational acceptance of the concept of holiness; of touching it without bearing full responsibility and without accepting its demands.