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 Inn’, in “Moses’ Women”, by Shera Aranoff Tuchman and Sandra E.
Rapoport (2008), especially p. 137, here:
_http://books.google.com/books?id=uIq_rVBTkKIC&pg=PA137&dq=bridegroom+of+blo
od&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZXTtUK3uGKKE2gW0kYDgBg&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=br
idegroom%20of%20blood&f=false_
(http://books.google.com/books?id=uIq_rVBTkKIC&pg=PA137&dq=bridegroom+of+blood&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZXTtUK3uGKKE2gW0kYDgBg&sqi=2
&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bridegroom%20of%20blood&f=false)
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
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
