Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

george,

here is a much less fantastic (though not less dramatic) and perhaps 
more thematic explanation of ex 4:26. and also more politically 
correct (why blame all on the woman?). plus some side remarks.

1. first doubt: in ex 4:24, it is not clear if god was about 
to kill moses or his son. contextually, the latter!

2. 
>>> Incidentally, it is common for relatives of the bride to refer to her
husband as 'groom'. This is still the case in many Mediterranean cultures 
today.
GEORGE ATHAS

in fact i believe that חתן חותן biblically refers specifically to son-in-law
and father-in-law, NOT groom or husband.

second doubt:  in the jewish tradition there is some doubt which is 
which, father or son in law, exactly in relation to moses and yitro.
i forgot the argument.

3. without niqud they are equal, חתן ,which might mean that both attributes  
were equal initially; this reminds me of the COMPADRE in spanish or
portuguese, which is any male inlaw by marriage. but they are wiser:
they also have the COMADRE!

4. in this spirit, i take   חתן  to mean a male signitary of a 
friendship rite. a pact is sealed between two men by exchanging 
blood (a well known friendship tribal rite the world over) and 
saying a solemn phrase. i can imagine that the phrase in biblical 
times was exactly 4:25: כי חתן דמים אתה לי: you are now my blood-mate. 
say, father-in-law and the groom. i.e. חתונה...

5. when moses (or his son!) was dying, as in exsorcism, ziporah  enacted 
the pact which moses had avoided, shedding the blood and saying the solemn
phrase, in an attempt to appease god. but she as a woman could not be a
signatary, so she enacted the role of her son!!! so, in 4:25, a pact was
sealed between moses and the circumcised man, his son.

6. this was then generalized to ALL circumcised men as follows: (4:26)
EVER SINCE EVERY CIRCUMCISED MAN WAS CALLED A BLOOD-MATE. 

7. i guess the story also explains a change of rites: jews replaced
exchanging blood with breaking a glass :<), 
and חתן no more refers to son-in-law.

8. perhaps even the etymology of חתן may be related to the rite, if 
we take it to be a simplified חת-דם or  חד-דם or חתם-דם etc. 
i would like to consult isaac or david on this point.

nir cohen