If, as some commentaries explain, Moshe did not take Tziporah and his sons with him to Egypt, what is this Pasuk referring to?
Seforno: The Pasuk is reverting to the journey from the desert to Midyan (refer to 4:20:3:2); only the Torah wanted to first conclude Hashem's list of instructions concerning his Shelichus.
Why did the angel want to kill Moshe? What had he done wrong?
Rashi (citing Nedarim 31b): Either because he was lax in circumcising Eliezer, 1 or (not because he was lax in not performing it 2 but) because he settled down in the inn first. 3
Rashbam #1 (to 4:14): This happened because Moshe had argued at length with Hashem, refusing his Shelichus. Refer to 4:14:1:3.
Rashbam #2: Because Moshe should not have taken his wife and children with him, but should have gone swiftly on his Shelichus. 4
Targum Yonasan: Moshe failed to circumcise Gershom, due to a condition Yisro had made with him when he gave him Tziporah in marriage 5 - that he would dedicate his first son to Avodah Zarah and not circumcise him - a condition he accepted with an oath. 6
Moshav Zekenim: Just like Milah after the eighth day does not override Shabbos, so too, it did not override Hashem's command to go to Egypt. 7
Seforno: This occurred on the eighth day, when Hashem came down to enter into a Bris with the baby. This is apparently the source of the custom to prepare a special chair for the Bris Milah in honor of the Shechinah.
Rashi: In fact, he reckoned that, on the one hand, to circumcise before leaving (with his wife and children) would endanger the baby; while on the other, it would not be correct to postpone fulfilling the command of Hashem by three days until the baby recovered.
According to the Gemara there, it was not Moshe that the angel wanted to kill, but the baby.
Rashbam: And it was the Mitzvah of Milah that acted like a Korban - like we find by Gid'on and Mano'ach, who brought a Korban upon seeing an angel - that atoned for his sin and saved his life.
Zayis Ra'anan (on the Midrash): The verses prove that it was because he was not circumcising Eliezer. We can say that, because he had stipulated about Gershom, now Moshe was lax about Eliezer even in the absence of a stipulation. Refer also to 4:25:1:1.
Ba'al ha'Turim (to 2:16): Moshe was sure that he would persuade Yisro to reject idolatry [and annul the Tenai]. Tosfos ha'Shalem (to 2:16, #2, citing R. Efrayim Gad) - The Tenai was that the son learn Midyanite culture, i.e. a foreign Avodah. Tosfos ha'Shalem (to 2:16, #3) - Moshe intended to convince his son to repent, and he did. Even so, Moshe was punished, and his grandson became a priest of Pesel Michah.
Moshav Zekenim: Even though Bnei Yisrael did not circumcise in the Midbar due to danger, and Hashem was not angry, here Moshe erred to bring his wife and sons with him.
How can the Gemara (Nedarim 32a) say that the angel wanted to kill Moshe for settling the lodging [at the inn], before [circumcising his son] (see 4:24:2:1)? It would endanger the baby to circumcise him now, for Moshe would have to continue on to Egypt tomorrow!
Hadar Zekenim #1: This was after Moshe had returned to Egypt, so there was no danger.
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim #2, Moshav Zekenim #1: This was after Aharon convinced him not to bring his wife and children to Egypt. 1 Tziporah could stay with the baby until he would heal, 2 and be able to return to Midyan.
Riva #1, Moshav Zekenim #2 (citing Mizrachi): The inn was close to Egypt, such that he could bring the baby there after the Milah, without any danger.
Riva #2: Hashem had not commanded him to take his wife and children! Moshe should have circumcised him in Midyan, and left him there with Tziporah.
Moshav Zekenim: Milah on day eight overrides Shabbos. All the more so, it overrides Hashem's command to go to Egypt! Moshe would not have erred about this. Rather, he neglected circumcising [his older son] Gershom.
Gur Aryeh: Moshe had been commanded to return to Mitzrayim. A temporary delay on the way would not contravene this command (whereas remaining in Midyan for the three days after the Milah, before leaving at all, would have contravened it. Moshe should have done the Milah immediately upon his arrival at the inn, 3 despite that he would have to wait until the baby recovered before continuing on to Egypt).
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim: Even though Shevet Levi was not enslaved, he did not want his wife and children to see Yisrael in distress.
Moshav Zekenim: Moshe intended that Tziporah stay there until he takes Yisrael from Egypt, but she did not want to wait, and returned to Midyan. Alternatively, initially he left her there, and after he came to Egypt, he made a Shali'ach to tell her to return to Midyan, for he saw that it will be a long time, i.e. a month between Makos.
If so, Moshe should have stopped and done the Milah immediately after setting out! Why was he punished only when he got to the inn (and still had not yet done the Mitzvah)? Perhaps while actually walking, he was exempt due to his involvement in another Mitzvah. Once he encamped, however, he should have done the delayed Mitzvah before doing anything else. (EK)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Va'Yehi [ba'Derech, ba'Malon]' - [It happened while] Moshe was on the journey, at the inn." Why does Rashi need to insert the word "Moshe" as the subject (rather than simply, 'this is what happened on the journey... ')?
Gur Aryeh: No other verb appears in the Pasuk before it moves on to the next phrase, "va'Yifgeshehu Hashem." (Therefore, if we don't assume the inserted word 'Moshe,' the Pasuk should then continue the same thought with '... Pagash Oso' - [It happened on the road] that Hashem encountered him, etc.) Rather the word 'va'Yehi' itself is the verb - 'Moshe was on the road... ).
Rashi writes: "... [Moshe] said, 'Shall I circumcise [the baby], and [immediately] depart on the journey? That is dangerous for the baby!'" Mizrachi asks - But the source that one may abstain from a Mitzvas Aseh to prevent danger, is a Pasuk in the Torah (Vayikra 18:5) - and the Torah had not yet been given! (What then was his basis for postponing the Mitzvah?)
Gur Aryeh: That verse, "and live by them" (Vayikra 18:5), is not a Mitzvah, but rather a Matir (given permission); logic that a Chacham (such as Moshe) may reach independently, based on Sevarah (reasoning). Therefore, if to abstain from a Mitzvah under such circumstances would be permitted after Matan Torah, it was certainly permitted beforehand.
Rashi writes: "... Why was he punished? Because he busied himself with [camping at] the inn, before [circumcising his son]." Why should such a small delay in fulfilling this Mitzvah, carry such a harsh penalty?
Maharal #1 (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 5, to Nedarim 31b): The Mishnah's expression is, "Moshe's [punishment] was not suspended for even one hour." The concept of time relates to the physical world, created in seven days. Milah of the eighth day is not bound by time. 1
Maharal #2 (ibid.): Milah is the Tzurah of man. 2 Tzurah is not bound by time, for time is relevant to the physical plane. 3
Also refer to Bereishis 17:9:1.1:1 and Bereishis 17:12:1:1.
Refer to Bereishis 17:1:4.1:1. For explanation of the term Tzurah, common in Maharal's thought, refer to 1:1:2.9:1* and 1:1:2.8:1*.
For more on the association of the physical and time, see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 46, p. 175).
Rashi writes: "... The angel... swallowed him from his head until his thighs..." The Gemara (Nedarim 32a) writes that "Anger and Wrath" swallowed all but his legs. What does this mean on a deeper level?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 7, to Nedarim 32a): Man is comprised of body and soul (Guf and Nefesh); therefore, two angels were dispatched against him. 1 The angel's leaving the legs outside, symbolized that Moshe still had the ability to rectify his sin. Also, it was unseemly for a spiritual being to swallow the lowest part of a person.
Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv ha'Tzedakah Ch. 3, p. 173): The deficiency that must perforce exist in man's Guf and Nefesh, must have opposing forces. "Af" is what opposes the Guf, at the right side (the side represented by Chesed, and the Guf exists through Chesed - see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 45, p. 174) and refer to 4:3:3.1:3*). "Cheimah" opposes the Nefesh; it is portrayed as the heat of fire (i.e. Midas ha'Din, at the left. The Nefesh is also at the left, it can withstand Din - see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, ibid.)). Maharal continues; that Af brings suffering upon a person by natural means, whereas Cheimah brings misfortune that surpasses the normal - with Midas ha'Din and great power - as indicated by the letters Yud and Hei from Hashem's Name found in the word Cheimah.
