The Oddest Episode in the Torah

 

I was asked recently to explain something that really sticks out in the Torah as, at the very least, a very odd – even disturbing – episode. Indeed, it has often flummoxed me as well just because it is quite difficult to understand both the story and why the Torah shares it with us.

The story itself is only three verses long, and even its translation is not so obvious. (I translate it a pretty standard way at first – feel free to check your own versions to see how others have done so):

At a night encampment on the way, the LORD encountered him [Moshe] and sought to kill him. So Tzipporah [Moshe’s wife] took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his feet with it, saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!” And when He let him alone, she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.” (Exodus 4:24-26)

This whole episode is quite strange on many levels. But if we read the text carefully, and understand the personalities involved, it all comes together to make sense.

First off, we should set the scene: Moshe has been told by G-d to go to Egypt (where he was a wanted man), confront the most powerful man in the world (Pharaoh), threaten him and eventually serve to help free a slave nation from its overlords. Not exactly a trivial task!

At the same time as G-d first talks to Moshe at the burning bush, Moshe’s wife is either very pregnant or has just given birth to their second son. Either way, her husband comes home with the sheep, informs her that he has been charged with this quest, puts her and the children on a donkey, and they ride off toward Egypt. His wife, Tzipporah, had not spoken with G-d. Nor had she (unlike Yaakov’s wives) been consulted by her husband, or given any choice in the matter. So, having just given birth to a baby, she is confronted with the fact that her husband’s mind is not on his wife, or on their sons. And here is how it unfolds, with each phrase connected to how it is used elsewhere in the Torah.

“At a night encampment” The word “Malon” in Hebrew is first used at the time Joseph’s brothers discover they still have the money they should have paid to Joseph for the food they received – and suddenly, everything has gone wrong. And they were terrified by the uncertainty.

Later in the Torah, the same word refers to the grumblings and mutterings of the nation, which is quite an appropriate connection to this episode. At night encampments in the Torah, the situation is quite unsettled, uncertain, and even downright rebellious.

“The Lord encounters him” “Encounters” is really closer to an uneasy confrontation between two people. It is first used to describe Esau meeting Jacob’s messengers who were bringing advance gifts to try to fend off a conflict. (Gen 32:18 and 33:8). The outcome is in doubt. Indeed, whether there is even an open conflict is not clear.

“And sought to kill him” Here is where the plot thickens. G-d is seeking something, that much is clear. But “kill him” is not quite right. The word “to kill” is found just one verse earlier, when G-d describes killing Pharaoh’s first born. And that word is different – it is the same word as “murder,” the same word first used when murder is invented by Cain when he rose up against his brother (Gen 4:8)

No, the word in the Torah is not “kill” – it is instead “to make dead.” And the first time that word is used is when G-d forbids the fruit to Adam and Eve: “On that day you will surely die” (formed by using the same root word for “dead” twice). But Adam and Eve, despite eating the fruit, did NOT die! Instead, they changed irrevocably. Their old selves, the way they saw the world, each other, their nakedness, etc. all perished. They became entirely different, thanks to changed knowledge. There was no going back to who they were beforehand.

If this is right, then what G-d is doing when he comes to Moshe that night in the unsettled camp, is seeking a transformation. The old Moshe has to go. The new Moshe has to arrive. What was wrong with the “old” Moshe? He was a family man, working for his father-in-law, supporting his wife and children. That man could not simultaneously serve as G-d’s very mouthpiece to the world. Unlike every Jew before and after, who are called to use marriage as their template for the challenges of relating to G-d, Moshe could no longer be in a mundane marriage.

Tzipporah at this point sees what is happening. And while it may have been possible that she could have transformed as well, she either does not choose to do so, or she was not aware of the choice. She saw her husband crossing this threshold, and she realized that she was going to be collateral damage – that she was already collateral damage, and it was not going to get better. So Tzipporah chooses to get ahead of it, to cauterize the emotional wound of losing her husband.

What she does next, by cutting the foreskin of her son (note the text says her son, not their son) and touching it to Moshe’s feet is a declaration: a declaration of her new status and his: separated. (There is a connection to levirate marriage as described in Deut. 25:9 – the woman also makes a fervent declaration using the man’s foot.)

Tzipporah sees what is going on. And she takes the initiative because otherwise, she undergoes more pain. So she gets ahead of it, declares the division, declares the new status, and her feelings. She cauterizes her emotional wound.

The language she chooses tells us this: “A bloody bridegroom”. Moshe is not her bridegroom – he is/was her husband! Calling Moshe her bridegroom is to regress the relationship, back to before delivering two sons, back perhaps even to before marriage itself.

The word for “bridegroom” in the Torah is first found referring to Lot’s sons-in-law: they are connected relatives who, when it came down to it, declined to follow their own wives when the core family fled the city. In other words, “bridegroom” in this case is someone who may not be around for long, someone who may be henceforth separated.

Indeed, in Ex. 18, Moshe’s father-in-law effects a reunion, bringing Tzipporah and her two sons to Moshe. The word “bridegroom” is used in this section no less than 6 times in 8 verses – not the word for “husband” or “master.” The division that Tzipporah created in the marriage had indeed become the new reality.

The reference to “blood” is even more fundamental in the Torah. The first mention of blood in the Torah is that of Abel, calling out from the ground to G-d after Abel’s brother, Cain, had killed him. “Blood” refers to the results of murder, a situation in which there is no going back, but an aura of longstanding guilt remains. A life has been taken, and it can never be undone.

Put together, Tzipporah’s repetition of a “bloody bridegroom” is a statement of the damage to their relationship, a separation between them.

The punchline is the last word of the text: circumcision. This word, “mul,” is quite distinctive, because it does not mean “covenant,” (though it can lead to a covenant) and it also does not always refer to cutting off the foreskin. Instead, the word means a hard separation, even a stark contrast. So, for example, when Moshe dies (Deut. 34:6), he is described as being buried mul – opposite to – Peor, the basest form of idolatry. In death as in life Moshe was always in stark contrast to idol worship. So Moshe’s service to G-d is delineated by this word mul: here, on his way into Egypt, and then again at the end of the Torah when Moshe dies. Moshe is separated, set aside. He is, indeed, reserved just for G-d – and at the cost of other relationships.

When Tzipporah declares that Moshe is a bloody bridegroom “because of the mul,” she is saying that the circumcision was not just that of her son’s foreskin. She is declaring an eternal incision that would forever divide that marriage, a setting aside of Moshe. Indeed, it is also a separation of Moshe’s sons; they stay with their mother.

There is a reason why Jews bless our children to be like our forefathers and mothers – but not like Moshe and Tzipporah. Theirs was not a marriage for ordinary people to emulate. Tzipporah vanishes from the story until her father brings her and her children back to Moshe, reminding Moshe of the “bridegroom” reference all the way. And while Moshe and Tzipporah remain married afterward, it seems they are never again intimate. G-d comes first.

I think the Torah is telling us something very important by relating this episode: everything comes at a cost. True, Moshe was the greatest prophet in history. But he paid dearly. It is an insight into the level of commitment Moshe was to display for the rest of his life – as well as the pain that his wife felt as the world she knew was swept out from under her. Tzipporah becomes a sympathetic figure, loyal – but separated – until the end.

Credit: I worked this out with @ishottheserif and with my regular Torah partner, @susanquinn

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    As a long-time Presbyterian Elder, I find your explication of that very puzzling passage fascinating (and informative!).

    Thank you!

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    iWe, I recently studied this passage with my Bible study group.  We’re working our way through Dennis Prager’s book on Exodus.  Prager has a different take.

    Prager’s translation is:  “At a night encampment on the way, the Lord encountered him and sought to kill him.  So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, ‘You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!’  And when He let him alone, she added, ‘A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.'”

    First, Prager states that it is not clear whether the “him” that the Lord sought to kill was Moses or his son.  Second, Prager interprets the Lord’s intention to kill either Moses or his son as a punishment for the failure of Moses to have circumcised his son.

    Prager does not suggest your interpretation.

    I agree that it is a puzzling and strange event, and I’m not sure what to make of it.  I do think that Prager has a point about the importance of circumcision in the text, and the fact that Moses had, for some reason, not circumcised his son.  It seems possible that Moses had not learned Hebrew ways, having grown up in the Egyptian court, though this seems inconsistent with Zipporah somehow knowing what to do.  It also seems possible that the circumcision of their son had been a point of contention between Moses and Zipporah.

    Your interpretation is interesting.

    I have a question for you.  You state: “At the same time as G-d first talks to Moshe at the burning bush, Moshe’s wife is either very pregnant or has just given birth to their second son.”  How do you know this?  It is not apparent to me from the text.

     

    • #2
  3. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe, I recently studied this passage with my Bible study group. We’re working our way through Dennis Prager’s book on Exodus. Prager has a different take.

    First, Prager states that it is not clear whether the “him” that the Lord sought to kill was Moses or his son.

    The Torah is not clear on this, so it can be read either way. Most commentators read it as Moses being threatened and somehow incapacitated, which is why he did not perform the circumcision himself. Since the (eventual) commandment to circumcise is not on a child, but on his father, Moshe was either clueless or incapacitated in order for Tzipporah to have to act.

    But in my interpretation, the son could have been threatened, and then it is clear that Moshe is neglecting his duties – Tzipporah steps up, doing something that her husband was supposed to do, and she declares that he is no longer acting as a proper husband and father. Which dovetails into the rest of my explanation.

    Second, Prager interprets the Lord’s intention to kill either Moses or his son as a punishment for the failure of Moses to have circumcised his son.

    Yes, this is the standard explanation. But I find it very unsatisfying, because it raises far more questions than it answers. Here are some:

    1: Moshe was not commanded to circumcise. Why should he have done it?

    1b: Even if there was such a commandment at that time, surely traveling negated it (in the same way that the Jewish people in the wilderness did not circumcise for the entire time because of the risk of travel making it unsafe).

    2: G-d never tries to kill Moshe otherwise. Everything else is telegraphed/warned in advance. This comes out of the blue.

    3: The commandment to circumcise that was given to the forefathers (and again to the Jewish people in the wilderness) is on the father – so why would a newborn be punished?

    4: Not circumcising is never a capital offense anyway.

    Prager does not suggest your interpretation.

    I would have been very surprised if he had. As far as I am aware, nobody does. But this is what the text leads me to. And it makes far more sense than anything else I have seen.

    I agree that it is a puzzling and strange event, and I’m not sure what to make of it. I do think that Prager has a point about the importance of circumcision in the text, and the fact that Moses had, for some reason, not circumcised his son. It seems possible that Moses had not learned Hebrew ways, having grown up in the Egyptian court, though this seems inconsistent with Zipporah somehow knowing what to do. It also seems possible that the circumcision of their son had been a point of contention between Moses and Zipporah.

    It is not clear that the Jews in Egypt circumcised either!

    For me, the circumcision is symbolic (it is symbolic anyway), but in this case like the actions and declarations of a levirate marriage. So Tzipporah leverages the symbolism of the division to make a much bigger point – a circumcision by itself does not require any words. The fact that they separate as a couple at that point is also quite supportive of this argument.

    Your interpretation is interesting.

    Thank you. Like most of my Torah thoughts, it has taken a lifetime of background percolation to reach resolution.

    I have a question for you. You state: “At the same time as G-d first talks to Moshe at the burning bush, Moshe’s wife is either very pregnant or has just given birth to their second son.” How do you know this? It is not apparent to me from the text.

    Just the timeline: There is no sign that Moshe delayed the journey after the burning bush. How else could the baby be 8 days old while encamped on the journey back to Egypt?

    Thank you for the thoughtful comments!

    • #3
  4. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was not commanded to circumcise. Why should he have done it?

    Moses was commanded to circumcise.  The commandment was given to Abraham in Genesis 17:9-14:

    Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

    There’s a further issue with Moses and circumcision, made indirectly.  I’m not sure whether it is relevant to the odd episode of the OP, and I don’t think that it is mentioned in the Torah itself.  It is discussed in Joshua 5.

    After crossing the Jordan to enter the Promised Land, God commanded Joshua to “make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.”  It explains that those who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, “but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not.”

    This passage does not mention Moses, but he was in charge during the 40 years in the wilderness, and apparently he did not require the Israelites to circumcise their children during this period.

    • #4
  5. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was not commanded to circumcise. Why should he have done it?

    Moses was commanded to circumcise. The commandment was given to Abraham in Genesis 17:9-14:

    Moshe was raised in an environment where he may well have been ignorant of what Abraham was commanded. G-d gave Moshe many instructions: circumcision was not among them. The formal giving of laws to the entire people (as opposed to the Tribe started by Abraham) starts after Moshe returns to Egypt.

     

    There’s a further issue with Moses and circumcision, made indirectly. I’m not sure whether it is relevant to the odd episode of the OP, and I don’t think that it is mentioned in the Torah itself. It is discussed in Joshua 5.

    After crossing the Jordan to enter the Promised Land, God commanded Joshua to “make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” It explains that those who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, “but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not.”

    This passage does not mention Moses, but he was in charge during the 40 years in the wilderness, and apparently he did not require the Israelites to circumcise their children during this period.

    As I mentioned in my comment, the justification for this was that it is dangerous to travel just after surgery, and since they might have to travel at any time, they did not. 

    This explanation, if correct, would militate directly for Moshe’s child NOT being circumcised in the middle of a journey. Though it might help explain the separation of the family: once circumcised, the child stays put until healed.

     

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    iWe, I agree that it’s pretty hard to figure out, and I agree that Moses may not have known about the circumcision commandment.  But this is a bit inconsistent with Zipporah’s action in circumcising their son.  How did she know?  Again, it doesn’t say, and she may have had some insight from God (or otherwise).

    • #6
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was raised in an environment where he may well have been ignorant of what Abraham was commanded.

    I always figured that all Moses knew about being a Jew was that he was one, and the reason he was watching them was out of curiosity. Tzipporah was telling him, in effect, “You don’t know the rules, but it’s okay … I’ve got this.”

    The bridegroom angle is something I hadn’t considered before. Thanks, iWe.

    • #7
  8. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was raised in an environment where he may well have been ignorant of what Abraham was commanded. G-d gave Moshe many instructions: circumcision was not among them. The formal giving of laws to the entire people (as opposed to the Tribe started by Abraham) starts after Moshe returns to Egypt.

    Then why such confidence that Gershom was circumcised on the 8th day?

    iWe (View Comment):

    Just the timeline: There is no sign that Moshe delayed the journey after the burning bush. How else could the baby be 8 days old while encamped on the journey back to Egypt?

    • #8
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe, I agree that it’s pretty hard to figure out, and I agree that Moses may not have known about the circumcision commandment. But this is a bit inconsistent with Zipporah’s action in circumcising their son. How did she know? Again, it doesn’t say, and she may have had some insight from God (or otherwise).

    I believe it was a custom some cultures practiced in that time. (I forget where I heard that!) Zipporah could have had some knowledge of it not from Moses.

    My working understanding of the incident has been that G-d is bringing Moses into a deeper participation in the Abrahamic covenant and traditions to make him more fit for the job ahead. He’s in trouble because he already knew that circumcision is something Jews are supposed to do for their sons but hasn’t bothered to do it yet; luckily, his wife was sensible enough to do what needed doing.

    • #9
  10. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was raised in an environment where he may well have been ignorant of what Abraham was commanded. G-d gave Moshe many instructions: circumcision was not among them. The formal giving of laws to the entire people (as opposed to the Tribe started by Abraham) starts after Moshe returns to Egypt.

    Then why such confidence that Gershom was circumcised on the 8th day?

    iWe (View Comment):

    Just the timeline: There is no sign that Moshe delayed the journey after the burning bush. How else could the baby be 8 days old while encamped on the journey back to Egypt?

    It’s not even clear that it was Gershom.  Exodus 4:20 says that “Moses took his wife and sons,” so there was more than one son present.  Verses 24- 26 do not identify the son involved in the circumcision.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe, I agree that it’s pretty hard to figure out, and I agree that Moses may not have known about the circumcision commandment. But this is a bit inconsistent with Zipporah’s action in circumcising their son. How did she know? Again, it doesn’t say, and she may have had some insight from God (or otherwise).

    I believe it was a custom some cultures practiced in that time. (I forget where I heard that!) Zipporah could have had some knowledge of it not from Moses.

    My working understanding of the incident has been that G-d is bringing Moses into a deeper participation in the Abrahamic covenant and traditions to make him more fit for the job ahead. He’s in trouble because he already knew that circumcision is something Jews are supposed to do for their sons but hasn’t bothered to do it yet; luckily, his wife was sensible enough to do what needed doing.

    My own hypothesis is that Moses knew about the requirement of circumcision, but Zipporah objected, making this a dispute between them.  Moses did not press the issue until this strange circumcision/bridegroom of blood passage.  In this interpretation, the “bridegroom of blood” reference reflects Zipporah’s dislike of the circumcision that had to be performed on her son, which was doubtless bloody.

    I’m not sure how to interpret the account of Zipporah touching the severed foreskin to Moses’s feet (iWe’s translation, matching the NIV and most others) or legs (Prager’s translation, matching a few others).  The King James Version says that she “cast it at his feet,” and few others say “threw it at his feet.”

    The “cast it” or “threw it” translations are most consistent with my hypothesis.  I can’t comment on the original Hebrew, which is Greek to me.  :)

    • #10
  11. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Moshe was raised in an environment where he may well have been ignorant of what Abraham was commanded. G-d gave Moshe many instructions: circumcision was not among them. The formal giving of laws to the entire people (as opposed to the Tribe started by Abraham) starts after Moshe returns to Egypt.

    Then why such confidence that Gershom was circumcised on the 8th day?

    iWe (View Comment):

    Just the timeline: There is no sign that Moshe delayed the journey after the burning bush. How else could the baby be 8 days old while encamped on the journey back to Egypt?

    It’s not even clear that it was Gershom. Exodus 4:20 says that “Moses took his wife and sons,” so there was more than one son present. Verses 24- 26 do not identify the son involved in the circumcision.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    iWe, I agree that it’s pretty hard to figure out, and I agree that Moses may not have known about the circumcision commandment. But this is a bit inconsistent with Zipporah’s action in circumcising their son. How did she know? Again, it doesn’t say, and she may have had some insight from God (or otherwise).

    I believe it was a custom some cultures practiced in that time. (I forget where I heard that!) Zipporah could have had some knowledge of it not from Moses.

    My working understanding of the incident has been that G-d is bringing Moses into a deeper participation in the Abrahamic covenant and traditions to make him more fit for the job ahead. He’s in trouble because he already knew that circumcision is something Jews are supposed to do for their sons but hasn’t bothered to do it yet; luckily, his wife was sensible enough to do what needed doing.

    My own hypothesis is that Moses knew about the requirement of circumcision, but Zipporah objected, making this a dispute between them. Moses did not press the issue until this strange circumcision/bridegroom of blood passage. In this interpretation, the “bridegroom of blood” reference reflects Zipporah’s dislike of the circumcision that had to be performed on her son, which was doubtless bloody.

    I’m not sure how to interpret the account of Zipporah touching the severed foreskin to Moses’s feet (iWe’s translation, matching the NIV and most others) or legs (Prager’s translation, matching a few others). The King James Version says that she “cast it at his feet,” and few others say “threw it at his feet.”

    The “cast it” or “threw it” translations are most consistent with my hypothesis. I can’t comment on the original Hebrew, which is Greek to me. :)

    Good thoughts, all.

    Hey, what if it were Gershom, and the whole incident were tied by way of illustration to verse 23?

    • #11
  12. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Hey, what if it were Gershom, and the whole incident were tied by way of illustration to verse 23?

    I thought of that too.  For those who might not want to look it up, SA is referencing Exodus 4:23, the verse immediately preceding those discussed in the OP.  My translation has verses 22-23 as a single sentence, which says: “Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

    I can’t tell if they are connected, other than sequentially.

    • #12
  13. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Hey, what if it were Gershom, and the whole incident were tied by way of illustration to verse 23?

    I thought of that too. For those who might not want to look it up, SA is referencing Exodus 4:23, the verse immediately preceding those discussed in the OP. My translation has verses 22-23 as a single sentence, which says: “Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

    I can’t tell if they are connected, other than sequentially.

    Items in the Torah are not coincidental – there is not even a line break between these two verses. But I am not sure enough of what it means to speculate. I should point out that “to kill” in 23 is not the same as “sought to make dead” in the Tzipporah part, so they are not very strongly paralleled.

    • #13
  14. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I’m not sure how to interpret the account of Zipporah touching the severed foreskin to Moses’s feet (iWe’s translation, matching the NIV and most others) or legs (Prager’s translation, matching a few others).

    The word is the same: “regel” refers to either/or feet and legs. That is an ambiguity.

    The King James Version says that she “cast it at his feet,” and few others say “threw it at his feet.”

    The “cast it” or “threw it” translations are most consistent with my hypothesis. I can’t comment on the original Hebrew, which is Greek to me. :)

    The word used, “tagah”, appears here for the first time in the Torah.

    The word is used elsewhere in the Torah the following places, with approximate meanings: Ex. 19:13 (harm), Lev 5:2(touch), 12:4 (touch), 5:7 (part of a phrase coming to “material means”), 22:6 (touches), 7:21(touches). Note that all of these meanings connect to inappropriate or unholy touching – touching that should be avoided because it would keep you from being able to elevate your condition. Touching in this way reduces the person. And I think it reduces Tzipporah as well – she steps back from her husband’s rising path.

    • #14
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    I just made a crazy discovery. Daniel Lapin pointed out to me that the word for “bridegroom” in this episode NEVER means bridegroom in the Torah. It always refers to an in-law relation (Lot’s sons-in-law, Moshe and his father in-law, and even once referring to a mother-in-law).

    The VERB form of this same word ONLY refers to forbidden intermarriage, NOT legitimate marriage! It is used only Gen 34:9 and Deut. 7:3. In which case, Tzipporah’s use of this word is even more of a distancing. Quite a shocking one, actually.

    • #15
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    iWe (View Comment):

    I just made a crazy discovery. Daniel Lapin pointed out to me that the word for “bridegroom” in this episode NEVER means bridegroom in the Torah. It always refers to an in-law relation (Lot’s sons-in-law, Moshe and his father in-law, and even once referring to a mother-in-law).

    The VERB form of this same word ONLY refers to forbidden intermarriage, NOT legitimate marriage! It is used only Gen 34:9 and Deut. 7:3. In which case, Tzipporah’s use of this word is even more of a distancing. Quite a shocking one, actually.

    Interesting.  That’s really digging in to the Hebrew!

    Here is the concordance page from Bible Hub.  The word used (rendered in English as chathan) does appear to be translated as “son-in-law” elsewhere in the Torah, though only in 1 place (3 separate uses of the word) in Gen. 19:12-14.  It is not used in a negative sense.  It is used in the instructions by the 2 angels to Lot, warning him to leave Sodom because it is going to be destroyed, and telling him to take his sons-in-law, sons, and daughters with him.  As I recall, Lot did not have any sons, but had 2 daughters, and apparently they were married (or pledged to be married), per this passage.

    The word chathan is translated “son-in-law” in a number of the other OT books (Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Nehemiah).  But it is translated as “bridegroom” in other books (Psalms, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joel).

    Obviously, I don’t know Hebrew myself, so I can only rely on these sources.  Bible Hub is quite an amazing reference.

    The verb form is rendered into English as chathan also.  The Bible Hub concordance page is here.  It seems to be a reference to making a marriage alliance, and specifically to becoming a son-in-law.  However, forms of it also seem to be used to refer to Moses’ father-in-law.  There is one particularly interesting reference:

    verbal noun 1. masculine wife’s father (Arabic  a circumciser, hence father-in-law, with reference to circumcision performed on young men just before marriage;  relation on wife’s side

    This is way beyond my pay grade — it seems to be an explanation of a Hebrew word that is referencing a similar Arabic word.  But this conveys the idea that the word may derive from a practice of a father-in-law circumcising his son-in-law just before marriage.  I have no idea whether this refers to a Muslim practice, or an older practice, or if it is correct at all.

    • #16
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.