Mystery at the Malon

Introduction

PDF English Study Guide      PDF Hebrew Study Guide 

Interactive Module

Torahcast

Who, What, and Why?

The episode described in Shemot 4:24-26 is one of the most enigmatic stories in Torah. As Moshe travels from Midyan to Egypt to begin his mission, the family stops at a lodging place and trouble strikes:

EN/HEע/E

(כד) וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ י"י וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ. (כה) וַתִּקַּח צִפֹּרָה צֹר וַתִּכְרֹת אֶת עׇרְלַת בְּנָהּ וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי חֲתַן דָּמִים אַתָּה לִי. (כו) וַיִּרֶף מִמֶּנּוּ אָז אָמְרָה חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלֹת.

(24) And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. (25) Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.' (26) So He let him alone. Then she said: 'A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.'

Filled with ambiguous pronouns, difficult phrases and an unknown backdrop, these verses hide more than they reveal, raising a host of questions:

• Who is in danger of being killed, Moshe or one of his sons (and, if a son, which one)?
• Is Gershom or Eliezer the son who is being circumcised? Why had he not been circumcised until now? Why is it Zipporah rather than Moshe who performs the circumcision,¹ how does she know to do it, and why is circumcision the solution to the problem?
• What do the phrases כִּי חֲתַן דָּמִים אַתָּה לִי and חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלֹת mean? To whom is Zipporah referring, and what does she intend by her words?
• Finally, the most troubling question of all, why would Hashem want to kill anyone, let alone His trusted servant Moshe whom He has just entrusted with the most important mission in the history of mankind?²

A Prophetic Interruption

The immediate context of our story raises additional difficulties. Shemot 4:18-20 introduce Moshe's journey back to Egypt, and our episode would seem to be the logical continuation of these verses. Yet, the intervening verses of 4:21-23 appear to suddenly switch gears, recounting how Hashem told Moshe of Paroh's looming obstinacy and commanded him to relay a warning to Paroh about the Plague of the Firstborn. The placement of this prophecy is puzzling as Hashem has previously given Moshe much of this information, and the warning seems somewhat premature as Paroh has not yet been approached. These difficulties make one wonder whether the prophecy has some other meaning or purpose and to what extent it is connected to the mysterious events at the inn.

¹ The precedent of Zipporah is raised in the context of the discussion in the Talmud Bavli Avodah Zarah 27a as to whether a woman can perform the circumcision. [An additional question may be raised regarding Zipporah's religious status, and the prohibition of a heathen performing the circumcision – see Zipporah – Overview.] In attempting to reconcile the story with the opinion that a woman is prohibited, the Bavli suggests that either Zipporah may have only arranged for the circumcision or that Moshe may have completed it. The Halakhically questionable status of Zipporah's act motivates other exegetes to assume that there was no other option in this situation.

² See the opening formulation of the Toledot YitzchakShemot 4:24About R. Yitzchak Karo: "יש לשאול למה בקש המיתו ששלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין וכל שכן שהקב"ה השולח עצמו." In his subsequent analysis of Moshe's actions, R. Yitzchak Karo provides a wonderful illustration of the quandary faced by every exegete who attempts to comprehend this episode: A better rationale and justification of Moshe's conduct makes it that much more difficult to understand Hashem's wrath, and conversely, a clearer reason for the Divine punishment makes Moshe's deeds that much more perplexing. The Toledot Yitzchak bounces back and forth struggling to find a proper balance.

Some modern commentators attempt to answer this question by dredging up "sins" of Moshe from his distant past. W. Propp in The Anchor Yale Bible: Exodus 1-18 (New Haven, 1999): 234-238, notes that the plural "דָּמִים" often connotes bloodguilt. He suggests that "חֲתַן דָּמִים", then, refers to a bridegroom who has shed blood, and that the whole incident is a consequence of Moshe's killing of the Egyptian. Before Moshe could return to Egypt, his guilt had to be expiated. Zipporah accomplished this by spilling some of the blood of her son, touching it to her husband, and thereby atoning for him.

See also the suggestion of R. Meir Spiegelman that Moshe's marriage to Zipporah created a dangerous precedent for intermarriage and ultimately led to the problem of the "ערב רב". Cf. the Tur in his Long Commentary Shemot 4:25 who places a similar concern in Zipporah's mouth: "ויש מפרשים שאמרה למשה חתן דמים אתה לי, לפי שאתה שנתחתנת בי לפי שאני מדינית ואיני ראויה לך".