>From Robert Alter: > >> If one sustains the assumption that the accused wife is pregnant, the phrase would mean that she retains her pregnancy, now proven to be legitimate, and will be rewarded with progeny
i don't think this follows. the text reads,
>> וְנִקְּתָה, וְנִזְרְעָה זָרַע
these are imperfect tenses; she will be cleared, and she will seed seed ("conceive").
now this may imply that the ancient hebrew author didn't think "seeding" happened until birth, which is an interesting idea.
>The positive evidence that it 'was preformed on or meant to be performed on a pregnant woman' is that the woman was suspected to have engaged in activity that could impregnate her. This ritual rectifies a property crime against the husband, who could be economically and socially disadvantaged by raising an illegitimate child
interestingly, the talmud recommends delaying the punishment apparently for precisely the reason that it could harm a child.
>> Establishing that the state could end a pregnancy does not prove that God was ok with people having abortions
indeed, this is not a woman with bodily autonomy. it's exactly the opposite. she has no choice in the matter; it's an honor killing.
>The effects of the potion come from God, not nature: water and dirt doesn't make an abortifacient. If the passages refer to pregnancy and miscarriage and if you really think this was a ritual commanded by God Himself, then the implications are obvious. It's your choice to believe it, literally
there's a possibility here worth considering. it could be straight placebo. it may never work.
> Yes, "thigh" is a euphemism as it often is, but it's not a euphemism for "womb" but of the primary sexual organs of both sexes. That her sexual organs will rot away
בִטְנָ֔הּ "belly" is used as a euphemism for womb: "her belly will swell and her thigh sag". The word וְנָפְלָ֖ה is more commonly translated by modern scholars as "sag" or "fall away", not rot
> The passage indicates that the women in question is not pregnant at the time
No, it doesn't. The women is suspected to have engaged in "seed-coupling" (13 Alter) and "[if] a man other than your husband has put his semen in you..." (20 Alter). If the woman engaged in intercourse, it's likely that she is now pregnant
> then she will be free of ill effects and will be able to bear children
From Robert Alter:
> If one sustains the assumption that the accused wife is pregnant, the phrase would mean that she retains her pregnancy, now proven to be legitimate, and will be rewarded with progeny
The positive evidence that it 'was preformed on or meant to be performed on a pregnant woman' is that the woman was suspected to have engaged in activity that could impregnate her. This ritual rectifies a property crime against the husband, who could be economically and socially disadvantaged by raising an illegitimate child
> Establishing that the state could end a pregnancy does not prove that God was ok with people having abortions
The effects of the potion come from God, not nature: barley flour, water, and dirt doesn't make an abortifacient. If the passages refer to pregnancy and miscarriage and if you really think this was a ritual commanded by God Himself, then the implications are obvious
Yes! Please do.
I recommend Robert Alter's translation, which focuses on maintaining the beautiful poetry of the original Hebrew, but of course, there's a ton of versions that are free online.
Out of curiosity what translation are you using?
If you are reading an older Christian translation like the KJV, it might be translated from the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoeritic text, so what you are geting is mediated through Greek thought/rhetoric.
You might be interested in translations that pay particular attention to the structure of the text and don't change idiosyncrasies that make sense in Hebrew but not in English. The Buber-Rosenzweig Bible is the most well known but it's in German, The Robert Alter translations are really good ones in English.
Go with the JPS or Artscroll if you want a more classical translation, or go with Alter which is a really nice edition.
it makes sense to a dude who did the research. his footnotes go into great detail concerning his reasons for translating certain words certain ways. It's a very interesting read, even if you don't ultimately agree with him.
https://www.amazon.ca/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393333930
I wouldn't look at this for occult interpretation or meaning, although the occult interpretations usually aren't that far removed from exoteric or lay interpretations (despite how much occultists would like to protest), it's just that in the occult the 'fractal' nature of Scripture (whether Abrahamic or Vedantic or Buddhist or whatever) is generally carried to such an extreme that you literally feel the resonance of the passages--you can get this from Jungian interpretation as well (and fwiw, I'd count Jung as an occultist).
But, that said, this is a good translation as far as I can tell (read through the first couple chapters of Genesis) and is modern-enough that you won't strain against the language (like you may with the King James version).
> If she is guilty, she swells up and dies
Death isn't mentioned, and if she is pregnant, a miscarriage is the obvious implication. Alter translates it as "her belly [womb] will swell and her thigh sag [fall away]", which is in-line with versions such as the JPS and NJPS
What makes religiously-motivated sources 1000 years removed more 'authoritative' than modern scholarship?
From Robert Alter's commentary:
> 13 and a man lie with her in seed-coupling. If the Masoretic vocalization of the text can be trusted, the Hebrew makes “her” the direct object of “lie” (“lay her,” “bed her”), a usage that may highlight the brutality of the act. “Seed-coupling,” shikhvat-zera‘, is literally “seed-lying” or perhaps even “layer of seed.” In any case, the phrase clearly indicates vaginal penetration with emission of semen. concealed…hide…no witness…not apprehended. The deployment of overlapping language stresses the clandestine nature of the act of adultery. With no concrete evidence of the sexual betrayal, with no more than his suspicions to go on, the husband is overcome by a fit of jealousy (verse 14) and has recourse to a trial by ordeal.
> 20 put his semen in you. The term for “semen,” shekhovet, is derived from the verbal stem sh-k-v, “to lie,” used at the beginning of the passage, and appears to have this technical sexual sense. Its use, together with “seed-coupling” above, may offer support to those commentators who propose that the suspected woman is actually pregnant. Either the husband thinks he has grounds for suspicion that he is not the father (e.g., this wife has been frequently gone from the house at odd hours), or, in a case where he has not been having sex with his wife (whether through mutual estrangement or because he has been away), he thinks he can be certain. Bathsheba and Uriah would be an instance of the second alternative.
> 20 your thigh sag and your belly swell. Much futile energy has been devoted to working out what sort of medical symptoms might be indicated. “Belly” is often womb in the Bible, and “thigh” might be a metonymic euphemism for vagina, but not necessarily. In any case, something physically dire immediately happens to the guilty woman after she swallows the potion, and it happens in or around the organs of generation. If in fact she is pregnant, that could be a miscarriage, the ordeal thus becoming an induced abortion, though this remains uncertain.
> 22 this besetting water shall enter your innards. The verb for entering or coming into is also a biblical idiom for consummated sexual intercourse, so the penetration of the ritual potion into the woman’s innards answers to the act of which she has been accused.
> 28 sown with seed. This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew. If one sustains the assumption that the accused wife is pregnant, the phrase would mean that she retains her pregnancy, now proven to be legitimate, and will be rewarded with progeny. Otherwise, the phrase might suggest that her reward comes in her conceiving afterward by her husband: in this reading, the trial by ordeal would be a means of reconciliation between spouses separated by the husband’s suspicion.
It uses idioms that are associated with pregnancy, and I believe most biblical scholars interpret it as referring to miscarriage. From Robert Alter's commentary:
> 13 and a man lie with her in seed-coupling. If the Masoretic vocalization of the text can be trusted, the Hebrew makes “her” the direct object of “lie” (“lay her,” “bed her”), a usage that may highlight the brutality of the act. “Seed-coupling,” shikhvat-zera‘, is literally “seed-lying” or perhaps even “layer of seed.” In any case, the phrase clearly indicates vaginal penetration with emission of semen. concealed…hide…no witness…not apprehended. The deployment of overlapping language stresses the clandestine nature of the act of adultery. With no concrete evidence of the sexual betrayal, with no more than his suspicions to go on, the husband is overcome by a fit of jealousy (verse 14) and has recourse to a trial by ordeal.
> 20 put his semen in you. The term for “semen,” shekhovet, is derived from the verbal stem sh-k-v, “to lie,” used at the beginning of the passage, and appears to have this technical sexual sense. Its use, together with “seed-coupling” above, may offer support to those commentators who propose that the suspected woman is actually pregnant. Either the husband thinks he has grounds for suspicion that he is not the father (e.g., this wife has been frequently gone from the house at odd hours), or, in a case where he has not been having sex with his wife (whether through mutual estrangement or because he has been away), he thinks he can be certain. Bathsheba and Uriah would be an instance of the second alternative.
> 20 your thigh sag and your belly swell. Much futile energy has been devoted to working out what sort of medical symptoms might be indicated. “Belly” is often womb in the Bible, and “thigh” might be a metonymic euphemism for vagina, but not necessarily. In any case, something physically dire immediately happens to the guilty woman after she swallows the potion, and it happens in or around the organs of generation. If in fact she is pregnant, that could be a miscarriage, the ordeal thus becoming an induced abortion, though this remains uncertain.
> 22 this besetting water shall enter your innards. The verb for entering or coming into is also a biblical idiom for consummated sexual intercourse, so the penetration of the ritual potion into the woman’s innards answers to the act of which she has been accused.
> 28 sown with seed. This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew. If one sustains the assumption that the accused wife is pregnant, the phrase would mean that she retains her pregnancy, now proven to be legitimate, and will be rewarded with progeny. Otherwise, the phrase might suggest that her reward comes in her conceiving afterward by her husband: in this reading, the trial by ordeal would be a means of reconciliation between spouses separated by the husband’s suspicion.
> The Hebrew (below) says "to rot your thigh"
"rot" is generally not accepted for modern translations, and versions such as the JPS and Alter's use 'sag' or 'fall away'
> Also, and maybe more persuasive, is the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of pregnancy
There are many references to pregnancy in the passage. Here are some examples and commentary from Robert Alter:
> 13 and a man lie with her in seed-coupling. If the Masoretic vocalization of the text can be trusted, the Hebrew makes “her” the direct object of “lie” (“lay her,” “bed her”), a usage that may highlight the brutality of the act. “Seed-coupling,” shikhvat-zera‘, is literally “seed-lying” or perhaps even “layer of seed.” In any case, the phrase clearly indicates vaginal penetration with emission of semen. concealed…hide…no witness…not apprehended. The deployment of overlapping language stresses the clandestine nature of the act of adultery. With no concrete evidence of the sexual betrayal, with no more than his suspicions to go on, the husband is overcome by a fit of jealousy (verse 14) and has recourse to a trial by ordeal.
> 20 put his semen in you. The term for “semen,” shekhovet, is derived from the verbal stem sh-k-v, “to lie,” used at the beginning of the passage, and appears to have this technical sexual sense. Its use, together with “seed-coupling” above, may offer support to those commentators who propose that the suspected woman is actually pregnant. Either the husband thinks he has grounds for suspicion that he is not the father (e.g., this wife has been frequently gone from the house at odd hours), or, in a case where he has not been having sex with his wife (whether through mutual estrangement or because he has been away), he thinks he can be certain. Bathsheba and Uriah would be an instance of the second alternative.
> 20 your thigh sag and your belly swell. Much futile energy has been devoted to working out what sort of medical symptoms might be indicated. “Belly” is often womb in the Bible, and “thigh” might be a metonymic euphemism for vagina, but not necessarily. In any case, something physically dire immediately happens to the guilty woman after she swallows the potion, and it happens in or around the organs of generation. If in fact she is pregnant, that could be a miscarriage, the ordeal thus becoming an induced abortion, though this remains uncertain.
> 22 this besetting water shall enter your innards. The verb for entering or coming into is also a biblical idiom for consummated sexual intercourse, so the penetration of the ritual potion into the woman’s innards answers to the act of which she has been accused.
> 28 sown with seed. This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew. If one sustains the assumption that the accused wife is pregnant, the phrase would mean that she retains her pregnancy, now proven to be legitimate, and will be rewarded with progeny. Otherwise, the phrase might suggest that her reward comes in her conceiving afterward by her husband: in this reading, the trial by ordeal would be a means of reconciliation between spouses separated by the husband’s suspicion.
Robert Alter's translation of and commentary on the jewish bible will be published in September. I am thinking about trying to read the whole thing starting at the beginning of next year. He has previously published his translation of the Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, the former prophets, the Psalms, and the later books (Ruth, song of songs, daniel, esther, etc) All that is missing are the major and minor prophets. It will be very long, like 6000 pages in three volumes.
The Five Books of Moses https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393333930/
Strong As Death Is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel, A Translation with Commentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393352250/
The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393340538/
The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337049/
Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings: A Translation with Commentary https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393348768/
I'm a Robert Alter fangirl because he's a wonderful translator:
>When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, "Let there be light."
The commentary is very cool, however, it's geared toward people interested biblical literature, not Judaism in particular.
Lately I am reading Gunther Plaut's Torah: A Modern Commentary. It's the JPS translation, with gender neutral language and liberal commentary. What I like about it is that the parsha is interspersed, along with accompanying essays. The layout is nice and easy to read. I wouldn't call it "unbiased", though–you can tell it's a Reform publication, but it makes note of where it departs from traditional Judaism, which is useful.
Another resource I really like is The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter which you can pick up for about 8 dollars, used on amazon Alter is a Professor of Hebrew at Berkeley as well as honorific titles elsewhere he has gone back and not only given a better translation than a lot of the original Masoretic translation but also adds in some historical context as well. It is a fairly scholarly work, that is some might find it a bit dry but I think it is a great addition to learning.