Bible Study Numbers 12:1

[JLB]

Moses's wife was Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro who was a Kenite shepard and a priest of Midian. The two met in Midian after Moses fled there after killing an Egyptian that was beating a Hebrew. The two met at a well that Zipporah and her sisters used to water their flock. Moses rescued her and her sisters after other shepards came to the well and forced them away. Moses defended the girls and watered their flock. Jethro invited Moses to dinner and gave Zipporah to be his wife. Exodus 2:11-21.

God commanded Moses to return back to Egypt to free the Israelites, but first he married Zipporah and had children with her. As they were traveling back to Egypt they stayed at and Inn and God came to Moses to kill him causing Moses to become deathly ill because he failed to circumcise his son according to the Abrahamic Covenant and IMO probably for marring someone who worshipped other gods even though Jethro was from the bloodline of Abraham. Even though it was against the Midian pagan religion to circumcise, Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So God let him go. Then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. She did this in fear of Moses being killed. Exodus 4:24-26.

There is so much to learn about Moses, Zipporah and her father Jethro as you study Exodus.

Amen.


Thanks for sharing this.



JLB

 

[brother Paul]

Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight... Just sharing another's point of view.
What I will say is this, your allowed your biblical view and your mode of reasoning and speculation as much as the next guy. But we need to always give each other the same respect we would want to be given.

As far as Rashi, he is well respected in Jewish circles and although everyone will not agree with him on every point, his knowledge and biblical understanding is very deep and extremely wide. Rashi is well known for his command of the Jewish language, so when he says what he says about this passage, it can be trusted that it has its roots in the language and culture of the day.

Ramban will challenge Rashi on occasion, but generally, Jewish commentators including Ramban will ride on his tailcoats.

All that to say don't brush him off that easily.

Sorry if I came off like a bad attitude brother! Actually in the past I have enjoyed Rashi and Maimonides commentaries on many points (very insightful from a Talmudic Jewish perspective), and who knows, his interpretation may in fact be correct (Jertho did after all return Zipporah at one point).

I guess my confusion here is the difference in terms of ethnicity (the root of Midianites being Shem and the root of Cushites being Ham) in Moses/Torah description...

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry if I came off like a bad attitude brother! Actually in the past I have enjoyed Rashi and Maimonides commentaries on many points (very insightful from a Talmudic Jewish perspective), and who knows, his interpretation may in fact be correct (Jertho did after all return Zipporah at one point).

I guess my confusion here is the difference in terms of ethnicity (the root of Midianites being Shem and the root of Cushites being Ham) in Moses/Torah description...

It's all good, thank you!

As you may be aware, the Jews language is a bit different than the English language, and your questions are fair questions.

I would encourage you to read the whole section, but here is a snipit you might find useful to better understand how they see this. Again, I have no dog in this...

Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13

"This is the law of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 6:2): And what is [the meaning of] burnt offering (olah, literally that which rises)? Rather, it is that it...

www.sefaria.org

As he took a Cushite (Ethopian) woman" (Numbers 12:1) - the numerical value of Cushite is [equal to that of] beautiful looks. The tally of this one is like the tally for that one. "The Cushite woman" tells [us] that everybody concedes about her beauty, in the same way as everyone speaks about the blackness of a Cushite. "About the matter of the woman"

 

[brother Paul]

It's all good, thank you!

As you may be aware, the Jews language is a bit different than the English language, and your questions are fair questions.

I would encourage you to read the whole section, but here is a snipit you might find useful to better understand how they see this. Again, I have no dog in this...

Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13

"This is the law of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 6:2): And what is [the meaning of] burnt offering (olah, literally that which rises)? Rather, it is that it...

www.sefaria.org

As he took a Cushite (Ethopian) woman" (Numbers 12:1) - the numerical value of Cushite is [equal to that of] beautiful looks. The tally of this one is like the tally for that one. "The Cushite woman" tells [us] that everybody concedes about her beauty, in the same way as everyone speaks about the blackness of a Cushite. "About the matter of the woman"

Gematria, again, is very subjective (but intensely interesting)! So now how about the gematria for Midianite? Midian was the son of Abraham and Keturah (thus Semitic, i.e., of Shem)...but I may be incorrect because after all Jethro was a Kenite (of Canaan) who were Hamites...

 

[stovebolts]

Gematria, again, is very subjective (but intensely interesting)! So now how about the gematria for Midianite? Midian was the son of Abraham and Keturah (thus Semitic, i.e., of Shem)...but I may be incorrect because after all Jethro was a Kenite (of Canaan) who were Hamites...

If you read Tzav 13 in its entirety, you will see that Gematria in this case is used as a form of hermeneutics, and not in a mystical kabbalistic manner which makes it more exegetical in nature in supporting the overall redaction.

In other words, Gematria is not the foundation of their interpretation. Instead, it is supportive.

Look at it this way. If I said I married Madonna, its to say I married a beautiful woman with a beautiful voice. It is not to be taken literally.

In the same way, this is what I hear Tzav 13 saying, and supporting their reasoning with Gematria which holds authority within Jewish scholarship.

 

[brother Paul]

If you read Tzav 13 in its entirety, you will see that Gematria in this case is used as a form of hermeneutics, and not in a mystical kabbalistic manner which makes it more exegetical in nature in supporting the overall redaction.

In other words, Gematria is not the foundation of their interpretation. Instead, it is supportive.

Look at it this way. If I said I married Madonna, its to say I married a beautiful woman with a beautiful voice. It is not to be taken literally.

In the same way, this is what I hear Tzav 13 saying, and supporting their reasoning with Gematria which holds authority within Jewish scholarship.

Very well put (I am aware of this usage)...thanks....

To understand Judaism in such ancient times it IS best to explore the thinking and conceptualizations of Jewish peoples from that time. All cultures and times did not (do not) THINK the same...this has helped clarify their thinking.

One clarification of this kind I found was John's use of Word of the Lord or Word of God in John 1:1. After a careful study of the 1st and 2nd century Targumim I became enlightened to the fact that John was not borrowing an idea from Greek mystery religions or any other such hogwash. It became starkly apparent to me that this idea of YHVH being manifest in different forms (many times in the flesh) was the point that a Jewish hearer at the time would understand but for the Greek reader (having chosen "logos" as the word that closest explains his point) he had to elaborate on it through verse 5.

The point was this wording sent a specific message to still unbelieving diaspora Jews (especially the Rabbis) that this Jesus was what the Targumim called the Memra of YHVH. He is that aspect of YHVH which allows us to see and hear him (see John 1:18 and John 5:37)...incarnate, He is the express image of YHVH's substance and is the brightness (that which can be seen) of His glory. Suddenly I understood the real meaning of the Nicean language "one OUSIA in three HYPOSTASES...(Father, Son or Word, and Holy Spirit)

Any way I do not want to drag this thread off track but perhaps we could open a new thread to discuss this further....maybe you never noticed this or maybe you have and disagree (which is fine)...so be blessed brother and keep encouraging others...

 

[stovebolts]

Very well put (I am aware of this usage)...thanks....

To understand Judaism in such ancient times it IS best to explore the thinking and conceptualizations of Jewish peoples from that time. All cultures and times did not (do not) THINK the same...this has helped clarify their thinking.

One clarification of this kind I found was John's use of Word of the Lord or Word of God in John 1:1. After a careful study of the 1st and 2nd century Targumim I became enlightened to the fact that John was not borrowing an idea from Greek mystery religions or any other such hogwash. It became starkly apparent to me that this idea of YHVH being manifest in different forms (many times in the flesh) was the point that a Jewish hearer at the time would understand but for the Greek reader (having chosen "logos" as the word that closest explains his point) he had to elaborate on it through verse 5.

The point was this wording sent a specific message to still unbelieving diaspora Jews (especially the Rabbis) that this Jesus was what the Targumim called the Memra of YHVH. He is that aspect of YHVH which allows us to see and hear him (see John 1:18 and John 5:37)...incarnate, He is the express image of YHVH's substance and is the brightness (that which can be seen) of His glory. Suddenly I understood the real meaning of the Nicean language "one OUSIA in three HYPOSTASES...(Father, Son or Word, and Holy Spirit)

Any way I do not want to drag this thread off track but perhaps we could open a new thread to discuss this further....maybe you never noticed this or maybe you have and disagree (which is fine)...so be blessed brother and keep encouraging others...

Yeah, that would be a great study for those that want a broader explanation, or at the least know that there are other views out there.

I haven't read much Rambam, but I have a fair share from Ramban. He mentions Memra in Genesis 1 or two if my memory serves me... But that's taken with a grain of salt these days lol... I'm a bit fuzzy and could be speaking wrongly. You seem well rounded and knowledgable, if you start a new thread is like to hear your take on davar and how that fits in.

My days are busy and it's hit or miss how much I can engage in any thread and less the deeper a thread goes simply because I post mostly from my phone and my memory lacks detail that needs jogged once in awhile.

For kicks, in post 33 I quote Ramban on Bara. It's interesting and you might enjoy it.

Bible Study - The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

I would leave Ramban and whoever else strictly alone till you've wrestled with the text for yourself, asking your own questions and finding your own answers. Speaking for myself, I have wrestled with scripture... and I've got a limp to prove it. Ramban is not like any academic work you've ever...

christianforums.net

 

[dianegcook]

Though there is controversy about whether this is Zipporah, I would say NO! Zipporah was a Midianite (of the line of shem) from the family of Jethro a Midianite priest and herdsman. This wife was Cushite (of the line of Ham) and they settled in Ethiopia. Long before Moses the Ethiopians identified themselves as Kushite (same thing).

What are your thoughts?

Same thing as, one that was born, let's say New York, and moved to Florida, they are now, Floridians.

 

[brother Paul]

Yeah, that would be a great study for those that want a broader explanation, or at the least know that there are other views out there.

I haven't read much Rambam, but I have a fair share from Ramban. He mentions Memra in Genesis 1 or two if my memory serves me... But that's taken with a grain of salt these days lol... I'm a bit fuzzy and could be speaking wrongly. You seem well rounded and knowledgable, if you start a new thread is like to hear your take on davar and how that fits in.

My days are busy and it's hit or miss how much I can engage in any thread and less the deeper a thread goes simply because I post mostly from my phone and my memory lacks detail that needs jogged once in awhile.

For kicks, in post 33 I quote Ramban on Bara. It's interesting and you might enjoy it.

Bible Study - The First Book of Moses Called Genesis

I would leave Ramban and whoever else strictly alone till you've wrestled with the text for yourself, asking your own questions and finding your own answers. Speaking for myself, I have wrestled with scripture... and I've got a limp to prove it. Ramban is not like any academic work you've ever...

christianforums.net

New thread on the Word posted....and yes as we see the eretz without form and void can indicated the primordial stuff from which God "made" or "formed" the things of the Universe, the Genesis account can be seen to bear this out. For example in Genesis 1 when Elohim creates humankind (bara) He creates them male and female, but when He forms them (yatzar) He makes the male first and then the female from the male.

Now some like to claim this is a contradiction, but seen as Rambam sees it it is not a contradiction at all. The same can be said for those who claim Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different and blended creation myths but they are not...the 1st through Genesis 2:1-3 is the story of bara, the following is the story of yatzar (formation)...ideation preceded aggregation...creation preceded formation (one flowing from the other)

In Genesis 2:4 we read these are the generations but most Western readers miss that generations means proceedings or the result of as in an after effect like an offspring.