Mystery of Moshe the Missing Milah at the Motel

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, as is evident from the fact that the punishment of Moses the righteous for not circumcising his son when he was capable of doing so was not postponed for even a full hour (see Exodus 4:24–26).

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25), which indicates that the pain of circumcision lasts for several days and the child may be in danger while in pain. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: “Go, return into Egypt” (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately. For these reasons Moses did not circumcise the child immediately, but no neglect existed on his part. But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished?

Because he was occupied with lodging first and did not immediately perform the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place” (Exodus 4:24). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It was not Moses our teacher that Satan wanted to kill, but rather, that infant who was not circumcised, as it is stated: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (Exodus 4:25). Go out and see: Who does it make sense would be the one that is called the bridegroom in this instance? You must say this is the infant, since he is the one who entered the covenant of Abraham by means of the circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna taught: At the time that Moses our teacher was negligent about the circumcision, the destructive angels named Af, meaning anger, and Ḥeima, meaning wrath, came and swallowed him, and only his legs were left outside. Immediately, “Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25), and immediately “He let him alone” (Exodus 4:26). At that moment, Moses our teacher wanted to kill them, as it is stated: “Cease from anger [af ] and forsake wrath [ḥeima]” (Psalms 37:8), which indicates that he wanted to harm them. And there are those who say: He killed the angel named Ḥeima, as it is stated: “Wrath is not in me” (Isaiah 27:4). The Gemara asks: How is it possible to say that he killed Ḥeima? Isn’t it written that Moses himself said much later: “For I was in dread of the anger and wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19)? The Gemara answers: There are two types of wrath. And if you wish, say that the army of Ḥeima remained but not the angel itself.

(Exodus 18:3) "and her two sons … in a foreign land": R. Yehoshua says "foreign": as stated (i.e., literally). R. Elazar Homadai says: in a land of foreign (gods, i.e., idolatry). Moses said: Since the whole world serves idolatry, I will serve Him who spoke and brought the (whole) world into being. For when Moses said to Yithro, Give me your daughter Tzipporah as a wife, Yithro answered, If you do what I ask of you, I will give her to you as a wife. Moses: What do you ask? Yithro: Your first son must serve idolatry. Thenceforward, they may serve (G d) in heaven. Moses accepted. Yithro: Swear. And he swore, as it is written (Exodus 2:21) "Vayoel Moses, etc.", this being an expression for swearing, as in (I Samuel 14:24) "Vayoel Saul the people" (in context: "And Saul beswore the people.") And it is written (II Kings 5:3) "Hoel (in context: "Swear") and take two talents, etc." Therefore, the angel came forward to kill Moses (viz. Exodus 4:24), whereupon (Ibid. 25) "Tzipporah took a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son … (26) "And he (the angel) let go of him." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: Repulsive is the foreskin, by which the wicked are demeaned, viz. (Jeremiah 9:25) "for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised of heart." R. Yishmael says: Great is circumcision over which thirteen covenants was made. R. Yossi Haglili says: Great is circumcision, which overrides the Sabbath, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off). R. Yehoshua b. Karcha says: Great is circumcision, laxity in which did not permit all of Moses' merits to protect him for even a short time. R. Nechemiah says: Great is circumcision, which overrides (non-cutting of) plague-spots (viz. Devarim 24:8). Rebbi says: Great is circumcision, all of Moses' merits not standing for him in his duress. When the L rd told him "Take out My people, the children of Israel from the land of Egypt," because he was lax for a short time in (the) circumcision (of his son), the angel sought to kill him, viz. (Exodus 4:24) "and he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Yossi says: G d forbid that tzaddikim should be lax in circumcision for even a short while, but Moses expounded: Shall he circumcise (his son) and journey (to Egypt) — that would involve a risk of life (for the child.) Shall he wait and circumcise — the L rd has said to him: "Go and take My people Israel out of Egypt." But (his lapse was that) he preoccupied himself with his lodging before circumcising, wherefore the L rd sought to kill him, viz.: "And he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: The angel did not seek to kill Moses, but the child, viz. (Ibid. 25) "for you are a groom of blood to me." Who is called a "groom" (in this context), the child or Moses? The child.

But it was on the way, in the place of lodging that the angel of the Lord met him, and sought to kill him, because Gershom his son had not been circumcised, inasmuch as Jethro his father-in-law had not permitted him to circumcise him: but Eliezer had been circumcised, by an agreement between them two. 25And Zipporah took a stone, and circumcised the foreskin of Gershom her son, and brought the severed part to the feet of the angel, the Destroyer, and said, The husband sought to circumcise, but the father-in-law obstructed him; and now let this blood of the circumcision atone for my husband. 26And the destroying angel desisted from him, so that Zipporah gave thanks, and said, How lovely is the blood of this circumcision that hath delivered my husband from the angel of destruction!

ויהי AND HE WAS — Moses was — DURING THE JOURNEY IN THE LODGING PLACE. 2ויבקש המיתו AND HE SOUGHT TO PUT HIM TO DEATH — the angel sought etc., because he had not circumcised his son Eliezer; and because he had showed himself remiss in this, he brought upon himself the punishment of death. It has been taught in a Boraitha (Nedarim 31b): Rabbi José said: God forbid that this was so; Moses had not been remiss in this duty; but he thought, “If I circumcise him and immediately proceed on the journey, the child’s life will be in danger for three days. If, on the other hand, I circumcise him and wait three days — the Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded me, “Go return to Egypt!” Consequently, he obeyed His command, intending to circumcise the child as soon as the opportunity presented itself. There was therefore no remissness on his part; why, then, was he threatened with punishment? Because he busied himself with the affairs of the lodging place first, (i. e. because when he arrived at the inn he troubled himself first about eating and drinking. He should first have circumcised his son. Being now so much nearer Egypt, the danger that follows upon the circumcision was not so great, since the interval of time between the operation and his arrival in Egypt was now shorter than if he had circumcised him before he set out on the journey). See this in Treatise Nedarim. — The angel became a kind of serpent and swallowed him (Moses) from his head to his thigh, spued him forth, and then again swallowed him from his legs to that place (the membrum). Zipporah thus understood that this had happened on account of the delay in the circumcision of her son (Nedarim 32a; cf. Exodus Rabbah 5:8). 4:25 1ותגע לרגליו AND CAST IT AT HIS FEET — i. e. she cast it before Moses’ feet (Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 3:9). 2ותאמר AND SHE SAID, referring to her son: 3כי חתן דמים אתה לי which means, thou hast brought it about that my bridegroom (Moses) was on the point of being killed because of thee: thou hast been to me my husband’s murderer. 4:26 1וירף SO HE LOOSENED HIS HOLD — the angel loosened his hold ממנו FROM HIM; (cf. Exodus Rabbah 5:8). אז THEN she understood that he had come to kill him because of the delay in the circumcision, 2אמרה חתן דמים למלות SHE SAID “BRIDEGROOM OF BLOOD BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMCISION” — my bridegroom was on the point of being killed on account of the circumcision. 3למלות means on account of (ל) the circumcision (מולות). The word מולות it a noun, and the ל prefixed it used in the tense of על, “on account of”, just as in (Exodus 14:3) “And Pharaoh will say regarding the children (לבני) of Israel”. Onkelos, however, translated the word דמים as having reference to the blood of the circumcision (whilst, according to Rashi, it refers to the blood of Moses which was about to be shed).

ויבקש המיתו, He tried to kill him. The reason that the Torah describes G'd as only "trying" to kill Moses may be that the fact that Moses was on the way to carry out a commandment by G'd. This acted as partial protection based on Pessachim 8 that "people engaged in the process of carrying out a מצוה do not suffer harm either on their way to or from carrying out that מצוה." The מצוה which Moses was occupied with at that time acquired one heavenly advocate for him; this advocate was his companion at the time and prevented the destructive forces poised against him from approaching him too closely. Perhaps the Torah's description of all this happening בדרך במלון is to inform us that at the time Moses was not so much involved with his primary mission but with private matters; this is what provoked the destructive forces to attack him. Nonetheless he still enjoyed some protection seeing that he had not abandoned his mission. While the positive and negative forces were confronting each other, Tziporah removed the impediment to saving Moses' life by circumcising her son.

ויהי בדרך למלון, “it was while they had been on the way, at an inn; this verse ought to have been appended to verse 20 where we were told: ויקח מה את אשתו ואת בניו, “Moses took his wife and his sons;” it is similarly out of place as is Exodus 21,36 שלם ישלם “he is to pay double,” really belongs in verse 37 in that chapter. The reason why it is written where it is, is that the Torah did not want to interrupt what G-d had been saying to Moses. 2ויפגשהו, “he encountered him;” the expression is remindful of Hoseah 13,8: אפגשם כדב שכול, “I attack them like a bear robbed of its young.” 3ויבקש להמיתו, “he attempted to kill him;” according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the angel attempted to kill Eliezer, the uncircumcised baby. (Talmud Nedarim 32) This is why Tzipporah called her son Eliezer a “groom acquired through blood” (of circumcision). [She meant that if she had not circumcised him she would have lost him. Ed.] A different interpretation: the angel tried to kill Moses. He had been guilty of not circumcising Eliezer on the eighth day of his life as G-d had commanded that it be done. He should have done so and left him with his mother in Midian. This would have enabled him to carry out the mission entrusted to him by G-d without delay and without hold ups due to consideration of the needs of his family. Instead he had walked slowly while his family was riding. (Nedarim 31) 4ויבקש המיתו, according to Rashi the reason for Moses’ punishment was not that he had not circumcised Eliezer on the way, but that this was not his first concern when arriving at the inn. To the question that seeing that neglecting to perform circumcision carries a very severe penalty, as opposed to delaying his trip to Egypt which was only the slight delay in performing a positive commandment, something that normally is not even punishable at all, so why did Moses indeed not perform the commandment of circumcision on time? The answer is that it is not the father of the child that is subject to this penalty, but the uncircumcised male when he is old enough to arrange for his own circumcision if his father failed to do so. The Torah spells this out when writing: וערל זכר אשר לא ימול בשר ערלתו ונכרתה, “when a male with a foreskin allows his foreskin not to be circumcised he will be cut off, etc.” (Genesis 17,14) This is why Moses was not bothered by attending to other details about his family’s accommodation before attending to circumcision of his son. Exodus 4:25 1'ותקח צפורה וגו, “Tzipporah took etc.” what prompted Tzipporah was that her husband had been weakened by the attack of that angel so that he, personally, was unable to perform this commandment. He therefore revealed to his wife what had to be done, and she performed the deed. 2צר, a sharp scalpel. Compare Joshua 5,2 חרבות צורים, according to Rash’bam. An alternate interpretation: the word צר means “stone;” we find it as having this meaning also in Ezekiel 3,9: כשמיר חזק מצור, like a shamir, “even harder than rock.” She took what was at hand. 3ותגע לרגליו; “she touched his male member.” This is another word being used to describe the area of it where the circumcision had to be performed. We find another occasion where the word: רגליו has been used in the same sense in Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה רגליו, “he had not attended to his private parts.” It is necessary to rephrase this verse so that it means: “Tzipporah took a scalpel and applied the sharp edge of it to the male member of her child and she cut off his foreskin.”Still another interpretation: the subject in the word: לרגליו are the angel’s feet. She considered what she had done as a kind of sacrifice to G-d, and placed it (the foreskin) at the feet of G-d’s representative, in this case, the angel. We find something similar to this when Gideon as well as Manoach in the Book of Judges, placed their “sacrifice” at the feet of the angel. (Compare Pessikta de Zutrata on Exodus 12,13 at length on this subject). 4(ותאמר (אל משה, “she said: 5כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom to me on account of the circumcision.” She attributed the fact the Moses had almost be killedn to herself, i.e. as being her fault for having married her, a Midianite, something not appropriate for Hebrews to do. She considered herself as inferior to Moses. Exodus 4:26 1וירף ממנו, “he let him alone;” after Tzipporah had performed the circumcision on her son, the angel left. and no longer tried to kill Moses; at that point Tzipporah understood what it had been that caused her husband to almost have been killed, i.e. the fact that Eliezer had remained uncircumcised until then. This is the reason why she had not referred to the word למולות, “on account of circumcision,” in the previous verse where she first described herself a bridegroom of blood. A different interpretation: As long as Moses and Tzipporah had lived in her father’s house, Moses had not been punished for not having circumcised Eliezer because his fatherinlaw would have tried to prevent him from doing so. Compare Yonathan ben Uzziel on the subject who attributes the fact that Moses’ grandson became an idolater to the fact that Gershom had not been circumcised as part of an agreement between Moses and his fatherinlaw that one of his sons could be circumcised but not the other. The reason that the angel tried to kill Moses was on account of Tzipporah, who had opposed his circumcision before. (Compare Judges 18,30, and the commentators there) Nonetheless most people understand the matter as being the non circumcision of Eliezer, not Gershom. At the same time no one has attempted to either explain (away) the aggadah of Moses having made a deal with his fatherinlaw concerning the subject of circumcision. If you were to counter that Rashi on verse 2,16 has already stated that Yitro had abandoned idolatry so how could he have opposed Moses’ circumcising his son, I believe that this Rashi need not be understood literally, i.e. Yitro had not converted to Abrahamitic monotheism, but had become what we call “a ger toshav” a proselyte who had accepted the seven basic laws G-d gave to mankind. He himself had certainly not circumcised himself, in the opinion of Rashi. 2כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” According to Rashi, the word דמים should be understood as in שופך דמים, “spilling blood, killing. Compare Samuel II 16,7 צא איש הדמים, “get out murderer!” The verse ought to be rearranged so that it is understood as: כי דמים חתן אתה לי, “you were (potentially) a shedder of the blood of my groom for me.” (Alternately, these words could have been addressed to her baby Eliezer, meaning that the baby if not for the blood of his at the circumcision, it would have caused her groom’s death.