The Sotah and Abortion

 

This is written on the use of the Sotah in abortion issues, whether the Sotah shows abortion is commanded or sanctioned in the Bible and Judaism. using resources from the Bible, biblical and ancient near Eastern scholarship, ancient Jewish sources, and Rabbinic sources.this is written as a defense for the Bible's stand on this emotional issue.

The law of Moses ay one of the things commonly misunderstand by the left, unbelievers, and other people that want to go different ways and not what in God’s way where people commonly see it as "weird" or "strange" dahil sa mga rituals given for the Israelites. The issue ng abortion is something that we should not ignore dahil ang usapan dito ay human life and the sacredness of life. they as well as others, their rights are violated, specially their right to live. this is much in debate in our times where ang sexual immorality is also widespread. ang unborn babies ay mga buhay na human beings and it is not right to cut off their life for our own sake. i, have defended ang sanctity of life througout discussions sa internet. people are caring only for themselves nowadays and have a much more lower view of life. life begins at conception and this is true in the Bible and that we should not kill anyone and that includes ang mga human beings na nasa womb. this is more on a moral issue and not a religous issue. what’s sad din ay na ang ilang mga Christians that even include Latter Day Saints, support abortion and saying na walang sinabi ang Bible patungkol dito, therefore it is not false and therefore, the Bible justifies abortion. this is appealing to silence at ang assumption is not true for we find in the Bible that we should not murder; that we should not kill someone unjustly (Gen. 4:1-12; 9:6; Ex. 20;13; 21:12; Dt. 5:17; Mt. 5;21-22; 2Ne. 26:32; Mosiah 13:21; D&C 59:6; Moses 5:18-41). we also find in the Bible that all life, including those in the womb, is sacred and must be respected (Ps. 127:3). this is crystal clear that Christians should follow but they will deny what it really is. they will just twist scripture to fit their own view. assuming so does not have any exegetical grounds. one thing that they also twist ay ang Sotah which is an Israelite test for women suspected of committing adultery. this can be found in Numbers 5:11-21 which reads:

            " The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: If any man’s wife has gone astray and broken faith with him in that a man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her—but a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy comes over one and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself—the man shall bring his wife to the priest.

           And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing. The priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the LORD. The priest shall take sacral water in an earthen vessel and, taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall put it into the water. After he has made the woman stand before the LORD, the priest shall bare the woman’s head and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy.

          And in the priest’s hands shall be the water of bitterness that induces the spell. The priest shall adjure the woman, saying to her, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not gone astray in defilement while married to your husband, be immune to harm from this water of bitterness that induces the spell. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and have defiled yourself, if a man other than your husband has had carnal relations with you”—here the priest shall administer the curse of adjuration to the woman, as the priest goes on to say to the woman—“may the LORD make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, as the LORD causes your thigh to sag and your belly to distend; may this water that induces the spell enter your body, causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag. may this water that induces the spell enter your body, causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, amen!”” (Num. 5:11-22, JPS Tanakh)

Ang Sotah also known as the trial of bitter water or ordeal of bitter water, na kung saan, ito ay isang test to know if a suspected woman committed adultery. ang term na “Sotah” comes from the root Hebrew verb, שטה (shatah) which means “to astray” or “to turn aside” (see. BDB, Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament). "Sotah" is a Halakhic term applied to the woman itself suspected for adultery. the husband will  make a grain offering—a sacrifice to God which is one tenth part of an ephah of barley meal which is coarse flour (Num. 5:15). the Mishnah argues na isa itong reference sa nature ng adultery, where coarse flour is called “the food of the beast” (Mishnah, Sotah 2:1). the woman then will be taken to be presented at the tarbenacle where a priest would give a bitter drink, which is a mixture of the dust in the tarbenacle floors and with the name of the Lord written in a parchment, the woman thens recite ang oat at iinumin ang bitter drink (Num. 5:16-26; Sifrei, Badmidbar 10:1) and then, ang innocence ng woman will be known if may effect ba ito sa kanyang katawan o wala. if it has effects sa woman ay she is guilty of adultery but if it does not, she is innocent. the Sotah is done kapag ang kanyang husband ay may selos at nagsususpect ng adultery pero walang enough na evidences or witnesses (Num. 5:11-13; Talmud, Sotah 2a; Mishnah, Sotah 1:1-5; cf. Num. 35:30; Dt. 17:6; 19:15), so we can also call this “jealousy offering”; that even though kulang siya ng evidence at witness ay ang Panginoon will be the witness in the test sa tarbenacle, where he will be the one who will confirm if the suspection is true or not, who alone is an omniscient truthful witness (1Chr. 28:9; Ps. 31:5; 44:21; 139:1-4; 147:5; Isa. 10:10; 9:13; 65:16). ang ingredients ng drink however, does not produce any swellings sa woman. if it will produce swelling that will be enough to cause miscarriage, why wouldn't others just take dust and put in in their drinks for unwanted pregnancy? that would be easy for a dusty living room, I guess. there are no toxic substances contained in the mixture given to drink like arsenic, cyanide, or hemlock. the mixture is not an abortaficient drug. ang indication of guilt and ang punishment given will not be caused by the drink itself, but instead, it is by the judgement that is executed by Yahweh. she will be marked as an unfaithful wife and cannot bear children and no man that looks for a good wife will come to her. the consequences after the test will be: if the woman is not guilty, she is free to bear children as a reward (Num. 5:28), which is the complete opposite effect of the punishment where if she guilty, the curse will be upon her and to his people and she will be barren (Num. 5:27; for more, see. M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 [1969]: 74-92; A. C. Thiselton; F. C. Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament,” ZAW 74 [1962]: 1-9; A. C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 [1974]: 283-99.). some Rabbinic commentators believe na this will also affect ang adulterous man as well (Aramaic Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 5; Talmud, Sotah 27b; Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Sotah 3:16-17; John Bowman, Samaritan Documents [Pickwick Publications, 1977], 72). Pre-Rabbinic Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also wrote on the Sotah that if the woman " . . . had broken her faith of wedlock to her husband, and had sworn falsely before God, she died in a reproachful manner; her thigh fell off from her, and her belly swelled with a dropsy." (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, 11:6).

Now, pro-choicers understand this as a referent sa isang abortion and assume na ang practice na ito ay para sa mga unwanted pregnancy and therefore a practice na kagaya daw ng abortion pero this is not simply true. ang Sotah for some Jewish commentators ay restricted sa mga pregnant na babae (Mishnah, Sotah 4:3). ang key sentence dito ay na ang water will be “ . . . causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag.” (Num. 5:22). they say na isa itong miscarriage and this is based mula New International Version, a widely distributed Bible, where it translates the Hebrew verb נָפַל (naphal) as “miscarries” ("so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” [NIV]). other versions translate the Hebrew verb as "to rot" (KJV, NKJV), "waste away" (NASB 1995), or "drop" (NRSV). the ritual itself does not show miscarriage but infertility, basing on the context of the Sotah ritual at ang mga curses that follow it. the fertility of the woman ay in stake sa ritual at it is more unlikely to say na ang woman at the time ay pregnant. conception is more in view in the text and not delivery—na kapag siya ay guilty in committing adultery, she will become infertile as a punishment for the committed sin, and this does not reflect what they want to mean that it is a miscarriage where a fetus dies and therefore justifies abortion, which is also a medical physical surgical procedure where medical treatments cannot be in the text dahil ang inumin does not have any abortaficient substances. the Hebrew word נָפַל (naphal) is used for miscarriage in other places in the Hebrew Bible (e.g Job 2:16; Ps. 68:9), but however, in the use in Numbers 5 on the Sotah, ang marker of the accusative followed by the noun shows kung ano ang icacause to fall away (נָפַל) by Yahweh and to add, ang "thigh" and "abdomen" according to scholars ay isang euphemism to reproductive organs. according to Tikvah Fyrmer-Kensky, that " . . . the term is applied to the foetus itself: it is the foetus that “falls (out)”, rather than the “thigh”. Since, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the woman was pregnant at the time of trial, it is unlikely that the “thigh falling” refers to abortion. (Tikvah Fyrmer-Kensky, "The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah" [Numbers V 11-31], Vetus Testamentum 34, no. 1 [1984], 19 n. 15). Josephus, the same, did not understood it as a reference to abortion. Josephus instead wrote on abortion that “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind,” (Josephus, Against Apion, Book 2, 25:202). the fetus was not the intended target and present pregnancy is not in view. future fetuses dahil sa future barrenness will be affected as the consequences of the woman's actions (cf. Philo, Legum Allegora 3:51-52. loc. cit., 145.) and moreover, here are the following excerpts from Tikva Fyrmer-Kensky's article in Vetus Testamentum "The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31) on the meaning of the phrase “her belly will swell and her thigh will fall” (special thanks to Robert Boylan):
 

           " The “bearing of seed” indicates that the fertility of the woman is at   stake; the most probable explanation of the guilty woman’s punishment is that she suffers a prolapsed uterus. There is no reason to suppose that the woman was pregnant at the time of the trial: pregnancy is not mentioned, and nzr’h zr’ is a term for conception rather than delivery. Conception is the reward for innocence, either in the sense that the woman is capable of bearing seed (unlike the guilty woman, see G. R. Driver, Syria 33 [1956], p. 76) or that she is being rewarded for her innocence (Gray, Numbers, p. 48). We cannot discard the further possibility that the waters themselves, coming from the sacred realm (holy water, with dust from the tabernacle floor) and bearing the name of God, were believed to function as an impregnating force, and that the woman was believed to become pregnant as a direct result of this trial." (pp. 18-19)
 
          " The terms have been understood in various ways. The Mishnah understood them to be symbolic: since the woman began to sin with her thigh and continued with her womb, the penalty begins with the thigh and then extends to the womb though the rest of the body does not escape injury (M. Sotah I 7). Josephus took the two phrases together to describe dropsy (Ant. II xi 6). . . . Driver sees alternative results: if the woman is pregnant, she will abort; if she is not, her womb will get hot and dry (wĕṣāpābĕtâ biṭāh) and she will not be able to conceive. The term nēpel refers to abortion In Ps. lxviii 9; Job ii 16, and Eccles. vi 3. However, the term is applied to the foetus itself: it is the foetus that “falls (out)”, rather than the “thigh”. Since, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the woman was pregnant at the time of trial, it is unlikely that the “thigh falling” refers to abortion." (19 n. 15)
 
The most likely meaning of the phrase is
 
        " that the woman suffers the collapse of the sexual organs known as a prolapsed uterus. In this condition, which may occur after multiple pregnancies, the pelvic floor (weekend by the pregnancies) collapses, and the uterus literally falls down. It may lodge in the vagina, or it may actually fall out of the body through the vagina. If it does so, it becomes edematous and swells up like a balloon. Conception becomes impossible, and the woman’s procreative life has effectively ended (unless, in our own time, she has corrective surgery). . . . In ancient times, when women had more pregnancies and no knowledge of preventive exercise, the condition may have afflicted much younger women. However, it was certainly not a normal event, and would have been considered a great calamity. In the case of the errant wife, the potion that she drinks would be considered (through the agency of God) to enter her innards and cause this condition, possibly by “flooding” (if the root is cognate with ṣabû) the uterus and thereby distending it. Since the prolapsed uterus is visibly and palpable swollen with fluids once it leaves the body, it would have been natural to assume that all prolapsed uterus were swollen, whether or not they fell out of the body. The phrase wĕnāpĕlâ yĕrēkāh could also be an allusion to this “fall” of the uterus, with yārēk a synonym for beṭen. yārēk might also refer to the genitalia, in which case the “falling” might be the sagging of the cervix or of the external genitals under pressure from the collapsed uterus." (pp. 20-21)

Tikva Fyrmer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Numbers V 11-31),” Vetus Testamentum 34, no. 1 (1984)

Conclusion
There is no need to twist anything to know what scripture says on the issue of abortion. Scripture is clear on the value of life. the value of life, everyone, no matter who they are or what state they are, they are still living human beings who deserve to live and to be loved. The Bible gives no distinction of being a "living child" between sa born or unborn (Gen. 25:32; 2Kgs. 19:3; Ruth 1:11; Isa. 37:3; Hos. 12:3; Lk. 1:36-44). the Bible calls the unborn "children" or "babies" the same way that it is applied to born children (Ex. 21:22; Lk. 1:41-44; 2:12-16). the Bible calls children "gifts" which shows that they are good things that are given by the Lord and must be taken care of (Gen. 33:5; 48:9; Josh. 24:3; Ps. 113:9; 127:3). the Psalmist says to the Lord as a praise that "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well." (Ps. 139:13-14, New King James Version). ang personhood ng isang human being does not change from every state of his life, even from or before conception, he/she is still a person (Job 10:8-12; Isa. 41:9; Jer. 1:5; Mt. 1:20-21; Gal. 1:15). scripture also says that the freedom to choose can be misused for evil and that ang agency ay hindi isang ticket to disobey God's laws for your own sake (Dt. 30:19-20; Rom. 6:1-14; Heb. 12:1-2; 1Jn. 5:16-18). God created them as well sa kanyang image at kagaya natin, meron silang karapatan na mabuhay at maexperience na mabuhay. aborting them dahil lang sa sarili mong kapakanan cuts of their opportunity to progress in becoming like Heavenly Father and their opportunity to enjoy life no matter what bad or good it gives. life gives guarantees but abortion does not. there are still better options but abortion is not a good option. respect life. value life.
__________________
Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000
Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com
Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nika0604