Wrong on both counts. Exodus 18:2-3 says that Moses did indeed send away his wife and sons. And Ishmael is spoken of after the incident when Abraham sent him and his mother away - in Genesis 25:9, he participated with Isaac in the burial of Abraham, and his children are listed in the verses that immediately follow. He is also mentioned (however briefly) as one of Esau’s fathers-in-law.
Sampiro:
It is a strange story. The Aggadic tradition actually says the son who Zipporah circumcised then was Eliezer, the second one. IIRC (I am not at home, so I don’t have all my references), the tradition says that Moses was forced by Jethro to “compromise” the tradition of circumcision by splitting the kids - first one was circumcised as per Moses’s tradition, second one would not be, as per Jethro’s Midianite tradition. However, G-d was apparently angry that upon leaving Jethro’s house on a divine mission, he didn’t immediately make a point of his entirely family being properly “sanctified,” hence the angry encounter, and Zipporah’s solution.
John W. Kennedy:
Are you sure about this? The closest thing to this that I’m aware of is that a Hebrew euphemism for urine is “water of the legs,” but even that (as far as I know) is a Talmudic euphemism and not a Biblical one. I’m also not aware of that specific interpretation that you cited, but I certainly might have overlooked that one.
Exapno Mapcase:
No idea. The town gets its name from Manassas Gap (and the Manassas Gap Railroad, which the town was founded to service), but I’ve been unable to find the origin of the gap’s name. Anyone else want to trace this?
The short answer is “Maybe (indirectly), maybe not”. Apparently the origins of the name are unknown, with most gazetteers I looked at online saying it’s either an Indian word (meaning unsure) or in honor of “a local Jewish innkeeper” named Manasseh who was there before 1737 (the year it first appeared on a map). It’s not as unlikely as it seems for there to have been a Jewish innkeeper in middle-of-nowhere Virginia in the early 18th century as there were thriving Jewish communities in Charleston to the south and New England to the north by this time and there were Jewish peddlers and Indian traders as far west as Alabama by that time.
I’ve had the opportunity today to visit a synagogue with a decent library Jewish books today, so I can correct my earlier post about that strange story with the angel wanting to kill Moses and Zipporah saving them all by circumcising their son. I seem to have conflated two different versions of the story from the Midrash.
The Midrash gives basically two different possible back-stories, which both lead to the same reason for the encounter. Version 1: The son in question is Gershom, who remained uncircumcised at Jethro’s insistence. Moses is not considered culpable for not circumcising him, as he is obligated to not disrespect Jethro in his own home. Version 2: The son in question is Eliezer, who is only a newborn at the time of the incident, and Moses’s obligation to circumcise him (eighth day of life) did not occur until he was already commanded to return to Egypt, and Moses reasoned that the direct command to him meant he could delay the circumcision.
Where the two versions agree is that G-d got upset at Moses only for having stopped in an inn on the way, and, since he was not obligated to Jethro’s hospitality anymore (version 1), and he was clearly taking a break and not hurrying to Egypt to fulfill the command (version 2), he should have made circumcising the son in question an immediate priority (Moses, being ultra-righteous, is held to an ultra-high standard of observance by G-d). Hence, the threat of death and the solution, to circumcise the child.
The thing that strikes me as “what the huh?” is that a grandson of Moses is said to be appointed as treasurer by David. Since probably at least 300 years had passed since the Exodus, didn’t any of the commentators wonder about that?
As I said in the Staff Report, Midrashic and Talmudic legends sometimes tend to be far-fetched - but that’s the nature of legend, and for that matter, many stories that are actually in the Bible itself. Be that as it may, the full version of the Talmudic story (the Staff Report is just a condensed version) DOES address the issue of his longevity. It says that he merited extreme longevity because he discouraged people from spending lavishly on the idol of Micah, he was never a believer in the idol, he only acted as priest because he needed the money. He believed he was following a piece of advice given by Moses himself to go to any length in order to not rely on charity for support. David (according to this legend, of course) pointed out to him an error in his understanding of Moses’s saying, whereupon he repented his association with the idol and served as one of David’s treasurers instead, taking on the name which implies a return to G-d.
Isn’t it possible that this is an instance of the written language changing over time, much as there are “mispellings” in Middle Age English documents as compared to spelling conventions today? I guess what I’m asking is, does Hebrew over the centuries have changes to spelling and such like most languages that can contribute to misinterpretation, and could this be such a case?
The spelling of Hebrew was nailed down a long time ago (the Alphabet was originally invented for West Semitic languages, of which Hebrew is one), and Jewish scribes are very careful about making exact copies.
Since this thread has already had multiple hijacks, what is the correct response when someone says mazel tov? A Jewish acquaintance congratulated me that way once and I (being a Christian) didn’t know how to reply other than “thanks”. Is there a protocol for this situation?
Re: “These are the generations of Aaron and Moses”: Is this usage found in other places (with other characters) or is this also considered “far-fetched”?
It’s a common enough usage in the Bible, but will usually be the “generations” of ONE person, followed by a list of, or story about, descendants of that one person (compare Genesis 5:1, 6:9, 11:10, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2) . On at least one occasion, it lists mutiple individuals whose “generations” will follow - the three sons of Noah, in Genesis 10:1. But it does lst descendants of all three. What’s unusual in that verse in Numbers is that it says it’s the generations of Moses and Aaron, but only lists the sons of Aaron.
(Note: I notice that in the NIV, it does not always translate the Hebrew word “Toldos” as “generations”. However, in the original Hebrew, this is the word used in the verses I’ve cited, and “generations” is its literal translation.)
Thanks! But I’m just a “guest contributor” so far - maybe with more columns I’ll be promoted. (Nothing currently in my in-box, in case you were wondering.)