Mystery at the Malon/2/he

תעלומת סיפור המלון

גישות פרשניות

סקירה

בנסיונותיהם להבין את האירוע במלון, פרשנים מוצאים עצמם במבוכה. מצד אחד, נראה שהפסוק אומר שה' ביקש להמית את משה או את בנו, ומשתמע מכך שנעשה חטא חמור כלשהו. מצד שני, המקרא מכיל מעט מאוד רמזים המעידים על עבירה כזו, ולייחס מעשה נורא למשה היה הופך אותו לבלתי ראוי להיות שליח ה'. הפרשן נותר, אם כן, במלכוד, כאשר ככל שמחפים יותר על פעולותיו של משה, אלה של ה' נראים צודקים פחות, וכן להיפך.

הגישה הרווחת ביותר מציעה שמשה אכן נענש על חטא כלשהו. מקורות תנאיים, שנקודת מוצאם היא מברית המילה שבמסקנת הסיפור, מציעים שמשה כנראה התרשל במילת בנו. חלק עושים מאמץ לצמצם את אשמתו של משה בכך שהם מסבירים שהיתה רק התעכבות קלה כתוצאה מהמסע, ור' סעדיה גאון אפילו מסיר את כל האחריות ממשה בכך שהוא מניח שהוא לא היה נוכח במשך המאורע כולו. בניגוד לכך, ר' אלעזר המודעי מנסה למצוא עבירה מתאימה יותר לתגובה הקשה של ה', והוא מציע שמשה חתם הסכם עם יתרו שאחד מבניו לעולם לא יהיה נימול.
אחרים מסתכלים במקום זאת על ההקשר הרחב יותר של סיפורנו, ומציעים שתגובה א-לוהית חמורה כל כך היא כנראה תוצאה של בעיתיות בשליחות הלאומית של משה שגרמה להשלכות הרבה יותר נרחבות. פרשנים אלה צריכים להסביר מדוע ברית המילה שאינה קשורה לכאורה הצליחה להשקיט את רוגזו של ה'. רשב"ם מסביר שמשה התמהמה בביצוע משימתו, וברית המילה היתה קרבן כפרה על כך. ראב"ע רואה את העובדה שמשה צירף את משפחתו למסע, לא כחטא, אלא כטעות טקטית שהיתה עלולה לגרום להורדת מורל העם. תגובת ה' היתה אם כן מכוונת רק לתיקון הטעות הזו ולוודא שהמשפחה נותרה מאחור. לבסוף, אבן כספי מציע שלא היה שום חטא או אפילו טעות מצדו של משה; אלא שחרדתו הגדולה של משה מאימת משימתו גרמה לו לחלות אנושות.

בהערכת פעולותיו של משה ותגובותיו של הקב"ה בפרשה זו, מציעים הפרשנים ספקטרום של גישות. אלה מתחלקות לשלוש קטגוריות מרכזיות:

undefined

חטא ועונשו

משה או ציפורה חטאו והיו ראויים לעונש. פרשנים אלה מציעים אפשרויות שונות לגבי אופי ההתנהגות הפסולה:

בן שלא נימול

משה או ציפורה חטאו בכך שלא מלו את אחד מבניהם. המניע הברור לגישה זו היא שהמילה היא מה שמונע את האסון.¹ הוריאציות של עמדה זו חולקות ביחס לשאלה מדוע לא התבצעה המילה עד כה:

משה התעכב בגלל המסע

זו אולי הקריאה הפשוטה ביותר של הטקסט מכיוון שהיא דורשת את המספר הקטן ביותר של הנחות נוספות. אולם, היא נתקלת בקשיים בהצדקת חומרת העונש.

מקורות:ר' יהושע בן קרחה, רבי, ר' יוסי, ור' שמעון בן גמליאל במשנה נדריםג':י"אאודות משנה נדרים, מכילתא דרבי ישמעאלundefinedאודות Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, ירושלמי נדריםג':ט'אודות ירושלמי נדרים ובבלי נדריםל"א:-ל"ב.אודות בבלי נדרים, שמות רבהה':ח'אודות שמות רבה, רש"ישמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' שלמה יצחקי, רלב"גשמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' לוי בן גרשון, ספורנושמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' עובדיה ספורנו

חטאו של משה – רבי במכילתא דרבי ישמעאל ור' יהושע בן קרחה בבבלי אומרים שמשה לא נזהר כמו שצריך או התרשל בביצוע מצוות מילה. ר' יוסי² מנסה לצמצם את העבירה, ומציע שחטאו היחיד של משה היה שהתעסק בסידורי לינה לפני שמל את בנו.³

איזה בן לא נימול ומדוע לא? שמות רבה ורש"י מזהים את הבן שלא נימול עם אליעזר שזה עתה נולד.⁴ אילו היה זה גרשום, ההתעכבות של משה היתה פחות מובנת, ואפשר היה לצפות מה' להעניש את משה מוקדם יותר ולא לחכות עד שישלח אותו למשימתו במצרים.

מי היה במקום הלינה? לגישה זו, המשפחה כולה היתה במלון, כולל משה, ציפורה, ושני בניהם.

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" – רוב הפרשנים האלו מציעים שה' שלח מלאך כדי לבצע את ההריגה.⁵ ר' שמעון בן גמליאל לוקח צעד נוסף קדימה ומזהה את המלאך בתור השטן.⁶ הניסוח הקדום והקיצוני ביותר של עמדה זו נמצאת בספר היובליםמ"ח:א'-ה'אודות Jubilees שמציע שמשטמה (דמות שטנית) ניסתה להרוג את משה בכדי למנוע ממנו להעניש את המצרים.⁷ רלב"ג, לעומת זאת, אומר שהפסוק מתייחס רק למחלה אנושה.

"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – מי כמעט מת? רוב המפרשים מניחים כי משה הוא זה שהיה בסכנה, כנראה מכיוון שהוא זה שחטא.⁸ ר' שמעון בן גמליאל, לעומת זאת, לא מסכים וטוען שהתינוק הוא זה שהיה בסכנה והוא זה שאליו התייחסו במילים "חתן דמים".⁹ סביר שר' שמעון בן גמליאל גם מונע מהבעיה מדוע ה' ינסה להרוג את שלוחו מייד אחרי ששלח אותו למשימה.¹⁰

עונש לא מידתי? אחד הקשיים בגישה זו הוא שהעונש הפוטנציאלי נראה לא מידתי ביחס לפשע.¹¹

מילה היא הפתרון – מכיוון שהיעדר המילה היא הבעיה, זו גם הדרך הברורה מאליה לתקן את המצב.

מדוע ציפורה ולא משה? הפרשנים שמחזיקים בדעה שמשה היה בסכנה ומשותק יכולים אם כן להסביר מדוע ציפורה הוצרכה לבצע את המילה.

איך ציפורה ידעה מהו הפתרון? ר' יהודה בן ביזנא בבבלי ובשמות רבה מסביר שמשה נבלע עד למקום המילה,¹² וכך ציפורה הבינה את הגורם לבעיה.¹³

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – רגליו של מי? הירושלמי מביא שלוש דעות – רגליו של משה, המלאך, או הבן. רש"י בוחר בעמדה שהיו אלה רגלי משה,¹⁴ בעוד שרלב"ג מאמץ את הדעה שהיו אלה רגלי הבן.¹⁵

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – ר' שמעון בן גמליאל מניח שביטוי זה מתייחס לתינוק המדמם,¹⁶ בעוד ששמות רבה וספורנו אומרים שהוא מתייחס למשה, שניצל על ידי דם הערלה.¹⁷ רש"י מאחד את האפשרויות בכך שהוא מציע שציפורה למעשה מדברת אל התינוק, אך אומרת שכמעט גרם לחתנה – בעלה – להיהרג.¹⁸

הקשר – אחד החסרונות של גישה זו היא שאין קשר ברור בין הפרשה הזו לפסוקים שקודמים לה.

"אחר שלוחיה" – שמות רבה ורש"י חושבים שבשלב הראשון ציפורה היתה בדרך חזרה למצרים עם משה, ורק לאחר מכן חזרה למדין. ספורנו, לעומת זאת, מציע שהמאורע במלון התרחש בזמן שמשה ליווה את משפחתו חזרה ליתרו במדין. לניתוח נוסף, ראה מתי ציפורה חזרה למדין.

ציפורה התעכבה בגלל המסע

משה לא היה נוכח במלון, וציפורה נשאה באחריות מלאה למאורע כולו. גם עמדה זו אינה מסבירה את הצורך בעונש כל כך דרמטי.

מקורות:R. SaadiaTafsir Shemot 4:20Tafsir Shemot 4:24-26Cited by R. Yonah ibn Janach s.v. שלחCited by R. Avraham b. HaRambam Shemot 4:24Cited by R. Avraham b. HaRambam Shemot 18:2About R. Saadia Gaon,¹⁹ R. ChananelR. Chananel Yoma 85bCited by R. Bachya Shemot 4:24About R. Chananel

Did Moshe sin? This approach avoids attributing any sin or blame to Moshe.²⁰

"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" and who was at the lodging place? R. Saadia explains that, at some point after departing for Egypt, Moshe decided to send Zipporah with their children back home to Midyan while he continued alone to Egypt.²¹ For further analysis, see When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan. Thus, only Zipporah and her sons were present at the inn.²²

Context – According to R. Saadia, Shemot 4:20 serves as a dual introduction, telling the reader where each of Zipporah and Moshe were headed. The text then continues as a split screen, first recounting the prophecy received by Moshe as he embarked on his mission, and then relating the simultaneous incident which occurred to Zipporah at the lodge.

Which son was uncircumcised and why not? The newly born Eliezer is the uncircumcised son. According to R. Saadia, Zipporah was either negligent or thought it could wait until she arrived home.

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" – R. Saadia and R. Chananel both explain that this was an angel, with R. Chananel suggesting like the Midrash above that the angel was in the guise of a snake and was swallowing the baby until the point of his circumcision.²³

"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – Who was near death? As Moshe is not present, it can only be his son (Eliezer) who is endangered. This opinion thus avoids the question of why Hashem would endanger His messenger.

Disproportionate punishment? It is difficult to understand why Hashem would want to kill Moshe's baby merely because his circumcision had been slightly delayed.

Circumcision is the solution – As circumcision was the cause of the situation, it was also the obvious way to solve the problem.

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? One readily understands that Zipporah performs the circumcision as Moshe was not there. In fact, this is R. Chananel's point of departure.

How did Zipporah know the solution? According to R. Saadia, Zipporah received heavenly inspiration. For R. Chananel who adapts the Midrash that a snake was swallowing the baby until the point of his circumcision, this provided a clear signal as to the nature of the problem.

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – Whose legs? This approach could maintain that it was the baby's legs, but R. Saadia may understand that Zipporah presented the foreskin in front of the angel.

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – R. Saadia and R. Chananel explain that Zipporah is referring to the baby who was almost killed.

ברית עם יתרו שלא למול

כדי שיוכל לשאת את ציפורה, משה ערך הסכם קדם-נישואי הזוי עם יתרו שאחד מבניו "יהיה מיועד לעבודה זרה".

מקורות:R. Elazar HaModai in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro Amalek 1About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 4:24-26About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 18:3About Midrash Aggadah (Buber),²⁴ Midrash VayoshaOtzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.150)About Midrash Vayosha

Moshe's sin and proportionate punishment – By providing a broader backdrop for the lack of circumcision and amplifying its problematic ramifications, this approach makes the severity of the potential punishment more understandable.

How could Moshe make such a deal? Ibn EzraShort Commentary Shemot 4:25About R. Avraham ibn Ezra dismisses this entire approach, claiming that it is impossible that Moshe Rabbeinu would have agreed to such terms "ונביא לא יעשה כן. ואף כי נביא הנביאים". Others disagree, attempting to either defend or at least understand Moshe's actions:

• Midrash Vayosha says that Moshe actually had no intention of keeping his side of the bargain. Thus, as soon as Eliezer was born, he left for Egypt, planning to circumcise the boy there.²⁵
• It is possible that Moshe, having found refuge from Paroh in Yitro's home, had no choice but to accept the conditions set by Yitro or find himself once again on the run.²⁶
• One must also consider the possibility that at this stage of our story, having grown up in Paroh's palace, Moshe's Jewish identity was not fully developed, and he had no qualms about accepting Yitro's request. For more, see Moshe's Character.²⁷

Textual basis – One of the main disadvantages of this approach is that there is no mention of any such agreement in the book of Shemot. Nonetheless, there are a number of possible hints which may have served the Midrashim as textual hooks for the existence of such a contract.²⁸ These include:

• R. Elazar HaModai notes that the Biblical derivation of Gershom's name ("גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה") alludes to being "foreign to God."
• R. Elazar HaModai understands "וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ" in Shemot 2:21 as a language of oath-taking.
• Chazal's identification of the idolatrous priest of Shofetim 18:20 as Moshe's grandson.²⁹

Context – It is possible that the proximity of verses 23-24 to our story influenced the development of the original Midrashic motif. It might have understood the second person direct speech of "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" in verse 23 as Hashem turning to speak to Moshe (rather than Paroh who is not present), and saying, "I have told you to send your son to worship me (i.e. circumcise him) but you have refused; I will therefore kill your firstborn son."³⁰ "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" would then refer to Moshe's firstborn son, Gershom.

Which son was uncircumcised and why not?

• Gershom – R. Elazar HaModai in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.³¹ R. Elazar HaModai's choice of Gershom rather than Eliezer appears to be motivated by the Torah's derivations of the two names.³² Additionally, Eliezer has not yet been mentioned explicitly,³³ and the context of "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" may tip the scales toward Gershom.
• Eliezer – Midrash Aggadah and Midrash Vayosha.³⁴ Their choice of Eliezer explains why Moshe was punished only at the inn, and not already at the time of Gershom's birth.³⁵

Who was at the lodging place? If the son was Eliezer, then Moshe and his entire family were present. However, if the son was Gershom, it is possible that Eliezer was not yet born.³⁶

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" – Most of these sources suggest that Hashem sent an angel to attack Moshe. Midrash Vayosha goes a step further and identifies the angel as a "שטן" in the guise of a snake.³⁷

"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – Who was near death? Most of these sources maintain that Moshe was endangered, presumably because he was the one who sinned. However, if "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" is directed at Moshe, it is Moshe's son who is in danger.

Circumcision is the solution – Since the lack of circumcision is the problem, it is the obvious way to rectify the situation.

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? If Moshe was being attacked, he was unavailable. If the son was being attacked, Zipporah may have performed the circumcision because she or her father was the one who had initially refused to have him circumcised.³⁸

How did Zipporah know the solution? If "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְיַעַבְדֵנִי..." in verse 23 is directed at Moshe, Hashem stated explicitly what was imperiling Moshe's life. Alternatively, Midrash Vayosha adopts the motif of R. Yehuda b. Bizna that Moshe was being swallowed until the place of his circumcision, and Zipporah thus was able to intuit the cause of the problem.

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – Whose legs? Targum Pseudo-Jonathan understands that Zipporah is presenting the foreskin as a penance offering in front of the angel's legs. Midrash Vayosha, on the other hand, cannot explain it as the Satan-snake's legs, as snakes do not have legs. It thus depicts Zipporah sprinkling blood on Moshe's legs,³⁹ perhaps as protection.⁴⁰

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that Zipporah was referring to Moshe, as he was the one endangered.

שליחות שהתעכבה

משה התמהמה בביצוע שליחותו לגאול את בני ישראל. על גישה זו להסביר איך מילת בנו של משה תיקנה את המצב.

מקורות:Midrash YelammedenuGenizah (Mann 102a)About Midrash Yelammedenu, Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 4:24About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), RashbamShemot 4:14Shemot 4:24-26About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Yosef KimchiSefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)About R. Yosef Kimchi, R. Avraham Ibn DaudSefer HaEmunah HaRamah, Maamar 3About Avraham Ibn Daud, Tzeror HaMorShemot 4:24-25About R. Avraham Saba

Moshe's sin – These commentators suggest two possible infractions which constituted the delay:

• Lodging at the inn⁴¹ – Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Aggadah (Buber) say that Moshe procrastinated by staying at the inn.⁴² This approach likely understands "בַּמָּלוֹן" as an actual guest lodge and not just any place where Moshe pitched a tent for the night.⁴³
• Bringing his family with him to Egypt – Rashbam⁴⁴ and the Tzeror HaMor suggest that Moshe taking his family caused unnecessary delay.⁴⁵

Proportionate punishment – Hashem's reacted harshly because Moshe's action (or inaction) had consequences for the entire nation.⁴⁶ Hashem's attack was intended to send a message to Moshe to execute his mission in a timely manner.

How does circumcision help? This approach encounters great difficulty in understanding the role of circumcision.

• According to Rashbam, the circumcision functioned as some form of sacrifice⁴⁷ to appease the angel who was trying to kill Moshe.⁴⁸
• R. Avraham Ibn Daud says that the drawing of blood can have an astrological influence and save people who are in life threatening danger.⁴⁹
• The Tzeror HaMor, on the other hand, maintains that Moshe rectified his mistake by hurrying off to Egypt and leaving Zipporah with their sons at the inn.⁵⁰ The account of the circumcision, according to him, is wholly unconnected to either the sin or punishment.⁵¹
• Alternatively, Moshe's procrastination was a sign of his lack of identity with his Jewish brothers; performing the circumcision actively showed his connection to his people.⁵²

"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – Who was near death? According to most of these sources, the target of Hashem's wrath was Moshe as it was his sin.⁵³ However, R. Yosef Kimchi claims that Hashem came to kill Gershom.⁵⁴

Which son was uncircumcised and why not? Most of these commentators probably hold that Eliezer was the uncircumcised son who had just been born. R. Yosef Kimchi, though, combines this approach with the Midrash above, suggesting that a deal was made with Zipporah and her family not to circumcise Gershom.⁵⁵

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? Those who hold that Moshe was endangered can say that he was incapacitated. R"Y Kimchi says that Zipporah was compensating for not previously allowing this son to be circumcised. According to Tzeror HaMor, as soon as Moshe became aware of Hashem's anger, he hurried to Egypt, leaving Zipporah behind to circumcise their son.⁵⁶

How did Zipporah know the solution? According to R"Y Kimchi,⁵⁷ Moshe told her that the cause of the danger was that Gershom was uncircumcised. The Tzeror HaMor, who says that Moshe was not present, would probably simply maintain that the baby was eight days old.

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – Whose legs?

• Moshe's – Rashbam says that Zipporah touched the foreskin to Moshe's feet as a way of appeasing the angel.⁵⁸
• The son's – R. Yosef Kimchi⁵⁹ maintains that "וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" describes the act of circumcision itself, with "לְרַגְלָיו" being a euphemism for genitals.⁶⁰

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – According to Rashbam, Zipporah meant that Moshe was saved because of the circumcision. Tzeror HaMor, though, maintains that Moshe was not there and thus understands the "חֲתַן" to be the son with whom Zipporah was playing.

Context – R. Yosef Kimchi suggests that verse 23 is integral to our story. Hashem instructs Moshe to command Paroh to let His "son" (The Children of Israel) go and then Hashem turns to Moshe telling him "You have refused to go on my mission to take them out,⁶¹ and therefore, I will kill your (Moshe's) firstborn."⁶² The words "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ", according to him, refers to Moshe's firstborn son, Gershom. R. Avraham Ibn Daud adopts a similar approach, arguing that the verse was really directed at Paroh, but that it applied to Moshe as well because he had also caused a delay of the nation's redemption from Egypt.

"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" – According to the Tzeror HaMor, after the circumcision, Zipporah returned with her children to her father's home.⁶³

טעות בשיפוט ופעולה מתקנת

משה טעה בכך שתיכנן להביא את משפחתו למצרים, ומילת בנו של משה מנעה את יישומה המלא של תכניתו.

מקורות:Midrash from the GenizahGenizah (Mann 238a), Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 4:20Long Commentary Shemot 4:23-26Short Commentary Shemot 4:20Short Commentary Shemot 4:24-26About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef KimchiSefer HaGalui s.v. אז (p.68-69)About R. Yosef Kimchi,⁶⁴ ShadalShemot 4:23-26About R. S.D. Luzzatto

Moshe's error – These exegetes suggest two possible negative consequences that would have resulted had Moshe's wife and children arrived in Egypt:

• Ibn Ezra⁶⁵ and R. Yosef Kimchi⁶⁶ suggest that it could have demoralized the Israelites in Egypt⁶⁷ by causing them to believe that Moshe was merely coming to live with his family in Egypt and that the redemption was not imminent.⁶⁸
• Shadal posits that Hashem was concerned that Zipporah and Gershom would dissuade Moshe from his dangerous mission out of their fears that Paroh would kill him.⁶⁹

Proportionate reaction – Moshe's action was more of a miscalculation than an actual sin, and Hashem's reaction was intended more as a corrective warning than as a punishment.

Circumcision is the solution – Ibn Ezra and Shadal explain that by reminding Moshe of the need to circumcise his son,⁷⁰ Hashem arranged that Zipporah would need to stay behind with the children and not accompany Moshe to Egypt.

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" – Ibn Ezra says that Hashem sent an angel.⁷¹ According to Shadal, however, this merely indicates that Hashem brought an illness.

"וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – Who was near death? Ibn Ezra says that it must have been Moshe, as otherwise he would have performed the circumcision. He further argues that if the son were sick, one would not circumcise him as doing so would increase the pain and danger. However, R. Yosef Kimchi and Shadal claim that it was Moshe's son Gershom who became ill.⁷²

Which son was uncircumcised and why not? Ibn Ezra assumes that Eliezer was the uncircumcised son, having just been born. R. Yosef Kimchi, though, combines this approach with the Midrash above, suggesting that a deal was made with Zipporah and her family not to circumcise Gershom. Shadal holds the somewhat incongruous position that although Gershom was the son whose life was in danger, Eliezer was the uncircumcised one.⁷³

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? Ibn Ezra maintains that Moshe was incapacitated by illness, while R"Y Kimchi and Shadal says that Zipporah was correcting her mistake of not previously allowing this son to be circumcised.

How did Zipporah know the solution? Ibn Ezra, R"Y Kimchi, and Shadal all explain that Moshe told her that the circumcision would remedy the situation.

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – Whose legs? Ibn Ezra says that Zipporah dabbed the blood on Moshe's legs as a protective charm, similar to the role played by the Paschal blood on the doorposts in Shemot 12.⁷⁴ Shadal also says that it was Moshe's legs.⁷⁵

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – Ibn Ezra says that newly circumcised babies are referred to as a "חֲתַן". In contrast, Shadal explains that the "חֲתַן" is Moshe.

"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" – According to Ibn Ezra and Shadal, Zipporah returns to Midyan after this episode.⁷⁶

השלכות טבעיות

לא היה חטא או עונש. חווית סף המוות היתה פשוט תוצאה טבעית של הנסיבות בהם מצא משה את עצמו.

חרדה

החרדה של משה ממחויבותו להתעמת עם פרעה ולהתרות בו על מותו המתקרב של בנו גרמה למשה עצמו לחלות אנושות.

מקורות:R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 4:20-26About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi

Context – The context is integrally connected to our story. Hashem's charge to Moshe to speak to Paroh which appears in these verses are what leads to Moshe's fear and sickness.

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – This verse needs to be read metaphorically, as according to Ibn Kaspi Hashem was not actively trying to kill Moshe.⁷⁷

Was Moshe's son uncircumcised? Ibn Kaspi claims that the son was already circumcised,⁷⁸ and Zipporah was simply drawing more blood. He finds support in the plural form of the word "לַמּוּלֹת" (in the phrase "חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלֹת"), which suggests that this was a second circumcision.

Drawing blood is the solution – Zipporah drew blood (הטפת דם) because of her belief that blood acts as a charm (a סגולה) to calm nerves.⁷⁹

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? As Moshe was in a state of high anxiety, Zipporah took the initiative to try to tranquilize him.

"וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" – Whose legs? Ibn Kaspi explains that Zipporah dripped blood onto Moshe's legs either because that was the custom or so Moshe wouldn't see and think that her actions were simply "women's silliness".⁸⁰

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – Zipporah was fearful of losing her husband and so she cried out to him that he is a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" (a bridegroom of blood). When he was saved, she modifies her statement to make it more positive by adding "לַמּוּלֹת".

"אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" – Ibn Kaspi maintains that Zipporah and family arrived with Moshe in Egypt and only returned to Midyan after some time had passed.⁸¹ Ibn Kaspi contends that Moshe's bringing of his family to Egypt was done with Divine approval, and gave the Children of Israel a critically needed morale boost, strengthening their confidence in Moshe's leadership and their belief that the redemption was imminent.⁸²

לא מוכן לנבואה

מכיוון שמשה היה טרוד בסידורי לינה ובמשפחתו, הוא לא היה במצב מתאים כאשר הרוח הנבואית האלוקית באה עליו, וזה גרם לחוויה הקרובה למוות.

מקורות:AbarbanelShemot 4About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

"וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן" – Similar to many of the above approaches, Abarbanel explains that these words identify the preoccupation with lodgings as the cause of the problems which ensued.

"וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" – Abarbanel explains that "וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה'‏" means that prophecy came to Moshe. The words "וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ" don't mean that Hashem wanted to kill Moshe, but rather that his lack of preparedness for prophecy led him near death.

Circumcision is the solution – Zipporah didn't know the cause of Moshe's sickness, but she assumed that it was either because he had not circumcised his son or because he had erred in bringing his family with him to Egypt. She therefore acted to correct both, first by circumcising her son and then by returning to Midyan.⁸³

"חֲתַן דָּמִים / לַמּוּלֹת" – Zipporah referred to Moshe as a "חֲתַן דָּמִים" , her almost dead groom. At first she cast blame on herself (לי=בגללי) but when she saw the effects of the circumcision she said that Moshe was a bridegroom of blood "לַמּוּלֹת" due to the circumcision.

Which son was uncircumcised and why not? Abarbanel explains that Eliezer was born just before they left to Egypt. As Moshe didn't want to postpone his mission, he left immediately but delayed the circumcision due to the dangers posed by the journey.

Why Zipporah and not Moshe? As Moshe was too sick to act, Zipporah took the initiative.

¹ לברית מילה יש גם מספר מאפיינים ייחודיים שהופכים אותה למועמד אידיאלי להוות את החטא. היא אחת המצוות היחידות שהיו קיימות כבר בשלב זה, והיא נושאת עונש חמור של כרת למי שעובר עליה. מצד שני, היא גם ניתנת לתיקון בקלות ואינה מותירה כתם של שחיתות מוסרית.

² זוהי דעתו של ר' יוסי במכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, ירושלמי, ורוב עדי הנוסח של הבבלי. בדפוס וילנא מובאים הדברים בשם רבי.

³ הקטנת מימדי החטא מציגה את משה באור חיובי יותר, אך הופכת את העונש למובן פחות. עמדתו של ר' יוסי גם מעלה את השאלה מדוע היה מצופה ממשה למול את בנו מיד בהגעתו למלון, אם הם עוד היו באמצע מסע מסוכן שבדרך כלל (לדעת ר' יוסי עצמו) היתה מחייבת עיכוב של המילה. רש"י בנדרים ל"ב. מנסה לתרץ שהמלון היה קרוב מאוד למצרים, ולכן לא היתה נשקפת סכנה. אולם, מהמשך הסיפור נראה כי הם פגשו את אהרון בהר סיני לאחר מאורע זה, ומשתמע מזה שהם עוד היו במרחק ניכר ממצרים. ראה גם את השיטה המובאת בשיטה מקובצת נדרים ל"ב. שמציעה תשובה חילופית.

⁴ למרות שאליעזר עוד לא הוזכר בפסוקים, צורת הריבוי של "בניו" בפסוק כ' מרמזת שהוא כבר נולד. אבן עזראהפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ'הפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ"בהפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ"ג-כ"והפירוש הקצר שמות ד':כ'הפירוש הקצר שמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא מוסיף ומסביר שהיעדר האיזכור יכול להיזקף לעובדה הפשוטה שעוד לא נתנו לו שם. ראה, לעומת זאת, את הרמב"ןשמות ד':י"ט-כ'אודות ר' משה בן נחמן שמציע שצורת הריבוי אינה מכריעה, ומשווה אותה לצורת רבים דומה בבמדבר כ"ו:ח' שם ישנו רק בן אחד.

⁵ לעיתים קרובות שליח מכונה על שם שולחו. למקרים נוספים בהם ה' מתייחס אולי למלאך, ראה ראב"ע להלן וראה כאן.

⁶ כך הוא מצוטט בבבלי (גם בנוסחים המודפסים וגם בכתבי היד); במכילתא דרבי ישמעאל ובירושלמי (וראה גם את הגלוס במרווחים של הבבלי המודפס) הוא אומר בפשטות "מלאך" (השווה LXX ואונקלוס). ראה גם ניאופיטי, תרגום פסבדו-יונתן, וקטעים מתרגומי המקרא מהגניזה שמתייחסים ל"מלאך חבלה" בניגוד לשמות רבה שמדבר על "מלאך של רחמים". ר' יהודה בן ביזנא בבבלי זוקף את האירוע לכוחות ההרס של "אף וחימה". ראה גם מדרש אגדה (בובר)ד':כ"דאודות מדרש אגדה שמות שמדבר על אוריאל בדמות נחש, ומדרש ויושע שיש בו "שטן" בצורת נחש.

⁷ לשיטת ספר היובלים, אפשרי שמשה לא עשה אף חטא -ראה להלן. נראה שספר היובלים מונע מהקושי שבהחלטת ה' עצמו להרוג את שלוחו. אולם, פתרון זה יוצר בעיה נפרדת של כיצד משטמה יכולה לפעול כנגד רצון ה', ואיך המעשה של ציפורה הועיל. למקרים נוספים בהם ספר היובלים עושה ניסיון לעקוף קשיים באמצעות ייחוס אירועים מתמיהים למשטמה, ראה הקשיית לבבות ועל ספר היובלים.

⁸ דבר זה גם יסביר למה זוהי ציפורה ולא משה שמבצעת את המילה.

⁹ לא כולם מסכימים כיצד יש להבין את הביטוי הזה, או כל כך שהוא מתייחס לתינוק. ראה עוד הסברים להלן.

¹⁰ ראה ר' שמואל בן חופני גאון, מצוטט על ידי ראב"עהפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ'הפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ"בהפירוש הארוך שמות ד':כ"ג-כ"והפירוש הקצר שמות ד':כ'הפירוש הקצר שמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא שאומר בפירוש: "חלילה להיות השם מבקש להמית משה שהולך בשליחותו להוציא עמו, רק בקש להמית אליעזר".

¹¹ רלב"ג משיב שה' ציפה ממשה ליותר, מכיוון שמאוחר יותר הוא ישמש דוגמא לעם כולו. ראה גם את התולדות יצחקשמות ד':כ"ד-כ"האודות ר' יצחק קארו, שאחרי ניתוח ארוך שעושה ניסיון להבין את ההיגיון מאחורי פעולותיהם גם של ה' וגם של משה, הוא מסכם: "סוף סוף החטא קטן מאד ואם כן למה בקש המיתו, יספיק עונש קטן, ועוד שאין עונש מי שלא מל בנו אפילו שיהיה במזיד אלא כרת, וגם זה לו עצמו כשהגדיל ולא לאב". הוא משיב (בדומה לרלב"ג) שה' מדקדק יותר בשפיטת צדיקים.

¹² להקבלות מהמזרח התיכון הקדום, ראה פירוש עולם התנ"ך על שמות (תל אביב, 1993): 49-50.

¹³ לשיטת ר' שמעון בן גמליאל שהתינוק הוא זה שהותקף, זהו ברור אפילו יותר. השווה ר' חננאל להלן.

¹⁴ מכיוון שמשה נבלע עד למקום המילה, "לרגליו" זהו אולי כינוי בלשון נקיה לאיברי הזכרות (השווה ר"י קמחי וחזקונישמות ד':כ"ד-כ"ואודות ר' חזקיה בן מנוח).

¹⁵ רלב"ג מסביר שציפורה לא היתה מיומנת במילה ולא ידעה איך לעצור את הדימום, עד שמשה התאושש מספיק כדי לומר לה. לשיטתו, הנושא של "ותגע" הוא לא ציפורה, אלא הדם (שלא הוזכר) שזרם במורד רגלי התינוק. [אולם, דם בדרך כלל בא עם צורת הזכר של הפועל.] רלב"ג, כהרגלו, עושה ניסיון להקטין את המימדים של הצדדים העל- טבעיים והקשורים לאמונות תפלות בסיפור – ראה על רלב"ג.

¹⁶ ר' שמעון בן גמליאל מושפע אולי מהעובדה שבתורה המילה "חתן" אינה מתייחסת אף פעם לבעל אלא לבעלה של הבת. ראה מהרש"א נדרים ל"ב. (חידושי אגדות ד"ה "מי"), וראה חתן. רלב"ג מסכים, אך מסביר שציפורה מתייחסת לכך שמילת הילד זו חוויה של פעם ראשונה עבורה.

¹⁷ ספורנו כותב שציפורה הגנה על התנהלותו של משה בפני המלאך התוקף בכך שהצביעה על כך שמשה התנה את נישואיהם במילת בניהם.

¹⁸ לשיטת רש"י, את המילים "אתה לי" צריך להבין בתור "כמעט גרמת לי".

¹⁹ R. Saadia is apparently the "master" whom R. Avraham b. HaRambam is citing in Shemot 4:24.

²⁰ R. Saadia here is consistent with his general tendency to neutralize apparent sins of prophets. For elaboration, see About R. Saadia Gaon.

²¹ This explains the shift from the plural "וַיַּרְכִּבֵם" to the singular "וַיָּשָׁב", as well as "אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ" (in Shemot 18:2). R. Chananel similarly writes that Moshe "sent [his family] ahead of him," but it is unclear if he means that Moshe sent them back to Midyan or ahead to Egypt.

²² Cf. Seforno above who also suggests that the incident happened when Zipporah was returning home to Midyan, but has Moshe accompanying them and on the scene for the entire episode.

²³ According to R. Yehuda b. Bizna and Shemot Rabbah above, Moshe was being swallowed, not the baby.

²⁴ See also the דבר אחר in Midrash Aggadah (Buber) Shemot 4:24.

²⁵ The Tur also defends Moshe, but he suggests that Moshe only agreed since he knew that he would eventually bring Yitro to forsake idolatry. For more on whether and when Yitro abandoned idolatry, see Yitro's Religious Identity.

²⁶ See Was Moshe a Murderer and discussion of R. Dan's position in Yitro's Religious Identity for more about Yitro's priestly estate acting as a "city of refuge" for Moshe after he killed the Egyptian.

²⁷ For the opposite possibility, that Moshe's delay really stemmed from his desire to preserve the baby's Jewish identity, see R. Yoel Bin-Nun's article, ‏"מאבק הזהות של משה – איזה בן לא נמול ומדוע," מגדים נ (תשס"ט):21-38. See also Shut Tzitz Eliezer 18:53 who cites the נחלת בנימין's fascinating read of the Midrash, which parallels that of the Mirkevet HaMishneh on the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. They suggest that though Moshe actually was observant, Yitro, a recent convert, was suspicious of the "Egyptian" stranger, thinking him to be an idolater. In his desire that his grandchildren worship Hashem, he thus made him swear that though one son (Moshe's!) might be for idolatry, the other son (Yitro's) would be for Hashem. Only after swearing ("וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה"), did Yitro believe Moshe's insistence that he was in fact God-fearing. This reading raises important questions of the nature of both Moshe and Yitro's religiosity. For further discussions, see Moshe's Character, Moshe and Zipporah's Marriage (regarding the debate between R. Saadia and R. Mubashir HaLevi), and Yitro's Religious Identity. See also Yosef's Character for parallel questions in understanding the Yosef narratives.

²⁸ The immediate context of verses 23-24 may have also influenced the Midrash – see below.

²⁹ See the Tur Shemot 2:16. For a discussion of the parallels which serve to connect the two stories, see Shofetim 17-18.

³⁰ See R. Yosef Kimchi below, who has a similar read of the verses but with a different understanding of the sin, and see Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 4:23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra's critique of those who say that Hashem is speaking to Moshe in this verse.

Michael Hochstein offered an interesting variation of this reconstruction, suggesting that perhaps the words "וַתְּמָאֵן לְשַׁלְּחוֹ" are a third person feminine form (rather than a second person masculine) and refer to Zipporah who, being an idolater like her father, refused to circumcise her son. Accordingly, the story of Moshe's pact with Yitro and Zipporah has a textual basis, and it is logical why Zipporah is the one to do the circumcision.

The standard interpretation of verse 23 is that it discusses warning Paroh of the tenth plague. However, this understanding encounters some difficulties: First, the words "וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ" seem redundant after verse 23 states "‏כֹּה אָמַר ה'‏" (cf. Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Additionally, the whole warning regarding Paroh's refusal and the Plague of the Firstborn seems premature as Paroh has not even been asked, let alone refused, to send anyone (cf. R. Saadia's attempt to obviate this problem with the translation in his Tafsir). The alternatives above are able to circumvent these problems.

³¹ In Neofiti and the Targumic fragments from the Genizah the son is not identified.

³² Eliezer's name which contains an explicit reference to Hashem was logically chosen as the circumcised one, while Gershom, named because "גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה", was the "stranger to God".

³³ His name is mentioned for the first time in Shemot 18:4, although he may have been born already at the time of the episode at the inn – see below.

³⁴ See also the opinion cited by Ibn EzraShort Commentary Shemot 4:25About R. Avraham ibn Ezra.

³⁵ As there are simpler ways of explaining why Eliezer was not yet circumcised, it is likely that the original Midrashic motif contained Gershom. Only at a later stage was this motif synthesized with the approaches above which focused on Eliezer.

³⁶ See RambanShemot 4:20About R. Moshe Nachmanides who suggests that the plural form of "בָּנָיו" in Shemot 4:20 is not conclusive, comparing it to a similar plural in Bemidbar 26:8 where there is only one son. Ramban raises various options as to when Zipporah became pregnant with Eliezer, either before the journey, on the way back, or in Egypt. For more, see When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan.

³⁷ See the discussion above of these possibilities.

³⁸ See Toledot YitzchakShemot 4:24-25About R. Yitzchak Karo who answers similarly.

³⁹ Midrash Vayosha may understand "לְרַגְלָיו" as a euphemism for Moshe's genitals (the point past which the Satan-snake was not able to swallow – "לא היה יכול ליגע"). Cf. R"Y Kimchi and ChizkuniShemot 4:25About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach.

⁴⁰ See Lekach TovShemot 4:25About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, Ibn Ezra below, ChizkuniShemot 4:25About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, and Ibn Kaspi below for the parallel to the Paschal blood on the doorposts.

⁴¹ Cf. the opinion of R. Yosi above who also says that the problem is indicated in the words "וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן". While R. Yosi understood that the lodging delayed the circumcision, these Midrashim maintain that it delayed Moshe's mission.

⁴² Midrash Aggadah depicts Moshe literally vacillating between continuing his journey and entering the inn, uncertain whether the time of the redemption had really come. It is unclear if this Midrash is critical of Moshe. This depends on how one punctuates the text and whether one reads "כעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the printed text) or "יכעס עליו הקדוש ברוך הוא" (like the proposed emendation which would better fit the context).

⁴³ See מלון and cf. Shadal Shemot 4:24 who disagrees.

⁴⁴ Rashbam explains that Hashem was already angered by Moshe's reluctance at the Burning Bush to undertake the mission, and that the consequences of the anger in 4:14 were felt only later (cf. Rashi there who identifies different ramifications). He compares the incident to the cases of Yaakov, Yonah, and Bilaam who are punished for trying to evade implementing Hashem's will.

⁴⁵ R. Yosef Kimchi also speaks of general tarrying, but it is not clear if this is connected to Moshe bringing his family. He notes that the need for Hashem to tell Moshe again "לֵךְ שֻׁב מִצְרָיִם" indicates that Moshe was procrastinating.

⁴⁶ R. Avraham Ibn Daud says that just as Paroh was punished for not releasing the people immediately, Moshe was punished for his delay.

⁴⁷ For an Ancient Near Eastern parallel, see the account of Philo of Byblos cited by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica 1:10: "But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality, Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same."

⁴⁸ Rashbam on 4:26 adds that Zipporah understood that a delay in the circumcision had contributed to Moshe's punishment, but it is unclear whether this was merely Zipporah's understanding and how this should be reconciled with the sin of tarrying. There is a similar ambiguity in R"Y Kimchi's reconstruction of the story.

⁴⁹ In addition to noting that this was and is the practice of idolaters such as the prophets of the Baal at Mt. Carmel, he also says that this was the purpose of the blood of the Paschal sacrifice. See Purpose of the Pesach. Cf. Ibn Kaspi below who explains similarly Zipporah's action and the blood of the Paschal sacrifice, but adds that this was an erroneous belief.

⁵⁰ Apparently according to R. Avraham Saba, Moshe departed as soon as he realized that his procrastination had placed him in danger, and thus was not present for the circumcision. One of the difficulties with this approach is that Moshe leaving his family at the inn is not mentioned in the text here (and is only possibly alluded to in Shemot 18:2). Cf. R. Saadia and R. Chananel above who also posit that Moshe was not present for the circumcision. According to them, however, Moshe had already parted from Zipporah when the attack happened.

⁵¹ It is merely recorded here because, as a result of Moshe's leaving for Egypt, Zipporah needed to perform it herself.

⁵² Cf. the second approach in Midrash Yelammedenu that Moshe could not command the Israelites to circumcise, until his own sons were circumcised.

⁵³ The Tzeror HaMor likely agrees, but according to him the danger does not incapacitate Moshe, and he is still able to proceed to Egypt. Alternatively, the Tzeror HaMor thinks that the son became ill, and Moshe departed for Egypt leaving Zipporah to tend to their ill son.

⁵⁴ R. Avraham Ibn Daud concurs. See also below for R. Yosef Kimchi's rendering of "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ".

⁵⁵ See below for the basis of his theory.

⁵⁶ The Tzeror HaMor proves from the fact that Zipporah performed the circumcision that Moshe was not there. Cf. R. Chananel above.

⁵⁷ Cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud who says that Moshe's instructions reflected either a foreshadowing or foreknowledge of how the Israelites would be saved through the blood of the Paschal sacrifice.

⁵⁸ Since according to Rashbam this was a sacrificial act, one would have expected that Zipporah would have placed the foreskin in front of the angel's legs – cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan above. Rashbam rejects this possibility, but only because he is unsure that Zipporah was capable of seeing the angel.

⁵⁹ R"Y Kimhi posits that the son was the one in critical danger, and therefore there would be no reason to touch Moshe's legs.

⁶⁰ See ChizkuniShemot 4:25About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach who cites a similar interpretation, adding that one needs to reverse the word order of the verse (סירוס המקרא) and read it as if it said "ותקח צפרה צר ותגע לרגליו ותכרת את ערלת בנה".

⁶¹ According to R"Y Kimchi, one would have expected the verse to read "להוציאו" instead of "לְשַׁלְּחוֹ".

⁶² Cf. the possibility above that the original Midrashic motif read the second half of this verse similarly. R"Y Kimchi's interpretation is able to avoid the exegetical problem that a warning regarding Paroh's refusal and the Plague of the Firstborn seems premature and out of place.

⁶³ Surprisingly, though, from Rashbam Shemot 18:2 it appears that Zipporah arrived with Moshe in Egypt - see When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan.

⁶⁴ See above that R"Y Kimchi also blames Moshe for delaying in fulfilling his mission.

⁶⁵ Ibn Ezra points out that one should not be surprised that Moshe erred, for even prophets can make mistakes. Ibn Ezra cites the example of Natan. For elaboration, see Prophets and Moshe's Character.

⁶⁶ R"Y Kimchi says that Moshe brought his family because he himself thought that the Exodus was far off.

⁶⁷ See RambanShemot 4:19About R. Moshe Nachmanides and Ibn Kaspi below who argue against this position, suggesting that Moshe bringing his family actually boosted the nation's morale by demonstrating confidence that the Exodus was on the horizon. Ramban Shemot 5:22 further suggests that Zipporah returned to Midyan only when it became clear that the Exodus would not happen immediately.

⁶⁸ These commentators apparently maintain that the Exodus happened soon after this episode. For further discussion, see Chronology of Shemot 5-7.

⁶⁹ Shadal views Zipporah as having a generally harmful influence on Moshe – see Zipporah's Character, and see also Shadal's view of Yitro in Yitro's Religious Identity.

⁷⁰ Ibn Ezra says that Hashem informed Moshe that He preferred him to circumcise his son and leave him with Zipporah to recuperate rather than taking them to Egypt and postponing the commandment of circumcision.

⁷¹ He cites the case of Shemot 13:21 and 14:19 to show the interchangeable use of "ה'‏" and "מלאך". See ‏ה'‏.

⁷² See above that R. Yosef Kimchi interprets the verse "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" as Hashem speaking to Moshe. Shadal, while understanding that the verse refers to Paroh's firstborn, suggests that Moshe was made to understand that a similar fate could befall him if he didn't carry out Hashem's mission. According to Ibn Ezra, though, this verse is unconnected to the events at the inn.

⁷³ According to Shadal, Moshe had been convinced by Zipporah to wait until Eliezer was thirteen, like the practice of the Midianites.

⁷⁴ Cf. Lekach TovShemot 4:25About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, ChizkuniShemot 4:25About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, and Ibn Kaspi below.

⁷⁵ According to Shadal, though, Moshe was not the one in danger.

⁷⁶ Ibn Ezra supports this read by pointing to the singular form of "וַיָּשָׁב" in Shemot 4:20. For more, see When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan.

⁷⁷ Ibn Kaspi (4:26) explains that actions are sometimes attributed to Hashem since Hashem is the ultimate cause of everything ("הפועל הראשון"). For additional cases, see ‏ה'‏.

⁷⁸ Ibn Kaspi assumes that Eliezer was more than eight days old (see Shadal who assumes that Zipporah could not be traveling if her son had just been born), and thus Moshe must have previously circumcised him.

⁷⁹ Ibn Kaspi suggests that putting blood on the doorposts on the night of the Plague of the Firstborn was for a similar reason; Hashem wanted to calm the fears of the Children of Israel as they heard the cries of the dying Egyptians. For elaboration, see Purpose of the Pesach. For more on Ibn Kaspi's position that the Torah sometimes takes the erroneous views of the masses into consideration, see About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi.

⁸⁰ For more on Ibn Kaspi's view of women, see About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi.

⁸¹ It is unclear what led Zipporah to return to Midyan, but Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps someone got sick or Zipporah just longed to see her family again. See When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan.

⁸² Ibn Kaspi is following and expanding on the position developed by RambanShemot 4:19About R. Moshe Nachmanides. In contrast, Ibn Ezra and Shadal above argue that this entire episode was aimed at preventing the harmful consequences of Zipporah and her children coming to Egypt. Ralbag charts a middle ground on this issue, concurring with Ramban that Moshe's actions were proper (in Toelet 3 he learns from this story that "והוא שאין ראוי לאדם שיעזוב אשתו ובניו ויפרד מהם, כי הוא ראוי שישגיח בענינם תמיד. ולזה הסכים משה להוליך עמו למצרים אשתו ובניו..."), but maintaining that Hashem was not in favor.

Ramban and Ibn Kaspi posit that Moshe's family not only joined him in Egypt, but that they also rejoined him at Mt. Sinai shortly after the Exodus and before the Decalogue – see Chronology of Shemot 18. The resulting portrait of Zipporah (and by extension, Yitro) is a much more sympathetic one – see Zipporah's Character and Yitro's Religious Identity.

⁸³ Abarbanel does not explain why the circumcision had any effect if that was not really the cause of Moshe's sickness.