Parshat Shmot 5759

Moshe’s Stop

Rabbi Ari Kahn

 

The Book of Sh’mot begins with the children of Israel in Egypt, suffering the pains of enslavement. G-d “remembers” His people, and sends a savior – Moshe – to liberate them. During Moshe’s initial encounter with the Divine, at the Burning Bush, Moshe displays extreme hesitation in accepting the role of savior. G-d shows Moshe various manifestations of His power, and, finally, Moshe acquiesces, and begins his journey to Egypt to facilitate the redemption of his brothers. Immediately prior to Moshe’s reunification with his brother Aharon, the Torah shares the following episode:

 

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zippora took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and threw it at his feet, and said, ‘Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me.’ So he let him go; then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood you are, because of the circumcision.’ (4:24-26)

 

The text is enigmatic and confusing. Why did G-d wish to kill Moshe? Why choose him as a leader and savior, and cajole him into returning to Egypt, only to execute him on the way? What is the significance of the circumcision? Why does it need to be performed at this juncture? How does Zippora know that this is the gesture which will bring healing?

On one level, the story reminds us of Ya’akov’s strange battle prior to his meeting with his brother Esav, where he, too, is stalked by a celestial assailant¹. There, Ya’akov’s thigh is wounded; here, a full-scale circumcision is performed. In Ya’akov’s case, as here in Sh’mot, the text provide no rationale for the attack. These episodes may be seen as sharing three thematic elements: anticipation of a long-awaited rendezvous with a brother after years of separation, the attack from above, and the resolution --either an attack on the thigh, which is taken as a symbol of progeny², or circumcision. A fourth element – the mystery of the attack itself, has already come to our attention. Additionally, a certain ambiguity is noted in this passage itself: While the text seems to speak of the object of the attack being Moshe, it does not clearly state as much:

 

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

 

We are not told who the “he” is. Although the text points toward identification with Moshe, the text remains enigmatic and obscure. Based on the context one may posit that the victim is not Moshe but his son!

 

And the Lord said to Moshe, 'When you go to return to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Paroh, which I have put in your hand; but I will harden his heart, so that he shall not let the people go. And you shall say to Paroh, 'Thus said the Lord, "Israel is my son, my firstborn; And I say to you, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, your firstborn." And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.³ (4:21-24)

 

The topic was sons and the killing of sons, specifically the firstborn. Perhaps the contextual evidence points to Moshe’s son as victim and not Moshe. In the Talmud this point is debated. The first opinion states that the intended victim was Moshe:

 

It was taught: R. Joshua b. Karha said, 'Great is circumcision, for all the meritorious deeds performed by Moshe our teacher did not stand him in stead when he displayed apathy towards circumcision, as it is written, "And the Lord met him, and sought to kill him." ' R. Yose said, 'God forbid that Moshe should have been apathetic towards circumcision, but he reasoned thus: ‘If I circumcise [my son] and [straightway] go forth [on my mission to Paroh], I will endanger his life, as it is written, "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore." If I circumcise him, and tarry three days,-- but the Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded: Go, return unto Egypt.' Why then was Moshe punished? Because he busied himself first with the inn, as it is written, 'And it came to pass by the way, in the inn.' (Nedarim 32a)

 

Here, a rationale for the attack is also presented: Moshe should not have displayed “apathy” toward this Mitzvah⁴. As soon as the opportunity presented itself, Moshe should have fulfilled the commandment. The Talmud explains the source of Moshe’s ambivalence: He has two commandments to worry about. The first is to heed the word of G-d and save the entire nation. The other he saw as more parochial: the circumcision of his own son. The Talmud’s point is that now, when he was in proximity to Egypt, he could have performed the procedure, but instead, he was busy with lodging arrangements. There is, however, a second opinion in the Talmud:

 

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: 'Satan did not seek to slay Moshe but the child, for it is written, "[Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it as his feet, and said,] Surely a bloody “chatan” art thou to me." Go forth and see: who is called a “chatan”? Surely the infant [to be circumcised]. (Nedarim 32b)

 

Rav Shimon Ben Gamliel, assumes that the resolution of the episode, the circumcision of the child, is intrinsically related to the entire event. According to this opinion, the intended victim is not Moshe but his son. While this would clarify the identity of the victim, the motive for the attack remains obscure. When we recall the context, the discussion of the death of the first-born of Egypt, the threat of a child's death becomes more intelligible: Moshe’s hesitation in coming to redeem the people indicated some type of indifference to the nation described as “the first born of G-d”. Therefore, Moshe's own first-born is in peril.

 

In spite of this deductive reasoning, it is interesting to note that there is no consensus among the Midrashim regarding of the identity of the child. As we know, Moshe had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer.

 

The birth of Gershom is noted in the text:

 

And Moshe was content to dwell with the man; and he gave Moshe Zippora his daughter. And she bore him a son, and he called his name Gershom; for he said, 'I have been a stranger in a strange land.' (2:21,22)

 

Yet when Moshe takes leave of Midian and sets out for Egypt, two sons are mentioned:

 

And Moshe took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt; and Moshe took the rod of G-d in his hand. (4:20)

 

Later in the Torah we are told about the second son, Eliezer:

 

…and her two sons; and the name of one was Gershom; for he said, 'I have been a stranger in a strange land.' And the name of the other was Eliezer; 'For the G-d of my father,' said he, 'was my help, and saved me from the sword of Paroh.' (18:3,4)

 

Presumably, the birth of Eliezer was immediately prior to the family's departure from Midian– perhaps at this juncture he did not even have a name. Now we may understand Moshes’s difficulty: This child is but a few days old. How could he make such a journey, especially with a fresh wound. Yet G-d called upon him to begin the Exodus, so leave he must.

 

There is, however, a bit more intrigue surrounding the birth of Gershom. The name denotes strangeness, isolation. The birth is noted as representing Moshe’s dwelling in a strange land. Undoubtedly this strangeness caused Moshe spiritual angst; nonetheless the Torah speaks of a certain level of “comfort” which Moshe achieves.

 

And Moshe was content to dwell with the man; (2:21)

 

The Mechilta detects something ominous about this comfort⁵. According to this opinion, Moshe had agreed that his first-born son would belong to Yitro, would be dedicated to cultic service. Yitro, introduced as “Priest” of Midian (2:16), writes this clause into the marital agreement for his eldest daughter, and Moshe acquiesced⁶. If this is the case, it is quite likely that Gershom, the son who embodies and personifies Moshe’s strangeness, was not circumcised; indeed, he was never seen as part of Moshe’s people.⁷

 

Nevertheless, upon leaving Midian, Moshe takes both of his sons. According to the Mechilta, the attack on Moshe was due to his abandoning of his first-born. Now in the “hotel” on the way to redeem G-d’s first born, Moshe is in peril. This is the last test, the final criteria for being deemed a worthy representative of the People of Israel: He must liberate his first-born.

 

In this light, yet another parallel between Moshe and Ya’akov is striking: both were leaving pagan fathers-in-law. Echoing Avraham’s iconoclasm, Rachel tried to wean her father from his idols, and Zippora⁸ performs the circumcision on her own son, rejecting her father's claim on the child.

 

Zipppora declares that her husband is a “chatan damim,” a groom of blood. The man whom Zippora married was a Jew who dressed like an Egyptian⁹, a fugitive from the justice system of Egypt. He was comfortable with the deal struck with Yitro. But Moshe changes: he becomes a prophet of G-d, a man with a mission. In this episode, Zippora indicates her own metamorphosis: She takes both of her sons, and she circumcises Gershom, her father’s nascent follower. She is symbolically and physically displaying her fidelity to G-d, to His messenger Moshe, and to the mission Moshe has undertaken. In a sense, she is retaking her vows with Moshe, Moshe Rabbenu, not the wanderer she had married years ago.

 

After this stop at the inn, where Moshe puts his own house in order, he may continue his journey toward Egypt and the reunion with his brother Aharon who awaits his arrival. According to the Torah, Aharon has been waiting for some time:

 

Is not Aharon the Levi your brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he comes forth to meet you; and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. (4:14)

 

This verse, the final argument G-d uses to deflect Moshe's hesitation, is recorded before Moshe takes to the road for Egypt. The first part of the verse is equally instructive.

 

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moshe, and he said, 'Is not Aharon the Levi your brother? I know that he can speak well… (4:14)

 

What was it that precipitated the anger of G-d? Moshe’s constant refusal to begin the mission. Moshe’s modesty and feelings of inadequacy would not allow him to accept the challenge. However, G-d's repeated assurances of His active participation should have defused Moshe's self-doubt.¹⁰ According to our Sages, Moshe was punished for his excessive hesitation:

 

What anger was there? The priesthood was taken from Moshe and given to Aaron. Our Sages said, this is the meaning of "Is not Aharon thy brother the Levi? Since it says ’thy brother’, do we not know that he was a Levi? But G-d said to him: ‘You were worthy of being a priest and he a Levit but since you reject my words, you shall be a Levi and he a priest.’ (Midrash Rabbah - Exodus III:17)

 

Due to Moshe’s hesitation, the Exodus is delayed, and Aharon will be Kohen in Moshe's place. According to the Rashbam, ¹¹ the anger of G-d mentioned here is the cause of the attack at the inn. A textual oddity supports this line of association: The text describes Moshe's meeting with Aharon:

 

And the Lord said to Aharon, 'Go into the wilderness to meet Moshe.' And he went, and met him in the mount of G-d, and kissed him. (4:14)

 

The word “met” vayfig'shehu, is used only one other time in the entire Tanach: the previous section:

 

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

 

The juxtaposition of this singular usage leads us to conclude that there is some type of intrinsic connection between the two meetings: Had Moshe set out earlier to meet his brother and set the process of Israel's redemption in motion, the ominous meeting with G-d at the inn would have been averted.

 

It is fascinating that G-d's anger, first kindled here, seems to echo in other places. The Talmud identifies the force which attacked Moshe as “Af and Chema”

 

R. Judah b. Bizna lectured: When Moshe was lax in the performance of circumcision, Af and Hemah came and swallowed him up, leaving nought but his legs. Thereupon immediately Zippora ‘took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son [and threw it at his feet]'; straightway he let him alone. (Nedarim 32a)

 

Moshe himself becomes full of this same anger at a later juncture:

 

And it came to pass, as soon as he came near to the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing; and Moshe’ anger (Af) burned hot, and he threw the tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the Mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burned it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it upon the water, and made the people of Israel drink of it. And Moshe said to Aharon, 'What did this people to you, that you have brought so great a sin upon them?' And Aharon said, 'Let not the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are set on evil.' (32:19-22)

 

The breaking of the tablets results when Moshe displays the anger which burns within. Could the source of this anger be the anger which G-d had earlier directed toward Moshe himself? Later, when Moshe recapitulates and describes these events in D’varim, he employs the same terms used in the Talmud’s description of the forces which attacked Moshe, Af and Chemah:

 

And I looked, and, behold, you had sinned against the Lord your G-d, and had made yourselves a molten calf; you had turned aside quickly from the way which the Lord had commanded you. And I took the two tablets, and threw them out of my two hands, and broke them before your eyes. And I fell down before the Lord, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I did not eat bread, nor drink water, because of all your sins which you sinned, in doing wickedly in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. For I was afraid of the anger and wrath (Af and Chema) with which the Lord was angry against you to destroy you. But the Lord listened to me at that time also. And the Lord was so very angry with Aharon that he was ready to destroy him; and I prayed for Aharon also the same time. (D’varim 9:16-20)

 

Now the anger is directed toward the entire people. At Sinai, Moshe did not actually tarry in completing his mission; his tardiness existed only in the minds of the people. Is it possible that the entire chain of events leading up to the sin of the Golden Calf could have been avoided had Moshe set out to meet his brother and perform his duties as redeemer with more enthusiasm? Had he done so, he would have retained the priesthood, and the people would never have turned to Aharon to build them a calf. Perhaps the people, redeemed only that little bit sooner, would not have slipped to such depths of depravity, would never have even desired to build a graven image. Either way, the world would have been spared this particular form of anger and wrath.

 

Something very significant took place in that mysterious stop on the way to Egypt. Because of the stop, Moshe’s family was healed and spiritually fortified but a power was unleashed which later attacked the entire people with a vengeance. Who was the victim of the attack, Moshe or Gershom? Even though the two explanations offered appear mutually exclusive, the terseness of language is deliberate, leaving the text purposely obscure and, as a result, leaving us with two valid approaches. If we look at the previous section, where G-d speaks of his “firstborn Israel”, we are led to explain the section vis a vis Moshe’s son, Gershom. On the other hand, when we note the next verse, which speaks of the “meeting” with Aharon, we are forced to compare Moshe with Aharon and especially the loss of the Kehuna. 'Elu v' elu divrei Elokim Chaim.'

 

 

 

© 1998 Rabbi Ari Kahn, All Rights Reserved