Mystery at the Malon/2/he

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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.

Did Moshe sin? This approach avoids attributing any sin or blame to Moshe.19
"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.20 For further analysis, see When Did Zipporah Return to Midyan. Thus, only Zipporah and her sons were present at the inn.21
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.22
"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".

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.24
  • 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.25
  • 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.26
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.27 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.28
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."29 "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.30 R. Elazar HaModai's choice of Gershom rather than Eliezer appears to be motivated by the Torah's derivations of the two names.31 Additionally, Eliezer has not yet been mentioned explicitly,32 and the context of "בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ" may tip the scales toward Gershom.
  • Eliezer – Midrash Aggadah and Midrash Vayosha.33 Their choice of Eliezer explains why Moshe was punished only at the inn, and not already at the time of Gershom's birth.34
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.35
"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.36
"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.37
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,38 perhaps as protection.39
"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.

Moshe's sin – These commentators suggest two possible infractions which constituted the delay:
  • Lodging at the inn40 – Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Aggadah (Buber) say that Moshe procrastinated by staying at the inn.41 This approach likely understands "בַּמָּלוֹן" as an actual guest lodge and not just any place where Moshe pitched a tent for the night.42
  • Bringing his family with him to Egypt – Rashbam43 and the Tzeror HaMor suggest that Moshe taking his family caused unnecessary delay.44
Proportionate punishment – Hashem's reacted harshly because Moshe's action (or inaction) had consequences for the entire nation.45 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 sacrifice46 to appease the angel who was trying to kill Moshe.47
  • R. Avraham Ibn Daud says that the drawing of blood can have an astrological influence and save people who are in life threatening danger.48
  • 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.49 The account of the circumcision, according to him, is wholly unconnected to either the sin or punishment.50
  • 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.51
"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.52 However, R. Yosef Kimchi claims that Hashem came to kill Gershom.53
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.54
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.55
How did Zipporah know the solution? According to R"Y Kimchi,56 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.57
  • The son's – R. Yosef Kimchi58 maintains that "וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו" describes the act of circumcision itself, with "לְרַגְלָיו" being a euphemism for genitals.59
"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,60 and therefore, I will kill your (Moshe's) firstborn."61 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.62

טעות בשיפוט ופעולה מתקנת

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

Moshe's error – These exegetes suggest two possible negative consequences that would have resulted had Moshe's wife and children arrived in Egypt:
  • Ibn Ezra64 and R. Yosef Kimchi65 suggest that it could have demoralized the Israelites in Egypt66 by causing them to believe that Moshe was merely coming to live with his family in Egypt and that the redemption was not imminent.67
  • 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.68
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,69 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.70 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.71
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.72
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 12.73 Shadal also says that it was Moshe's legs.74
"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.75

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.

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.76
Was Moshe's son uncircumcised? Ibn Kaspi claims that the son was already circumcised,77 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.78
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".79
"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.80 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.81

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.

"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.82
"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.