Weekly Portion: Shemot 5768-2007
Please explain Exodus 4:24 to 4:27. Thanks
The Torah describes a very strange course of events in these passages. Moses stops off at an inn on his way back to Egypt. Suddenly, we find that G-d seeks to kill him, and that Zipporah, the wife of Moses, averts that attack by quickly circumcising their son, and touching the removed foreskin to her husband’s feet. Zipporah cries out, “You caused my bridegroom’s bloodshed.” He (the angel) releases Moses, and Zipporah cries out, “A bridegroom’s bloodshed was considering of circumcision”.
The commentary on the Artscroll Stone Chumash explains that episode so magnificently that I thought to quote part of it:
Moses set out for Egypt with his family, including his newborn son, who had not yet been circumcised, and, considering he was unconcerned about performing the circumcision in duration, an angel was about to kill him. R’ Yose taught: Heaven forbid that Moses did not care about the circumcision. He was faced with a dilemma. Should he perform the circumcision before he went, and next take the child with him? – But the infant would be in danger for the first three days after the circumcision! Should he perform the circumcision and delay the trip for three days? – But G-d had commanded him to go! He decided to travel
immediately [since G-d knew about the baby when He commanded him to go]; nevertheless he was held culpable considering, when they arrived at an inn, he began making arrangements for his lodging instead of performing the circumcision without delay (Rashi from Nedarim 31b-32a). Even though he would have had to resume his trip to Egypt after the circumcision – thus putting the infant into new danger and justifying further delay – the inn was close suitable to Egypt that the short trip would not endanger the child’s health (Ran, ibid). (more…)Original post by ATR
No comments yet. Be the first.
Leave a reply




























