people, and sends a savior \u2013 Moshe \u2013 to liberate them. During Moshe\u2019s 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\u2019s 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, \u2018Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me.\u2019 So he let him go; then she said, \u2018A bridegroom of blood you are, because of the circumcision.\u2019 (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\u2019akov\u2019s strange battle prior to his meeting with his brother Esav, where he, too, is stalked by a celestial assailant1. There, Ya\u2019akov\u2019s thigh is wounded; here, a full- scale circumcision is performed. In Ya\u2019akov\u2019s case, as here in Sh\u2019mot, 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

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob\u2019s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, 'Let me go, for the day breaks.' And he said, 'I will not let you go, unless you bless me.' And he said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, Ya'akov.' And he said, 'Your name shall be called no more Ya'akov, but Yisrael; for as a prince you have power with G-d and with men, and have prevailed.' And Jacob asked him, and said, 'Tell me, I beg you, your name.' And he said, 'Why is it that you ask after my name?' And he blessed him there. And Yaakov called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen G-d face to face, and my life is preserved. And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he limped upon his thigh. Therefore the people of Israel do not eat of the sinew of the vein, which is in the hollow of the thigh, to this day; because he touched the hollow of Ya'acov\u2019s thigh in the sinew of the vein.

thigh, which is taken as a symbol of progeny2, or circumcision. A fourth element \u2013 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:

We are not told who the \u201che\u201d 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\u2019s 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: \u2018If 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

debate with Christians for millenium. The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a cites these verses as part of a debate between Jesus\u2019s disciples and the court. In Sanahedrin 107b there is a fascinating account of the origin of the apostasy of Jesus, with the crucial scene taking place in an inn on the way to Israel from Egypt. Here a woman is the downfall of the supposed savior, while in the Biblical text a woman, "saves" the \u201csavior\u201d. Please note that both of these passages have been expunged from most editions of the Talmud.

Here, a rationale for the attack is also presented: Moshe should not have displayed \u201capathy\u201d toward this Mitzvah4. As soon as the opportunity presented itself, Moshe should have fulfilled the commandment. The Talmud explains the source of Moshe\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cchatan\u201d art thou to me." Go forth and see: who is called a \u201cchatan\u201d? 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\u2019s hesitation in coming to redeem the people indicated some type of indifference to the nation described as \u201cthe first born of G-d\u201d. 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.

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)