Not quite ignored, it is quoted in Insight, saying
Scholars have offered many interpretations of this passage, some of these being incorporated into modern Bible translations. (See CC, JB, Kx, La, NE, RS, as well as the German Zürcher Bibel, the Spanish Bover-Cantera and the French Crampon, Lienart, and Segond versions.) Such interpretations attempt to settle questions as to whether it was Moses’ or the child’s life that was threatened, whether Zipporah touched the feet of Moses or the feet of the child or the feet of the angel with the foreskin. They also venture opinions as to why Zipporah said (and to whom she said), “You are a bridegroom of blood to me.”
It seems that it was the child’s life that was in danger in view of what the law of circumcision states at Genesis 17:14; that Zipporah circumcised the child because she realized what was needed to set matters right; that she cast the foreskin at the feet of the angel who was threatening the child’s life to demonstrate her compliance with Jehovah’s law; that Zipporah addressed Jehovah through his representative angel when she exclaimed, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me,” doing so to show her acceptance of a wifely position in the circumcision covenant with Jehovah as the husband.—See Jer 31:32.
But there is no way of Scripturally settling such questions with certainty. The literal reading of the ancient Hebrew in this passage is veiled in the idioms used nearly 3,500 years ago. This is why literal translations (NW, Ro, Yg) and others (AS, KJ, Da, Dy, JP, Mo, Le), including the ancient Greek Septuagint, are not clear on these matters.