Exodus 4:25-26 new reading

[Kenneth Greifer]

Exodus 4:25-26 usually is read as Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised her son, and then touched his feet or threw the foreskin at Moses' feet, then she says "Because you are a bridegroom of blood to me, and He let go of him, then she said a bridegroom of blood for circumcisions."

I think it could say she circumcised her son, and then she touched her son's feet or legs, and said: "Because their being broken (his feet or legs) is bloodshed (blood), you are mine, and He let go of him, then she said, their being broken is bloodshed (blood) for circumcisions."

Maybe she and Moses did not circumcise their sons, so G-d tried to kill one of them in an accident that broke both of his legs or feet. The verb חתת can be written as חת with the feminine plural ending for "their" ן at the end because legs are a feminine noun.
Maybe after she circumcised him, G-d stopped trying to kill their son.

Kenneth Greifer
http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com/

[kwrandolph]

Kenneth:

To be honest, this passage has long puzzled me.

Exodus 4:25-26 usually is read as Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised her son, and then touched his feet or threw the foreskin at Moses' feet, then she says "Because you are a bridegroom of blood to me, and He let go of him, then she said a bridegroom of blood for circumcisions."

I think it could say she circumcised her son, and then she touched her son's feet or legs, and said: "Because their being broken (his feet or legs) is bloodshed (blood), you are mine, and He let go of him, then she said, their being broken is bloodshed (blood) for circumcisions."

Let’s break this verse down:

The first part, ותקח צפרה צר ותכרת את ערלת בנה there’s no question, Tsiporah took a piece of flint and cut the foreskin of her son.

The second part, ותגע לרגליו who or what touched to whose feet? ערלה is feminine, and the traditional understanding is that Tsiporah threw the foreskin that she cut off at Moses and that the foreskin touched Moses’ feet.

The third part, ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי again no question. “And she said that you are a bloody husband to me”

Maybe she and Moses did not circumcise their sons, so G-d tried to kill one of them in an accident that broke both of his legs or feet. The verb חתת can be written as חת with the feminine plural ending for "their" ן at the end because legs are a feminine noun.
Maybe after she circumcised him, G-d stopped trying to kill their son.

The verb חתת means “to be paralyzed from fear” and doesn’t have anything to do with breaking.

In this verse חתן is a noun, and its meaning is clear: bridegroom or husband.

The next verse section וירף ממנו the verb רפה is third person Yiqtol singular masculine, and one way to translate it is that “he stopped from it (action)”. The only masculine actor in this passage is God.

Kenneth Greifer
http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com/

The answer to this puzzling passage may be in many details that were omitted in shortening it to fit in just three verses. What I’ve learned through hard experience is that when we try to fill in those missing details, that is speculation, and speculation is so often wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

The verb חתת is confusing because some dictionaries say it is niphal and some say kal. What about Isaiah 51:6? Does it say "My righteousness will not be afraid" or "will not be broken"? Is it niphal or kal?

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

The verb חתת is confusing because some dictionaries say it is niphal and some say kal.

You’re right, the majority of uses of חתת are Niphal, passive.

What about Isaiah 51:6? Does it say "My righteousness will not be afraid" or "will not be broken"? Is it niphal or kal?

Kenneth Greifer

Isaiah 51:6 last section, וצדקתי לא תחת “and my justice will not terrify” (active Qal), therefore in the next verse “don’t fear”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

I guess it doesn't mean "to be broken" in the kal form, but "to be afraid". I did not find any kal form as "to terrify" like you said about Isaiah 51:6. The kal form on Biblehub is always used to mean "to be afraid" and not "to terrify". I think the hiphil form might mean that. I forgot to look at it. The kal form is used "to be afraid" and not the niphal in Jeremiah 14:4, 48:1, 50:2, Isaiah 37:27, and 30:31 and I think more quotes too.

Kenneth Greifer

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

Could Isaiah 51:6 say "...and My righteous one (feminine) (Zion) will not be afraid"?

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Kenneth:

Karl,

Could Isaiah 51:6 say "...and My righteous one (feminine) (Zion) will not be afraid"?

Kenneth Greifer

Boy have you opened a can of worms (for me)! When I originally wrote my dictionary, I noticed that the majority of the words listed in my concordance as being from חתת mean “to be paralyzed from fear” i.e. really afraid.

Now that I look at it more closely, do you realize that only once in Tanakh that חתת with two taws is found? Jeremiah 51:56. Well, there are a few more times, but each of those the second taw is part of a grammatical suffix, not root. So from a grammatical analysis, it’s possible that the words could be from other roots entirely, such as ‎נחת to be in force, to be forceful 2S 22:25, Jl 4:11, Pr 17:10 as in imposition of force by a conquerer Jr 21:13, Ps 38:3; or ‎חתה to rake together (fire, to keep it burning hot and from going out Is 30:14) rake away (from being a people Is 7:8); or possibly a root that the grammarians would have listed as חות (not listed) had they recognized it.

If grammarians weren’t so wedded to the concept that all Hebrew roots are triliteral, it would be recognized that this is a biliteral root.

Further, the majority of uses are in Yiqtol, where there’s no difference between Qal and Niphal in the written forms. So in those cases it’s only from the context where we could recognize whether the meaning would be “to paralyze from fear” Qal or “to be paralyzed by fear” Niphal.

Don’t get me wrong, I like it when such a can of worms is opened. This one is just more difficult than most.

As for Isaiah 51:6, “my justice” is the subject of the verb and the context indicates that this is a Qal Yiqtol verb. Zion is nowhere mentioned, so that’s out of the picture (to include it is eisegesis). “My justice” fits both grammatically and contextually.

So thanks,

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

The quotes I gave you were all kal, right? But they were also passive, so are you saying the kal form can be active and passive? Or are you saying the ones I gave you were not kal passive?

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

The quotes I gave you were all kal, right?

Not necessarily.

Jeremiah 14:4 appears to be a noun.

Isaiah 30:31 is Niphal.

Jeremiah 48:1 and 50:2 appear that they could be from a different root.

You mention Biblehub. I’ve never used it. Not having seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised but that the parsing that they list is according to the Masoretic points which are sometimes wrong.

But they were also passive, so are you saying the kal form can be active and passive? Or are you saying the ones I gave you were not kal passive?

Kenneth Greifer

Is there such a thing as Qal passive? Even when looking at lists of paradigms, it doesn’t exist except as a participle. As such, it can be an adjective rather than a verb.

This is interesting—what exactly is going on?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

Do you at least say the verb in Isaiah 9:3 means "to break"?

Kenneth Greifer