Komentarz do Wyjścia 4:26

וירף SO HE LOOSENED HIS HOLD — the angel loosened his hold ממנו FROM HIM; (cf. Exodus Rabbah 5:8). אז THEN she understood that he had come to kill him because of the delay in the circumcision,

וירף המלאך ממנו, the word is similar to Judges 19,9 רפה היום לערוב, “the day has waned toward evening.” The construction of וירף from the root רפה is similar to ויקן from the root קנה, “he acquired.” The word וירף therefore means that the angel’s lethal power had become much weaker.

וירף ממנו, he released him partially, but not totally, as until the second part of the circumcision, the פריעה, the uncovering of the corona, had been performed the ritual is considered incomplete, and not valid.

She understood . . . You might ask: Rashi explained above (v. 24) that she understood why the angel came since it swallowed Moshe from his head to his thigh, etc. Yet here Rashi explains that [she understood it] since the angel withdrew from Moshe now. Also the Re”m asked this, writing: “I do not understand Rashi’s intent . . .” The Re”m elaborated on this point, leaving the question unresolved.

אז אמרה, “then she said, etc.” what is the reason for the introductory word: אז, “then,” at this point? At first Tzipporah was not sure when she saw that the angel stopped at the part of the body that is subject to circumcision whether it was on account of the delay in circumcising the infant, or whether it was on account of her attitude to circumcision altogether. It had become clear to her now that the problem was the delay in circumcising the infant. When she had performed the circumcision and the angel had desisted, and she had thrown the foreskin at his feet (either Moses, or the baby’s), she realised that the problem had been the delay in performing this commandment. She told her husband then that he was about to be punished for the delay, she had been given back to her husband (or her son) for having performed the commandment in his place. (Attributed to Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen)

וירף ממנו, “he let him alone;” after Tzipporah had performed the circumcision on her son, the angel left. and no longer tried to kill Moses; at that point Tzipporah understood what it had been that caused her husband to almost have been killed, i.e. the fact that Eliezer had remained uncircumcised until then. This is the reason why she had not referred to the word למולות, “on account of circumcision,” in the previous verse where she first described herself a bridegroom of blood. A different interpretation: As long as Moses and Tzipporah had lived in her father’s house, Moses had not been punished for not having circumcised Eliezer because his fatherinlaw would have tried to prevent him from doing so. Compare Yonathan ben Uzziel on the subject who attributes the fact that Moses’ grandson became an idolater to the fact that Gershom had not been circumcised as part of an agreement between Moses and his fatherinlaw that one of his sons could be circumcised but not the other. The reason that the angel tried to kill Moses was on account of Tzipporah, who had opposed his circumcision before. (Compare Judges 18,30, and the commentators there) Nonetheless most people understand the matter as being the non circumcision of Eliezer, not Gershom. At the same time no one has attempted to either explain (away) the aggadah of Moses having made a deal with his fatherinlaw concerning the subject of circumcision. If you were to counter that Rashi on verse 2,16 has already stated that Yitro had abandoned idolatry so how could he have opposed Moses’ circumcising his son, I believe that this Rashi need not be understood literally, i.e. Yitro had not converted to Abrahamitic monotheism, but had become what we call “a ger toshav” a proselyte who had accepted the seven basic laws G-d gave to mankind. He himself had certainly not circumcised himself, in the opinion of Rashi.

אמרה חתן דמים למלות SHE SAID “BRIDEGROOM OF BLOOD BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMCISION” — my bridegroom was on the point of being killed on account of the circumcision.

אז אמרה חתן דמים למולות, “my husband had become guilty of death for delaying the circumcision of his son.”

אז אמרה חתן דמים למולות, when you were a bridegroom you said that the circumcision involves the removal of some blood during two stages of the circumcision, first the cutting off of the foreskin, then the severing of membrane over the corona.

Referring to the blood of the circumcision. Whereas according to Rashi’s explanation, דמים (blood) is an expression of death and murder.

כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” According to Rashi, the word דמים should be understood as in שופך דמים, “spilling blood, killing. Compare Samuel II 16,7 צא איש הדמים, “get out murderer!” The verse ought to be rearranged so that it is understood as: כי דמים חתן אתה לי, “you were (potentially) a shedder of the blood of my groom for me.” (Alternately, these words could have been addressed to her baby Eliezer, meaning that the baby if not for the blood of his at the circumcision, it would have caused her groom’s death.

למלות means on account of (ל) the circumcision (מולות). The word מולות it a noun, and the ל prefixed it used in the tense of על, “on account of”, just as in (Exodus 14:3) “And Pharaoh will say regarding the children (לבני) of Israel”. Onkelos, however, translated the word דמים as having reference to the blood of the circumcision (whilst, according to Rashi, it refers to the blood of Moses which was about to be shed).