Shemot 4:24 records that Moshe and his family were at an inn on the way to Egypt and G-d sought to kill somebody. Who was the intended victim and why should G-d want to kill the person?
The Talmud (Nedarim 31b) quotes an argument as to whether Moshe or his son was the victim, and the reason was either because Moshe had been derelict in circumcising his son or because Moshe was stalling again in his mission, see Rashbam on 4:24. Yet, as 4:23 states that Pharaoh's son was to be held accountable for Pharaoh's lack of action, it is most likely that it was Moshe's son who the victim.
If the victim was Moshe's son, then which one: Gershom, the eldest son or Eliezer? Ibn Ezra quotes Shmuel ben Hafni that it was Eliezer since he had just been born at that time. This seems too coincidental. In 4:20, we are told that Moshe had two sons, but their names were not mentioned. Gershom was mentioned before, 2:22, since one had to know about him for this incident. However, as Eliezer was not involved here his name did not have to be mentioned until chapter 18. Thus, if the victim was Moshe's son, then most likely it was Gershom.
4:25,26 records that Tzippora circumcised her son and touched somebody’s legs with the bloody foreskin. Ibn Ezra (on 4:24) explains that Moshe was in shock so Tzippora had to act, but how did she know what to do? Rashi (on 4:24) quotes from the Talmud that G-d had sent a snake, which swallowed and then regurgitated the victim until the place of circumcision. Tzippora learned from this that she was to circumcise her son. This is an incredible explanation.
Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 4:24) explain that Moshe told Tzippora what to do. Yet, if Moshe was unable to do the circumcision, it is unlikely that he would have been able to tell her what to do, and how did Moshe know that circumcising his son would stop G-d’s attack?
Possibly the question of how did Tzippora know what to do relates to the question how did she know that G-d wanted to kill her son? If her son was just languishing, maybe he was sick. How did she realize that her son was being threatened by G-d?
Maybe the end of 5:3 suggests that the threat to Gershom (Eliezer?) was that there was a sword floating over his head. This was such a miraculous event that it was obvious that G-d was attacking her son. Thus, it was clear that she had to do something not related to medicine. When I mentioned this idea in my synagogue, Yehuda Bendet told me that maybe the image of the sword could also explain why Tzippora realized that she needed to circumcise her son since she needed to do something related to the sword, which was the knife for circumcision.
A different idea is that maybe the question of circumcision was always an argument between Moshe and Tzippora. Tzippora did not want to have Gershom circumcised since this signaled that he was no longer from her family, a Midyanite, but a Jew. Accordingly, she guessed that if the attack was from G-d, then she realized that she had to make her son Jewish which meant circumcising her son. It was only the danger to Gershom (Eliezer?) that convinced her to agree to circumcise him. 4:25 refers to Gershom (Eliezer?) as her son, which shows the tension of her action, that by circumcising Gershom she was reducing her bond with him since he became part of the Jewish people.
Who did Tzippora touch with the foreskin and why should she have done this? The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Nedarim) discusses whether she touched Moshe, her son, or even an angel that is thought to have been the attacker. My guess is that she touched Gershom with the bloody foreskin since he was the one being attacked. Ibn Ezra (on 4:25) notes that the placing of the foreskin is similar to when the Jewish people put blood on their doorposts prior to the 10th plague, 12:22,23. What is the connection between these two events? Also, how would Tzippora know that she was to mark her son’s legs? To answer these questions, we need to understand the reference to hatan in 4:25 and 4:26.
4:25 records that Tzippora said, “you are a hatan of blood” and 4:26 expands this to “a hatan of blood of circumcision.” What do these phrases mean? Rashi explains that she was telling her child that he almost caused her groom (hatan), Moshe, to die. Yet, Sarna (1991, p. 26) asks how could Moshe be called a groom when they had been married for some time? Also, as argued by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, (Nedarim 32a) the reference to hatan is to her son and not Moshe.
My understanding is that the word hatan in the Torah means a non-blood relative see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." While Gershom (Eliezer?) was Tzippora’s son, the circumcision had made him equivalent to a non-blood relative with regard to Tzippora since in both cases the relationship was not as close as by blood relatives. Tzippora understood that circumcising her son meant that she was losing some of her connection with him, but she acted to try to minimize this break. Her placing of the foreskin was to make a mark in blood to keep her connection with Gershom (Eliezer?). The idea is that the mark of blood was to reclaim their blood relationship. Thus, when she placed the bloody foreskin on Gershom (Eliezer?), she declared in 4:25 that Gershom (Eliezer?) was still her blood relative. After Gershom (Eliezer?) was saved, and the commotion had subsided, she explained in 4:26 that the relationship was from the blood of the circumcision.
The attack woke Moshe from his stupor and he went on the mission. This was the purpose of G-d’s attack on Gershom (Eliezer?), as G-d had never intended to kill Gershom (Eliezer?). Furthermore, maybe due to Moshe’s new attitude, he might have sent his family back to Midyan, since their going to Egypt was part of his hesitation, see Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 4:20, short commentary on 4:25), and Luzzatto on 4:23. Yet, Moshe was still not enthusiastic about the mission, and he would only become energized for the mission after the failure of first encounter with Pharaoh.
Bibliography:
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
No comments:
Post a Comment