Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear George,

> The Ex passage makes no sense if it is not understood that it was Moses'
> privates which were touched.  I don't know offhand where you get the idea
> that angels were supposed to be sexless creatures since Enoch certainly
> portrays them as sexual.  I'm not Peter, however, so I won't argue the
> point with you until the cows come home.  Believe what you will since
> you're the one who will miss the significance of the text (and not merely
>  with respect to Ex 4.25).


HH: While I see how you could apply a euphemistic meaning to "feet" 
and get a relevant idea, I have never read the text that way and have 
found the text understandable. So do the major translations, which 
handle the word as "feet." So your statement seems an exaggeration. 
If Zipporah threw the foreskin at Moses' feet, it got to him. It was 
because of him that the circumcision was necessary. The action seems 
to carry a tone of rebuke.

HH: Moses should have circumcised his son but failed to do so. 
Zipporah realized that Moses' near death was due to his failure to 
circumcise the son, and perhaps Zipporah had been resisting Moses at 
this point. So perhaps she yielded and carried out the circumcision, 
or perhaps she just did it, without having resisted earlier. But her 
words, "You are a bridegroom of blood," imply that circumcision was 
something that she realized was a necessary consequence of her 
marriage with Moses.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard