|
(Continued from p. 196.)
Having Reference to the Employment of Anaesthetics
in Cases of Labour
By
the Rev. Abraham De Sola, Lecturer on Hebrew
Language and Literature, University of M’Gill
College
But it may be objected, can there be no sorrow but
that which is stated above, to be the inconvenience
resulting from exhaustion?—it surely is an objection
to the theory just set forth, that it would appear
to teach this, notwithstanding there are other words
in Hebrew to express sorrow and pain. Such an
objection, natural as it is, forms one of the most
powerful arguments in Kimchi’s and our favour, and
furnishes us with yet another reason to reject the
rendering of the English version. For there are
words in Hebrew expressing sorrow and pain, and
having no other meaning.
Four such we will now bring forward, giving their
significations as determined in Buxtorf’s
Concordance and Gesenius’s Lexicon. We select these
authorities that we may not be charged with undue
leaning to rabbinical interpretation. 1st,
we have כאב,
ke’eb, said by Buxtorf invariably to mean
dolor (pain), and by Gesenius pain, grief.
2d, צרה
tsarah, Bux. angustia
(trouble); Ges. distress, trouble.
3d, יגן
yagohn, Bux. maeror (sorrow),
and maestitia (sadness); Ges. affliction,
sorrow.
4th,
אנחה, anachah,
Bux. gemitus (groaning), and suspirare
(sighing); Ges. sigh, sighing.
Now, is it not most probable that one of these
words, conveying no other idea but of sorrow or
pain, or some such compound term as occurs Genesis
xxxv. 17, would have been used,
<<238>>if no other
idea but sorrow or pain was to be conveyed? We think
it is, but the reader will, of course, decide.
Farther to demonstrate the propriety of the
signification we have given to ngetseb and
ngitsahbohn in Genesis iii. 16, we may state, in
the third place, that a celebrated Christian writer
(Leigh in his “Critica Sacra”) has admitted that
ngitsahbohn, in the passage referred to, means
labour accompanied with pain. He says,
“Laborem qui adjunctam malestiam et dolorem habet,
significat, sicut Graecis χότος; laborem et dolorem;
nam alterum ex altero nascitur, et licet on
terminatio in nominibus formam diminuticorum
constituit, tamen aliquando auxesin facit, sicut in
praesenti loco.” We have only to add to this,
that Parkhurst refers to the following passages
where he says χότος means weariness from
labour, viz.: in Xenophon de Re Equest. iv. 2,
and Anab. v. 8, 3.
We
find that in attempting to determine the sense of
ngetseb, we have extended our remarks to so
undue a length, that although we might say a great
deal more in support of our opinion, we must close,
and proceed to other topics. But, before doing so,
we cannot but remark as a circumstance worthy our
note, and as showing the propriety of the idea that
the primary meaning of ngetseb is labour,—that
the very essentials of labour, the muscles and
nerves of the human body, are styled in the
Hebrew עצבים
ngetsabim. That they are only so
called, in post-biblical writers, can be no argument
against the fact of their having always been so
termed. The word was to be found in this sense some
fifteen centuries back,* in the Talmud, and this
may surely be considered as some warrant for its
having always had that meaning; the more especially
as there is only one word† in the Hebrew Bible to
express muscle, nerve, sinew,‡ tendon or ligament,
viz.: גיד gid.
But we are of opinion that it really has this sense,
even in the Scriptures, and we are led more
particularly to think so from the remark of Kimchi
on Job x. 8, “Thine <<239>>hands” עצבוני
ngitsebooni (a. v. “have made me,” but
a marginal reading has more correctly “took pains
about me,”) ויעשוני
veyangasooni (a. v. and fashioned me
together round about)! Upon this passage Kimchi
says, “‘Thy hands took pains about me,’ means they
laboured and toiled in forming him; the expression
used being a figurative one. And the learned R.
Moses Aben Ezra explains the word (ngitsebooni)
with reference to the muscles, which are called
ngetsabim.”* That this celebrated Hebrew
grammarian is more correct than the English
translators we think indisputable, for ngetseb
can never be translated “to make,” as they have
rendered it in the passage we are just considering,
more especially when, as here, it is followed by
ויעשוני which does
mean “to make.” We suppose that no objection to this
explanation can be urged on the grounds that it
refers to God material properties, since Kimchi
reminds us, “והוא על דרך
משל;” the expression is merely metaphorical,
being an example of the figure Anthropopathy,
just as elsewhere in Holy Writ the Eternal is said
to have hands, eyes, etc. But we must leave the word
ngitsebonech now, and direct our attention to
veheronech, upon which we have also some few
observations to make.
It
is agreed on all sides that
והרונך
veheronech is derived from the root
הרה
harah, which means to admit into, to
form in the uterus (concipere), and is, according to Kimchi and most authorities, the noun
הרון
herohn, according to others†
הריון
hirayohn, in construction with the
personal pronoun ך
cha, thee. This difference in respect
to the etymology of the noun is but of little
importance, since all agree as to its meaning;
translating “and thy conception,” or by some other
equivalent phrase. We pass on, therefore, to the
last word upon which we have any remark to offer.
The word תשוקתך
teshookatech is rendered in the
English version “thy desire,” and such meaning has
uniformly been attached to it by the most able
commentators and critics. It is derived from the
root שוק
shook, among the meanings of which
Buxtorf gives the following: desidere (to
desire); concupiscere (to covet, strongly to
desire); appetere (covet earnestly), etc. The
celebrated Hebrew commentator Rashi, says that
teshookatech in Genesis iii. 16 means “Thy
desire,” like שוקקה
shokekkah in Ps. cvii. 9‡ (translated in the
authorized version “long‑<<240>>ing;”) and Buxtorf
is of the same opinion, translating it here,
however, appetitus tuus.
R.
David Kimchi attaches to it the same signification,
declaring its meaning to beתאוה
וחשק taavah
vachishek.* A note in the new Anglo-Jewish
translation of the Scriptures† informs us that some
“construe תאוה וחשק
as submissiveness, and render it ‘unto thy husband
shall thy will be submissive.’ F. K. Rosenmuller).”
But to this explanation of Rosenmuller we think
there are many weighty objections, the chief being
that his application of such a sense to
שוק, from which
root תשוקה is
derived, is quite unwarrantable; the word,
undoubtedly, having that meaning which has been
attached to it by every translator and commentator
of any note.
With these few remarks respecting the derivation of
תשוקתך, we conclude
our examination of those words in Genesis iii.16,
the correct rendering of which materially affects
the propriety, on scriptural grounds, of
superinducing anaesthesia in cases of labour. The
foregoing observations would tend to show, that but
in two words (they of the last importance, however)
we do not adopt the rendering of the English
version; and that according to our opinion, the
passage should be translated thus: “Unto the woman
he said, I will greatly multiply thy TRAVAIL
and thy conceptions; with TRAVAIL shalt thou
bring forth children; and unto thy husband shall
be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.” We are
aware that this rendering may, at first sight,
appear objectionable to many, who will, doubtless,
consider it as displaying a total disregard of the
scope of the text, and rendering a denunciation, in
fact, no denunciation. But we beg must the attention
of such, to certain considerations which we shall
forthwith lay before them, to show that such a
rendering is in every way consistent with the scope
of the text, and with certain assertions made by
many eminent writers, both Jewish and
Christian.
We
shall notice, first, the objection made, even by
such as do not oppose, on religious grounds, the
employment of anaesthetics in midwifery, that the
rendering of ngetseb, by labour, or travail,
would be tantamount to asserting that the woman
received no punishment for her sin; since there is
no punishment conveyed by either of these two
words.‡
<<241>>
We reply that there is a punishment conveyed by the
words “with travail shalt thou bring forth,” for the
travail of the parturient female is almost
invariably accompanied with pain.* It may be
rejoined that by this confession we virtually admit
the correctness of the authorized version, since the
word we give is, actually, as much expressive of
pain as is “sorrow;” and that consequently, the
foregoing inquiry, even if it show, on philological
grounds, the incorrectness of the rendering of the
English translators, cannot controvert the fact that
they have selected a word most correctly expressive
of the sense intended to be conveyed.
To
this we answer, the propriety, in a religious point
of view, of employing anaesthetics in obstetric
practice depends in no small degree, however, upon
the fact that ngetseb and ngitsebonech,
in the referred to text, means travail, and not
sorrow. Thus, if the practice of superinducing,
anaesthesia in labour have the effect of militating,
in the remotest degree, against the evident designs
of God in this regard, as evinced in the laws of
nature, and as revealed in the text under
consideration,—if it interferes with the natural
labour, in any way—if it produce any of those
results which may endanger, if not the safety and
welfare of the mother, the safety and welfare of her
offspring,† then it is wrong, unscriptural, and
sinful, and should be visited with the same
punishment as is merited by those guilty of
foeticide or infanticide.
But if the practice have the effect only of
assuaging the pain or “sorrow” resulting from the
travail, then we maintain it is a good, a proper,
and a scriptural practice. For, if the professional
objections urged by some are ultimately pronounced
to be futile, and the powerful arguments in its
favour, backed by statistics (these rendering
strength stronger), remain unrefuted, then it is a
good practice, for it exempts from the most
agonizing and excruciating <<242>>pangs those weakly
creatures, who, when the hand of sickness lies heavy
on us, like ministering angels, strive to alleviate
our sufferings with a tenderness, a devotion, a
loveliness, of which man is incapable, and which,
alas! he cannot always fully appreciate. It is a
proper practice, since, independently of the
enormous amount of suffering relieved, statistical
tables* fully prove that it has had the effect of
preserving many who, but for it, would, no doubt,
have sunk under the intense and continued suffering
they were doomed to endure.
It
is a proper practice, because it is not, as some
style it, “an unnatural practice,” not more so than
the use of narcotics of all descriptions, such as
laudanum, etc., taking nine to twelve hours sleep,
when scarcely more than half is required—indulging
in siestas in daylight, against which
practices nothing is said with reference to their
being unnatural or unscriptural.
Again, the inoculation of smallpox, which practice
appears equally unnatural, and, in the eyes of an
Israelite, perhaps more unscriptural than the
employment of anesthetics, since the Mosaic law
forbids the touching of any sore or ulcer by a
person in health;† and by parity of reasoning (sic)
it forbids inoculation; and yet, of this very
practice, advantageous as it is confessed to be, it
was said “Ergo variolas inoculate nefas”—therefore
to inoculate small-pox is an abomination; “and some
divines railed against it, calling it the
offspring of atheism, a diabolical invention of
Satan; and inoculators hellish sorcerers.”‡
But we must not stay to multiply instances. The
propriety of the practice with which this inquiry is
more immediately concerned is also shown from this
consideration, that the text does not prohibit the
abrogation of the pains of the parturient
woman, but it declares the divine intention greatly
to multiply her travail only; for if the
inspired penman had intended to convey “In sorrow
or pain shalt thou bring forth” cheblech,
tsaratech, or chilech; and again,
bechebel, betsarah, or bechil,
would, doubtless, have been the word employed.
The practice is a scriptural one, for, as
well as God acts towards us with love and mercy,
“healeth the broken in heart and bindeth up their
wounds,”§ yea, “healeth all diseases,”|| so ought we
to act when He gives us the ability to imitate
Him. When He took the rib from Adam to introduce
woman into the world, he caused a deep
<<243>>
sleep* to fall upon him while the process lasted;
and it is but imitating the merciful dealings of the
Supreme, if the accoucheur, exercising the knowledge
God has bestowed on him, “causes a deep sleep to
fall” on his patient, while he assists to come into
the world the infant. Again, we find, from the
earliest times, women whose sole business it was to
assist, and, therefore, to alleviate, as far as they
could, the pangs of their parturient sisters.
Now if their operations really tended to
alleviation, and we cannot doubt but that they did,
then, according to those who object, on scriptural
grounds, to produce anesthesia in labour, these
midwives must have acted sinfully, as must have
those also who employed them; and yet they were
countenanced in the families of the pious
patriarchs, and in the beginning of the book of
Exodus we are told God “dealt well with the
midwives” who acted kindly towards the women of
Israel, “and made them houses.”
(To be continued.) |
