Parshat Shmot 5759

Moshe’s Stop
Rabbi Ari Kahn

T
he 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
1
Bereishit 32:25-33
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’s
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’s thigh in the sinew of the vein.

1
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

2
For example see Shmot 1:5: 'And all the souls who came from the thigh of Ya'acov were seventy
souls; for Yoseph was in Egypt already.
3
The first verses, dealing with the choseness of the Jewish people, has been the subject of polemical
debate with Christians for millenium. The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a cites these verses as part of a debate
between Jesus’s 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
“savior”. Please note that both of these passages have been expunged from most editions of the
Talmud.

2
 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)

4
According to the Zohar there is an intrinsic relationship between circumcision and possessing the
land of Israel, perhaps Moshe is further punished by not being allowed to enter Israel as a result of this
indiscretion. See Zohar Berishit 93b

3
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

5
The Michilta (Yitro Amalek chapter 1), actually translates the word “Vayoel” as a vow, which is the
vow Moshe made with Yitro, see Torah Shelemah Shmot note 166, for a fuller discussion on this
Michilta, and explanations how Moshe could have made such a vow.
6
The Baal Haturim (2:16) insists that Moshe knew that one day Yitro would come to join G-d, and
therefore made this deal. He further notes that Moshe was nonetheless punished and the descendants of
Moshe did in fact one day become idolaters. See Baba Batra 109b and Shoftim 18:11. See Rabbi E.Y.
Waldenberg Tzitz Eliezer 18:53.
7
See Targum Yonaton Ben Uzziel on 4:24,25 where the Mechilta is incorporated into these verses, and
Gershom is identified as the child who was now circumcised.

4
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)

8
There are sources which indicate that Zippora too was a descendent of Avraham through Ketura. See
Torah Shelemah Sh’mot note 170, where Rav Kasher cites this “tradition” in the name of Josephus
Antiquities 2:11. Rav Kasher assumes that Chazal must have had the same tradition, especially when
one notes that one of Ketura’s children is called Midian (Bereishit 25:2)
9
The description of Moshe as an Egyptian man when he arrives in Midian is explained in the Midrash
as a reference to his clothing: Midrash Rabbah - Exodus I:32
"And they said: An Egyptian delivered us out of the hands of the shepherds" (ib. 19). Was then Moshe
an Egyptian? No, he was a Hebrew but his dress was Egyptian.

5
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
10
4:11,12 “And the Lord said to him, Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes the dumb, or deaf, or
the seeing, or the blind? Is it not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth, and
teach you what you shall say.”
11
The comments of the Rashbam are on the verse dealing with the struggle of Ya’akov! (Bereishit
32:29), although the Rashbam does not note the series of parallels I mentioned above.

6
 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

7
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