In contrast, Zipporah has made a very unusual comment to Moses, “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me” and then again, “A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision”.
The Rabbinic Period
As soon as codified Jewish law was recorded, there was the develop- ment (which might have biblical origins) of the notion of dower (ketubah) for all brides, and this became, by rabbinic decree, a pre-condition to any marriage (first or not, virgin bride or not). Thus while the right to divorce remained unilateral for the husband, with no right of consent by the wife, it was now restricted by a clear financial obligation imposed on the husband to compensate his wife if he exercised his right to engage in unilateral divorce absent judi- cially declared fault on her part. The Talmud even records views that if the husband cannot pay the financial obligation, he is prohibited from divorcing his wife. Indeed, the wife, as a precondition to marriage could insist on a dower higher than the minimum promulgated by the rabbis. In the case of divorce for provable fault by the wife, the obligation to pay dower was removed.
In addition, there is the clear enunciation of the wife’s right to sue for divorce where there is fault by the husband, including such grounds as provable repugnancy, impotence, and other such grounds. In such a case, the husband must divorce his wife
(and in most cases pay the dower too). Of course, divorce could be by mutual consent, subject to whatever agreement the parties wished. (Page 18)
Maimonides (Rambam) ruled that Jewish law did not possess any annulment power, but that the obligation upon a husband to divorce his wife for fault included her assertion (even if unproven) that “he was repugnant to her.” In such a circumstance, the hus- band must divorce his wife, and a Jewish law court should compel such a divorce under the threat of court sanction, including physical coercion if the husband would not give the get of his own free will. (Page 20)
From Marriage, Divorce and the Abandoned Wife in Jewish Law, by Michael J. Broyd
What’s Zipporah talking about? Obviously she’s not happy that she had to circumcise her son, and her throwing the foreskin at Moses’ feet appears to be quite out of the ordinary. Couple that with the statement “bloody husband” (dam S1818 chathan S2860) and its one of those statements that is easy to read right past without understanding what it means. Dam is the word for blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or animal. It is first used in Genesis 4:10 in an anthromophorpic analogy by God in his conversation with Cain about Abel. What hast thou done? The voice of thy brothers blood crieth unto me from the ground.
It seems to me that there are two possible understandings for this phrase.
- Either she is saying that he is an unclean, repulsive man to her
- Or, she is saying that he is dead to her.
The story basically ends there without any further clarification of the event. We wouldnt even know that she went back to her fathers house except in Exodus 18:2 it states that Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took Zipporah, Moses wife, after he had
sent her back.
This bold phrase comes from the word shilluwach S7964 and means: a dismissal,(of a wife), divorce (especially the document); also dower (of a daughter) presents
A. There are other words in Hebrew for sending someone away generically, such as S7971 (which is also used occasionally for sending away as in divorce but is primarily a generic and very common sending away) but S7964 is only used 3 times, and those are exclusively used as sending away with a dower (into marriage 2x) (back to her father 1x)
B. Zipporah was not Moses daughter.
C. Scripture uses the word for sending her back with her dower. Which would be the case if a divorce occurred without fault from the woman. With fault on the woman’s part, the word used elsewhere in scripture is S7971. Shalach.
This is followed by Jethro announcing that he is Moses father in law, [why would he announce himself to Moses that way unless he was making a point?] and has brought his wife and two sons back to him. In effect, Jethro just voided Zipporah’s demand for/statement of divorce and reinstated her back to her husband.
I found it interesting when I was studying the Exodus and the path that the Israelites took once they crossed the Red Sea. They pass very near to Midian, but do not go there. They go around it when it would have been easier to go there. This seems very unusual for a husband and father to ignore his wife and children if he just sent them to her father for their safety. It is not until they are almost to Horeb that Jethro brings them to Moses. It makes me wonder exactly what Zipporah told her father (if anything) when she returned from the inn.
