questions concerning Exodus 4:24-26 (God tries to kill Moses)

[gib65]

Hello everyone,

As I've said before, I'm reading through Exodus and trying to understand the text and asking questions. I've posted a few questions now and had some great responses! Here is my latest one.

Exodus 4:24-26 says this:

24. Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet, and she said, "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me." 26. So He released him. Then she said, "A bridegroom of blood concerning the circumcision."

This is not my first time coming across this obscure text and I remember a university professor talking about it. He mentioned that this is one of the most cryptic passages in the Torah/Bible and it is very unclear what the proper interpretation should be. Indeed, when I read it, so many questions are raised. For example, why on Earth would the Lord want to put Moses to death just after sending him on a mission to free the slaves in Egypt (I assume that "he" and "him" in 24. refers to Moses)? And then Zipporah circumcises her son which prompts God to release Moses. Why is this the response to God trying to kill Moses? And who is "his" in 25. (she "cast it to his feet")? Moses or God? And of course, what does "For you are a bridegroom of blood to me" mean? Is she saying this to God or Moses? And why does she qualify that with "concerning the circumcision"? So many questions!

But even with these technical questions aside, this passage is obviously quite significant to Judaism since this seems to have established the well-known tradition of circumcision. Why is this? From the point of view of a neophyte like myself, it seems quite strange that such a short and obscure passage would have the power to establish such a deeply rooted and engrained tradition that survives even today.

In fact, it raises a few "meta" questions that stem from the combination of these two series of questions. For instance, concerning how circumcision started in Judaism, is it fair to say that the original Hebrews who were around when this passage was written and made available to adherents had a deeper understanding of its meaning than we do? Not only in terms of the text itself and what it meant at the time, but perhaps the traditions that were practiced at the time (maybe circumcision or something like it was already being practiced by some or all), perhaps other texts that elaborated on it or helped to understand its meaning (perhaps that are lost to history), perhaps certain explanations that were passed down orally, perhaps by Moses himself (I understand he is the author of Exodus) and are now forgotten? It just seems (to me) like this passage was meant to be couched in a certain context/understanding that only existed at the time as it seems like it's missing important information that would make it much more clear.

Anyway, that's my thoughts/questions on this passage for now. Your responses are of course very welcome.

[RabbiO]

But even with these technical questions aside, this passage is obviously quite significant to Judaism since this seems to have established the well-known tradition of circumcision. Why is this? From the point of view of a neophyte like myself, it seems quite strange that such a short and obscure passage would have the power to establish such a deeply rooted and engrained tradition that survives even today.

Let's start with the fact that circumcision is commanded back in Genesis 17.

[COmentator]

Hope the following is helpful
Chabad
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c...-Moses.htm

also
https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-murde...nt,24%2D26).

[gib65]

Sorry everyone, I've been a bit absent from the forum lately--life getting too busy--but I do want to continue this thread, so I want to at least give a short response and let you know I haven't forgot this thread.

Let's start with the fact that circumcision is commanded back in Genesis 17.

Ah, yes:

10 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

So the circumcision is a sign of one's entering into the covenant with God, one etched in the flesh and cannot be undone. That's very interesting. Any source that explains why circumcision specifically is the most apt sign of this?

It's also interesting because it not only implies that circumcision was already a well established practice at the time, but if true, it means that Moses is not the original author of Genesis--or at least, the stories therein have an origin earlier than Moses. Is there any knowledge amongst Jewish scholars about what the original manuscripts were that Moses eventually put together in what we today call "Genesis"? And how much of it is literally stitched together from document fragments that Moses happen to come into possession of, and how much is Moses simply relaying, in his own words, the stories from memory?

For example, it seems as if the story of Noah and the Ark stems from the Mesopotamian legend of Gilgamesh and the Flood. <-- That's one source. What about the Tower of Bable? The story of Adam and Eve?

From Exodus onwards, it seems like Moses is just relaying his living experiences.

I also read these two passages:

No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

I guess these give us a little insight into the language of the time. At the site you linked me to, there are footnotes (linknotes?) on the words "Abram" and "Abraham". The links explain the meaning of the names: "Abram" means "exalted father" and "Abraham" means (probably) "father of many". Are we looking at singular vs. plural? Abram meaning father to a single child (or an unspecified number of children), and an exalted one at that, while Abraham is for a plurality of children? What would his name be if he was father to a single children (or an unspecified number) and wasn't exalted? And then there seems to be a parallel with Sarai/Sarah. Does "Sarai" mean mother to a single (or unspecified number) of children? And exalted? And does "Sarah" mean mother to a plurality of children? It's funny that the article doesn't link to any notes about the meaning of Sarai/Sarah, but it seems obvious that it's meant to parallel Abram's/Abraham's name change.

Hope the following is helpful
Chabad
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c...-Moses.htm

also
https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-murde...nt,24%2D26).

Thanks for the links, COmentator! This is great material. Unfortunately, it will have to wait til the morning as they seem like pretty long reads and I'm tired right now. But I'll read them for sure this weekend and get back to you.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

[gib65]

Hi COmentator,

I read through the links you provided. They were very interesting and put everything in perspective. Based on what I read, I would explain the passage of Exodus 4:24-26 to mean that Moses was neglecting to do what, by now, he knew he should have done: circumcise his son. God throughout the Torah, from the initial covenant with Abraham to this story in Exodus, seems pretty intent on marking out a distinction between his worshippers (the Israelites) and all other tribes/nations/peoples, and for those who want to partake of the covenant must, as a demonstration of their commitment, be circumcised and circumcise their sons (indeed, anyone in their household, even slaves). By the time Moses and his family lodged at the inn, he should have known better. So God decided to pay him a visit in order to--is it fair to say?--not so much kill him but put to him an ultimatum: it's now or never--circumcise your son now as a pledge of devotion to the Israelite cause or be killed--and ironically Zipporah was the one to step up to the plate and do the dirty deed--thus declaring Moses to be a "bridegroom of blood" to her (i.e. a husband who, in virtue of his commitment to the Israelite cause, must stand against and indeed (eventually) slaughter all contending tribes/nations/people, including the Midians, Zipporah's family and people).

So circumcision is a symbol of sacrifice--it signifies that one is willing to sacrifice everything (or at least a great deal) for the Israelite cause--the least of which, for boys, is their foreskin, but not least in the sense of its symbolic significance--it must be something hard to do--indeed, almost unbearable, like drawing blood--which is why the blood of circumcision is center stage in this symbolism, and why Zipporah's sacrifice of her family and people is summed up in her labelling Moses a "bridegroom of blood", the slaughterer of her people.

Would you say this is a fair interpretation? And would you agree that God set out, not so much to kill Moses, but to put to him an ultimatum, the outcome of which might warrant God killing him?

Yet, something else occurs to me: Is it fair to say that Moses should have known better? That he should have known to circumcise his son at this point in the story? Or was Moses purposefully putting it off for the sake of Zipporah and her family? I mean, I'm sure he didn't like the idea of being pitted against the Midians, and in fact probably loved Zipporah enough to not want to put her through that. Is that a possibility?

[RabbiO]

gib65 -

Just so you know, COmentator is a non-Jew whose knowledge and understanding of Judaism is limited primarily to what he can glean from Ultra Orthodox websites that do not reflect the variety of authentic expression within Judaism. Despite his utter lack of qualifications to do so, he has the arrogance of trying to tell Jews how to be Jews.

I’m not advising you to ignore COmentator, his posts or the sources he cites. I just want you to be aware of how limiting that can be.

[gib65]

Thanks RabbiO,

It seems rivalries are just as alive and well here as on any other internet forum. :lol:

So is there anything that COmentator said that you disagree with? What about the articles he linked to?

[COmentator]

Sorry everyone, I've been a bit absent from the forum lately--life getting too busy--but I do want to continue this thread, so I want to at least give a short response and let you know I haven't forgot this thread.

Let's start with the fact that circumcision is commanded back in Genesis 17.

Ah, yes:

10 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

So the circumcision is a sign of one's entering into the covenant with God, one etched in the flesh and cannot be undone. That's very interesting. Any source that explains why circumcision specifically is the most apt sign of this?

It's also interesting because it not only implies that circumcision was already a well established practice at the time, but if true, it means that Moses is not the original author of Genesis--or at least, the stories therein have an origin earlier than Moses. Is there any knowledge amongst Jewish scholars about what the original manuscripts were that Moses eventually put together in what we today call "Genesis"? And how much of it is literally stitched together from document fragments that Moses happen to come into possession of, and how much is Moses simply relaying, in his own words, the stories from memory?

For example, it seems as if the story of Noah and the Ark stems from the Mesopotamian legend of Gilgamesh and the Flood. <-- That's one source. What about the Tower of Bable? The story of Adam and Eve?

From Exodus onwards, it seems like Moses is just relaying his living experiences.

I also read these two passages:

No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

I guess these give us a little insight into the language of the time. At the site you linked me to, there are footnotes (linknotes?) on the words "Abram" and "Abraham". The links explain the meaning of the names: "Abram" means "exalted father" and "Abraham" means (probably) "father of many". Are we looking at singular vs. plural? Abram meaning father to a single child (or an unspecified number of children), and an exalted one at that, while Abraham is for a plurality of children? What would his name be if he was father to a single children (or an unspecified number) and wasn't exalted? And then there seems to be a parallel with Sarai/Sarah. Does "Sarai" mean mother to a single (or unspecified number) of children? And exalted? And does "Sarah" mean mother to a plurality of children? It's funny that the article doesn't link to any notes about the meaning of Sarai/Sarah, but it seems obvious that it's meant to parallel Abram's/Abraham's name change.

Hope the following is helpful
Chabad
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_c...-Moses.htm

also
https://www.thetorah.com/article/a-murde...nt,24%2D26).

Thanks for the links, COmentator! This is great material. Unfortunately, it will have to wait til the morning as they seem like pretty long reads and I'm tired right now. But I'll read them for sure this weekend and get back to you.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

Thank you

[gib65]

Is there anything to the fact that this passage comes immediately after Exodus 4:24-26:

The Lord said to Aaron, "Go toward Moses, to the desert." So he went and met him on the mount of God, and he kissed him.

It's as if now that Zipporah circumcised her son, God decided that Aaron was ready to join Moses. <-- Is there anything to this? And why does it bother to mention that Aaron kissed Moses?

[rosends]

Is there anything to the fact that this passage comes immediately after Exodus 4:24-26:

The Lord said to Aaron, "Go toward Moses, to the desert." So he went and met him on the mount of God, and he kissed him.

It's as if now that Zipporah circumcised her son, God decided that Aaron was ready to join Moses. <-- Is there anything to this? And why does it bother to mention that Aaron kissed Moses?

this section is distinct from the events above (in the torah scroll there is a break between them). As to why Aaron kissed Moses, the commentators speak a lot about this (why they didn't kiss each other, why specifically Aaron kissed Moses). I would recommend going through the commentators here.
https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.4.27?lang=bi&with=Commentary%20ConnectionsList&lang2=en