|
Kenneth
Greifer: You wrote: “This is probably my last guess I will
make here on this subject because no one really knows what the quote says, but
maybe the Midianite wedding ritual involved the bride touching the groom's body
the same two places she touched her son when she circumcised him and then
touched his feet. Maybe that is why she might have said the baby was a
bridegroom of blood to her. Who knows?” Although I have no personal knowledge of any
relevant wedding ritual, I was able to find a short, readable account of various
midrash approaches to this famous, ambiguous incident. See pp. 127-139, chapter 27 ‘The
Incident at the In particular, that chapter discusses competing views in midrash as to whether it’s the baby, or whether it’s Moses, who is the “bridegroom of blood”, and why that would be so. Several of the midrash explanations of this ambiguous incident focus on the fact that Zipporah is a Midianite, not a Hebrew, which was one main point that I made in my first post on this thread. [My sincerest apologies for some of my later posts on this thread getting off-topic, as George Athas properly noted.] For what it’s worth, even after reading those various midrash explanations, I myself agree with your statement that “no one really knows what the quote says”. Jim Stinehart |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.