(18) Moses went back to his father-in-law Yeter and said to him, “Let me go back to my kinsmen in Egypt and see how they are faring.” And Yitro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” (19) Ad-nai said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who sought to kill you are dead.” (20) So Moses took his wife and sons, mounted them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses took the rod of God with him. (21) And Ad-nai said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the marvels that I have put within your power. I, however, will stiffen his heart so that he will not let the people go. (22) Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus said Ad-nai: Israel is My first-born son. (23) I say to you, “Let My son go, that he may worship Me,” yet you refuse to let him go. Now I will slay your first-born son.’” (24) And it was, on the way to the inn, Ad-nai encountered him and sought to kill him. (25) So Tzipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!” (26) And he withdrew from him, she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.” (27) Ad-nai said to Aaron, “Go to meet Moshe in the wilderness.” He went and met him at the mountain of God, and he kissed him. (28) Moshe told Aaron all the words of Ad-nai, that He had sent him, and all the signs about which He had instructed him.
~ What is the "scene at the inn" doing here?
~ When in the story did it happen?
~ Who is present at the inn?
~ Whose life is under threat?
~ Who has done what that deserves punishment?
~ How does Tzipporah know what to do?
A few things:
First, the text seems inserted in a place of the narrative where it makes sense. However, there is an issue to be noticed at which is the repetition of the news of Moshe going down to Egypt, first to Yitro (v. 18) and then with God (v. 19). So Moshe might be or not be at the inn.
Besides that issue, all pronouns in the text are "he" and it is not very clear about whom we are talking, Moshe or one of the sons, Gershom or Eliezer. The Mechilta opens up this discussion:
(ג) ואת שני בניה וגו' נכריה, ר' יהושע אומר, ארץ נכריה היתה לו ודאי. ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר, בארץ נכריה [נכר יה]. אמר משה, הואיל וכל העולם עובדי עבודה זרה, אני אעבוד למי שאמר והיה העולם. שבשעה שאמר משה ליתרו, תן לי צפורה בתך לאשה, אמר לו יתרו, קבל עליך דבר זה שאומר לך ואני נותנה לך לאשה, אמר לו מהו, אמר לו בן שיהיה לך תחלה יהיה לעבודה זרה, מכאן ואילך לשם שמים, וקבל עליו. אמר לו השבע לי, וישבע לו, שנ' (שם ב) ויואל משה. אין אלה אלא לשון שבועה שנ' (שמו"א יד) ויואל שאול את העם לאמר, וכתיב (מל"ב ה כג) ויאמר נעמן הואל וקח ככרים. לפיכך הקדים המלאך להרוג את משה, מיד ותקח צפורה צר ותכרות את ערלת בנה וגו' וירף וגו'. ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר, מאוסה ערלה שנתגנו בה רשעים, שנ' (ירמיה ט) כי כל הגוים ערלים וכל בית ישראל ערלי לב. ר' ישמעאל אומר, גדולה מילה ששלש עשרה בריתות נכרתו עליה. ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר, גדולה מילה שדוחה את השבת החמורה שחייבין עליה כרת. ר' יהושע בן קרחא אומר, גדולה מילה שלא נתלה למשה עליה מלא שעה. ר' נחמיה אומר, גדולה מילה שדוחה את הנגעים. רבי אומר, גדולה מילה שכל זכיותיו של משה לא עמדו לו בשעת דחקו, כשאמר לו המקום לך הוצא את עמי בני ישראל ממצרים, ועל שנתעצל במילה שעה אחת, בקש המלאך להרגו, שנ' ויהי בדרך במלון. ר' יוסי אומר, חס ושלום לאותו צדיק שנתעצל במילה שעה אחת, אלא אמר, ימול ויצא הרי סכנת נפשות, ישהה וימול, המקום אמר לו לך והוציא את עמי ישראל ממצרים; אלא על שנתרשל בלינה קודם המילה, לכך בקש המקום להרגו, שנ' ויהי בדרך במלון וגו'. ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, לא בקש המלאך להרוג את משה אלא לתינוק, שנאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי, אמרת צא וראה מי קרוי חתן, תינוק או משה, הוי אומר תינוק.
(3) (Exodus 18:3) "and her two sons … in a foreign land": R. Yehoshua says "foreign": as stated (i.e., literally). R. Elazar Hamoda'i says: in a land of foreign (gods, i.e., idolatry); Moses said: Since the whole world serves idolatry, I will serve Him who spoke and brought the (whole) world into being. But when Moses said to Yitro: 'Give me your daughter Tzipporah as a wife' Yitro answered: 'If you do what I ask of you, I will give her to you as a wife'. Moses: 'What do you ask?' Yitro: 'Your first son must serve idolatry. All others will be for (G-d) in heaven.' Moses accepted. Yitro: Swear. And he swore, as it is written (Exodus 2:21) "Vayoel Moses, etc.", this being an expression for swearing, as in (I Samuel 14:24) "Vayoel Saul the people" (in context: "And Saul beswore the people.") And it is written (II Kings 5:3) "Hoel (in context: "Swear") and take two talents, etc." Therefore, the angel came forward to kill Moses (viz. Exodus 4:24), whereupon (Ibid. 25) "Tzipporah took a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son … (26) "And he (the angel) let go of him." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: Repulsive is the foreskin, by which the wicked are demeaned, viz. (Jeremiah 9:25) "for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised of heart." R. Yishmael says: Great is circumcision over which thirteen covenants was made. R. Yossi Haglili says: Great is circumcision, which overrides the Sabbath, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off). R. Yehoshua b. Korcha says: Great is circumcision, laxity in which did not permit all of Moses' merits to protect him for even a short time. R. Nechemiah says: Great is circumcision, which overrides plague-spots (viz. Devarim 24:8). Rabbi [Yehudah Hanasi] says: Great is circumcision, all of Moses' merits not standing for him in his duress. When the L-rd told him "Take out My people, the children of Israel from the land of Egypt," because he was lax for a short time in (the) circumcision (of his son), the angel sought to kill him, viz. (Exodus 4:24) "and he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Yossi says: G-d forbid that that tzadik should be lax in circumcision for even a short while, but Moses thought: Circumcising him (his son) and journey (to Egypt) — that would involve a risk of life (for the child.) Shall he wait and circumcise — the L-rd has said to him: "Go and take My people Israel out of Egypt." But (his lapse was that) he preoccupied himself with his lodging before circumcising, wherefore the L-rd sought to kill him, viz.: "And he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: The angel did not seek to kill Moses, but the child, viz. (Ibid. 25) "for you are a groom of blood to me." Who is called a "groom" (in this context), the child or Moses? The child.
Here we see a few questions:
- who is the potential victim?
- why death penalty/life threatening?
- what is the sin?
Notice that the Mekhilta is surprising.
Eleazar HaModa'i thinks the victim is Moshe, and he has no problem with an image less-than-perfect of Moshe: dedicating his first born to idolatry! But, this comes with the price of life - and Moshe is saved by Tziporah. Circumcision is seen as the basic connection to G-d - the child is circumcised and therefore he does not belong to Avodah Zarah. This appears to be Gershom!
Yehoshua ben Korcha and Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi both think that the victim is actually Moshe - but because he delayed circumcision, they do not even bring up the idea of giving the child to idolatry. Shimon ben Gamliel brings the idea that the victim is the child. This might be Eliezer.
All agree that the "sin" is delaying circumcision somehow.
וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן, חֲבִיבָה מִילָה שֶׁלֹא נִתְלָה משֶׁה עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהָיָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְנִתְעַסֵּק בַּמָּלוֹן וְנִתְעַצֵּל לָמוּל לֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ, מִיָּד וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ ה' וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ. אַתְּ מוֹצֵא מַלְאָךְ שֶׁל רַחֲמִים הָיָה וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ. וַתִּקַּח צִפֹּרָה צֹר, וְכִי מִנַּיִן יָדְעָה צִפּוֹרָה שֶׁעַל עִסְקֵי מִילָה נִסְתַּכֵּן משֶׁה, אֶלָּא בָּא הַמַּלְאָךְ וּבָלַע לְמשֶׁה מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד הַמִּילָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה צִפּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹא בָּלַע אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא עַד הַמִּילָה הִכִּירָה שֶׁעַל עִסְקֵי הַמִּילָה הוּא נִיזֹּק, וְיָדְעָה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל כֹּחַ הַמִּילָה שֶׁלֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לְבָלְעוֹ יוֹתֵר מִכָּאן, מִיָּד וַתִּכְרֹת אֶת עָרְלַת בְּנָהּ וַתַּגַּע לְרַגְלָיו, וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי חֲתַן דָּמִים אַתָּה לִי, אָמְרָה חֲתָנִי תִּהְיֶה אַתָּה נָתוּן לִי בִּזְכוּת דָּמִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁל מִילָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי קִיַּמְתִּי הַמִּצְוָה, מִיָּד וַיִּרֶף הַמַּלְאָךְ מִמֶּנּוּ. אָז אָמְרָה חֲתַן דָּמִים לַמּוּלֹת, אָמְרָה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כֹּחַ הַמִּילָה שֶׁחֲתָנִי הָיָה חַיָּב מִיתָה שֶׁנִּתְעַצֵּל בְּמִצְוַת הַמִּילָה לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ, וְלוּלֵי הִיא לֹא נִצָּל.
And it happened on the way of the inn - beloved is circumcision, that Moshe could not delay on it even an hour, therefore when he was on the way and took care of [the needs in] the inn and was careless regarding circumcising his son Eliezer, immediately "Hashem encountered him and tried to kill him." You find that this was a merciful angel, and still he wanted to kill him. "And Tzipporah took a flint" - and how did Tzipporah know that Moshe was endangered because of the dealings with circumcision? The angel came and swallowed Moshe from his head until his [place of] circumcision. When she saw that the angel did not swallow him completely, but just up the circumcision she realized that it was because of circumcision that he was being attacked, and she understood how great is the power of circumcision because the angel could only swallow him up to there, immediately she cut the foreskin of her son "and touched his feet with it, and she said 'because you are a bridegroom of blood to me'" - she said: 'you will be my groom , given to me for the merit of this blood of circumcision, that behold I kept the mitzvah', and immediately the angel let him go. And then she said 'a bridegroom for the blood of circumcisions', she said: 'how powerful is circumcision, that my groom was liable for death because he delayed to do the mitzvah, and weren't for it he would not have been saved.
~ How does Shemot Rabbah answer the questions above?
~ Who is the center of the story for Shemot Rabbah?
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25), which indicates that the pain of circumcision lasts for several days and the child may be in danger while in pain. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: “Go, return into Egypt” (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately. For these reasons Moses did not circumcise the child immediately, but no neglect existed on his part. But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished? Because he was occupied with lodging first and did not immediately perform the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place” (Exodus 4:24). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It was not Moses our teacher that Satan wanted to kill, but rather, that infant who was not circumcised, as it is stated: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (Exodus 4:25). Go out and see: Who does it make sense would be the one that is called the bridegroom in this instance? You must say this is the infant, since he is the one who entered the covenant of Abraham by means of the circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna taught: At the time that Moses our teacher was negligent about the circumcision, the destructive angels named Af, meaning anger, and Ḥeima, meaning wrath, came and swallowed him, and only his legs were left outside. Immediately, “Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25), and immediately “He let him alone” (Exodus 4:26). At that moment, Moses our teacher wanted to kill them, as it is stated: “Cease from anger [af ] and forsake wrath [ḥeima]” (Psalms 37:8), which indicates that he wanted to harm the angels. And there are those who say: He killed the angel named Ḥeima, as it is stated: “Wrath is not in me” (Isaiah 27:4). The Gemara asks: How is it possible to say that he killed Ḥeima? Isn’t it written that Moses himself said much later: “For I was in dread of the anger and wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19)? The Gemara answers: There are two types of wrath. And if you wish, say that the army of Ḥeima remained but not the angel itself.
~ The Talmud builds on the Mechilta, so the first piece of the discussion is known to us. But it is not clear if the Talmudic rabbis had Shemot Rabbah as it is seen today.
~ How does the Talmud answer the question of how did Tzipporah know what to do?
~ Who is the potential victim?
~ Could Moshe really harm the angels?
ויהי בדרך במלון ויפגשהו ה' ויבקש המיתו; Moses was not present at the inn. The Torah had written prior to this that Moses had taken his wife and his sons and let them ride on the donkey. (verse 20) The meaning of the verse is that he sent his family ahead of him. [Rabeinu Chananel notices that the verb is "vayashav", he returned, and not "vayashuvu", they returned, which is what you would expect with a family of 4 people] Immediately afterwards we are told that Moses himself returned to Egypt. If the Torah reports sequentially, Moses could not have been at the inn at the time Tzipporah had this encounter. ויבקש המיתו, the person under threat of death was the boy, seeing that the angel had assumed the form of a serpent about to swallow the little boy. This serpent then spit out the boy and began to devour him from the opposite end, swallowing up to the part where the circumcision was to be performed. At that point, ותקח צפורה צור, Tzipporah understood what the problem was, i.e. that they were being punished for being tardy in performing the boy’s circumcision so that she herself performed it with a sharp flint.
Rabeinu Chananel is from Tunisia, 10th century, so he does not know Rashi, but knows the sources that Rashi will bring in his commentary. The great issue between the two is that Rashi assumes Moshe is the one being punished, but RC assumes the baby is the one. The text in Nedarim is unclear about whom we are talking about.
(כד) ויהי. משה
(24) On the way to the inn: on Moshe’s way to the inn.
(כד) בדרך במלון: ויבקש המיתו. המלאך למשה, לפי שלא מל את אליעזר בנו, ועל שנתרשל נענש מיתה תניא אמר רבי יוסי חס ושלום לא נתרשל, אלא אמר אמול ואצא לדרך, סכנה היא לתינוק עד שלשה ימים, אמול ואשהה שלשה ימים, הקדוש ברוך הוא צוני (פסוק י"ט) לך שוב מצרים. ומפני מה נענש, לפי שנתעסק במלון תחלה. במסכת נדרים (דף לא ב) . והיה המלאך נעשה כמין נחש ובולעו מראשו ועד ירכיו, וחוזר ובולעו מרגליו ועד אותו מקום, הבינה צפורה שבשביל המילה הוא:
(24) He sought to put him to death: [the angel] sought to kill Moshe since he had not circumcised his son Eliezer, and because he had been negligent he was worthy of the death penalty. It was taught: Rabbi Yosse said – Heaven forbid! Moshe was not [simply being] negligent; rather, he [had a thoughtful consideration] ‘if I circumcise my son and head out on the road the baby will be at risk for [the next]three days. [On the other hand] if I circumcise him and stay [in Midyan] for three days [I will be going against that which] the Holy One has commanded me to do [when G-d said] “Go, return to Egypt!” If so (if his considerations were plausible) why was he punished?! Because [when they reached the place] he dealt first with the issue of lodging [and not circumcision]. In Masechet Nedarim (31a): The angel became like a kind of a serpent and was swallowing him [Moshe] from his head down to his hips, then back, then swallowing him from his feet up to that same place. Tziporah understood that [the attack] was due to milah circumcision.
Rashi is totally Moshe-centric, following most opinions in the Midrash. To modern ears this sounds a little astounding: he had to circumcise the kid before talking or arranging to stay in the inn? Is God THIS picky? Some answers is that yes, God is this picky. And even more so with Moshe!! But, there are other ideas.
One of Rashi's grandsons, Rashbam (Shmuel ben Meir), is in favor of "God is this picky, and even more with Moshe" trend:
(כד) ויפגשהו ה' - המלאך - כי היה מתעצל בהליכתו ומוליך אשתו ובניו.
(24) ויפגשהו ה', in this instance a reference to the Lord’s angel. Moses’ sin consisted of needlessly slowing down the carrying out of his mission by taking his wife and children along.
But other Rashi's grandsons (Da'at Zekenim) are not going to be satisfied with this. But first, a detour.
(ב) אחר שלוחיה. כשאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא במדין (שמות ד יט) לך שוב מצרים, (שם כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו גו' ויצא אהרן לקראתו, (שם כז) ויפגשהו בהר האלהים אמר לו מי הם הללו. אמר לו זו היא אשתי שנשאתי במדין ואלו בני. אמר לו והיכן אתה מוליכן. אמר לו למצרים. אמר לו על הראשונים אנו מצטערים ואתה בא להוסיף עליהם. אמר לה לכי אל בית אביך, נטלה שני בניה והלכה לה:
after she had been sent away: When the Holy One of Blessing said to him in Midian, “Go, return to Egypt” (Exod. 4:19), “and Moses took his wife and his sons, etc.” (4:20), and Aaron went forth “and met him on the mount of God”(4:27), he [Aaron] said to him [Moses], “Who are these?” He [Moses] replied, “This is my wife, whom I married in Midian, and these are my sons.” "And where are you taking them?" he [Aaron] asked. “To Egypt,” he replied. He [Aaron] retorted, “We are suffering with the first ones, and you come to add to them?” He [Moses] said to her [Zipporah], “Go home to your father.” She took her two sons and went away. — [from Mechilta]
To understand Daat Zekenim we need to know this commentary of Rashi on 18:2
~ When was Tzipporah sent back, according to Rashi?
(כד) ויהי בדרך במלון. פרש"י מפני שנתעסק במלון תחלה משמע מתוך פי' שהיה לו למולו קודם שיתעסק במלון תחלה
ותימה שהרי למחרתו צריך לצאת ויסתכן הולד
וי"ל שאותו ולד היה במקום שלן לאחר שפגע בו אהרן ואמר לו על הראשונים אנו מצטערים ואתה בא להוסיף עליהם אע"פ ששבט לוי לא היו משועבדים מ"מ לא היה רוצה שיבואו במקום שיראו ישראל בצרה וחזרה משם צפורה ובניה וא"כ כיון שהיה בדעתם לחזור היה יכול למולו קודם שיתעסק במלון ותהיה צפורה ממתנת שם עד שיתרפא הנער ממילתו ולכך נענש:
(24) ויהי בדרך במלון, Rashi explains that because he busied himself with the lodging first teaches insie the explanation that he should have circumcised him first thing. This seems questionable, seeing that immediately after leaving the inn the baby would be exposed to the dangers of traveling in the desert!
We must therefore answer that this baby was in the place they lodged after Moses met Aharon, and he said “We are suffering with the first ones, and you come to add to them?” He did so although members of the tribe of Levi such as Moses and Aaron were not required to perform menial labor in Egypt, because in any instance he did not want them to come to a place where they would see Israel suffering, and from there Tziporah returned with her sons. And if this is so, since they thought that they would return, there was no excuse for not performing the circumcision before dealing with the lodging. Tzipporah would have stayed on at the inn until the infant had recovered from the circumcision. This is why Moses was punished.
~ Where does Daat Zekenim put the scene at the inn in the narrative? Why?
- Daat Zekenim (Rashi's grandkids) - they understand that the order of the narrative is slightly wrong, and that this process happened after the encounter with Aharon (v. 27). So then, in that case, there was an unnecessary delaying - not if the narrative is just as is, because who would go out to the desert with an just-circumcised infant?!
Ibn Ezra (Spain, 12th c.) is Eliezer-centric. He thinks it makes no sense for Moshe to be killed, given that he is on a Mission with capital M. But he takes issue with Nedarim, affirming, like Rashi, that the angel--turned-into-snake sought to get Moshe.
(כד) ויהי בדרך. היתה קבלה בידם שלא יומל הבן ביום השמיני אם הוא חולה או הוא בדרך שאין יכולת במוליכו להתעכב. ובעבור כי משה לא יוכל להתעכב בשליחות השם. ראה בעצתו שלא יומל כי יסתכן הנער אם יוליכו אותו בדרך. והנה שלח השם מלאך להזכיר משה שיניח עצתו ויומל הנער וילך לו לבדו. והנער יהיה עם אמו עד שיתרפא והנה טעם ויפגשהו שבא חולי על משה מהשם שלא עלה על לבו. וזהו ויבקש המיתו אם לא יומל בנו. ובעבור שאחזתו רעדה לא יוכל הוא למולו ומלה אותו צפורה כי הוא גלה לה זה הסוד. ואל תתמה בעבור שהוא כתוב ויפגשהו ה'. כי מלאך ה' הוא. וכמוהו וה' הולך לפניהם יומם ושם כתוב ויסע מלאך האלהים. ורב שמואל בן חפני אומר חלילה להיות השם מבקש להמית משה שהולך בשליחותו להוציא עמו. רק בקש להמית אליעזר. והוא סימן ויפגשהו גם המיתו. ואחרי כן פירש שהוא אליעזר. על כן כתיב את ערלת בנה ולא הזכירו בתחלה. כי עוד לא נקרא שמו. וכמוהו ויהי בלדתה ויתן יד
(24) And it happened in the way - They had a tradition that an eight-day son should not be circumcised if he was sick or traveling since there wasn't a possibility for delaying the travel. And this was because Moses could not be delayed in his Divine mission. He saw by his own counsel not to circumcise, since the youngster would be in danger if he was put to travel. And behold, HaShem sent an angel to remind Moses to pause himself and circumcise the child and go on his way on his own. And the youngster would stay with his mother until he healed, and behold the reason of "he met him" is that sickness from HaShem came to Moses because he didn't think of it. And this is "he sought to kill him" if he didn't circumcise his son. And due to the trembling that seized him he wasn't able to circumcise his son, and Tzipporah circumcised him, because he revealed to her the secret. And do not be surprise to read "HaShem met him" because it was an angel/messenger of HaShem. And like [this verse, we have] "And HaShem walks in front of them during the day" (Exodus 13:21) and there it is written "And God's angel traveled" (Exodus 14:19). And Rav Shmuel ben Chofni says God forbid that God would want to kill Moses, who goes in a Divine mission to save his people! He just wanted to kill Eliezer. And the sign is that "he met him" and "he wanted to kill him", and after "him" is explained to be Eliezer, because it is written "the foreskin of her son", and this is not explicit in the beginning, since his name had not been given yet. And like [this verse, we have] "And it was on her giving birth, and he put his hand" (Genesis 38:28)
(כד) ויהי בדרך במלון בלכתו מן המדבר למדין עם אשתו ובניו. וספר זה אחר שהשלים כל מצות האל יתברך אליו בדבר השליחות:
(24) ויהי בדרך במלון, when he was on the way from the desert to Midian with his wife and children. The Torah tells of this incident after concluding the report of how G-d appointed Moses as the leader of the Jewish people.
Sforno, Italy, 16th c - seems to accept the idea that the narrative is misplaced and sees Moses returning to Midian with the rest of the family.
(כד) ויפגשהו ה' קרה יום מילת בנו אשר בו תשרה שכינה לעמוד בברית, כענין נמולו אתו וירא אליו ה' ואולי זאת היא סבת המנהג להכין כסא כבוד במקום המילה:
(24) ויפגשהו ה', God encountered him on the 8th day on which he should have circumcised his son occurred because on that day the presence of the Lord, שכינה is present in the brit (circumcision), as with (Abraham) he was circumcised "and God appeared to him" (Gen. 18:1). Perhaps this is the source of the practice to place a chair of honor in the place where a the circumcision is happening.
(כד) ויבקש המיתו מלאך הממונה על זה ביקש להרוג את משה בשביל שנתרשל:
(24) [When the time passed without Eliezer being circumcised] The angel in charge of circumcision requested to kill Moses for being negligent.
So for Sforno, Moshe is remiss - he missed the 8th day. Notice that Sforno does not have a strong tradition that the chair is for Elijah - the chair can be for the Shechina.
(כה) ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי עשיתי זה כי אתה כשנשאתני והיית חתן לי התנית עמי שנמול את בנינו ונוציא מהם דם ברית, וכל זה אמרה לזכות משה לפני המבקש להמית:
(25) ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי. I have done this seeing that when I became married to you and you were my bridegroom you stipulated that our sons would have to be circumcised and that we would extract a certain amount of blood as the mark of the covenant with G-d. Tzipporah said all this to the angel who wanted to kill her husband in his defense.
Sforno - the angel needs to know that there was no deliberate negligence in performing the rite of circumcision. The groom is not the child.
R. Francis Nataf [Redeeming Relevance, Exodus]:
Compared with the description of the marriages of Ya’akov and his wives, for example, the story of Moshe and Tzipporah is highly truncated. In fact, Tzipporah’s name appears only three times in the entire Torah. What we do hear about the relationship between Moshe and his spouse leads us to conclude that it was emotionally distant. Even before their final separation alluded to in the book of Bemidbar, Moshe and Tzipporah had already known a protracted geographical separation, something unknown to any other couple in the entire Torah. This early separation would not only impact on the frequency of their interaction, it would also set its tone.
Indeed, Tzipporah remains largely invisible. To begin with, she is almost entirely silent – we hear her voice only briefly, when she appears to give Moshe some sort of rebuke concerning the circumcision of their son. Otherwise, we don’t hear from her at all.
Related to the paucity of interaction between Moshe and his wife is the parallel lack of connection between Moshe and his children, who at one point (Shemot 18:2,6) are appropriately referred to as “the children of Tzipporah.” The Torah tells us almost nothing about Moshe’s children – even less, in fact, than it tells us about Tzipporah. That being the case, we are almost surprised when the Torah uncharacteristically focuses even briefly on the significance of their names. This is all in marked contrast to the detailed and colorful description of Ya’akov and his children.
Moreover, the anomaly here is not just terseness; the curious fragmentation also demands our attention. This is seen most clearly in the middle of the journey back to Egypt, when a second, unnamed child suddenly appears (Shemot 4:20). Neither introduced nor explained, his very name is revealed to us only later. In another place, the Torah tells us that Tzipporah came back to see Moshe “after he had sent her away” (Shemot 18:2) – as if we already knew this. In fact, it comes totally out of the blue: Earlier, the text tells us only that Moshe’s family started on the road back to Egypt with him. From that point onward, his family is no longer mentioned, making us assume that they had been with him the entire time. After all, we don’t hear anything that would make us believe otherwise, and the default of Biblical couples is to stay together.