And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools, х `al (H5921) haa'aabªnaayim (H70)] - upon the two stones. The word occurs in other passages, where it signifies vessels of stone (Exodus 7:19), and a potter's vessel (Jeremiah 18:3). Opinions are divided as to what was the mode of destruction which the king pointed out. Some, as Gesenius, think that the "stools" were low seats, such as are frequently represented on the Egyptian monuments; and our version represents the labouring women as placed open these, which is contrary to usage as well as to probability. Others suppose that obstetric practitioners sat upon them by the couch of the parturient women (which is also a mistake, as the attitude adopted in the East for women in labour is a standing posture (Calmet's 'Frag.'), and that, as they could easily discover the sex of the new-born infant, so, whenever a boy appeared, they were, by a slight pressure, to strangle it, unknown to the parent; while others are of opinion that "the stools" were stone troughs, into which, while the infants were being washed, they were to be, as it were, accidentally dropped. This custom in relation to children is justified by Eastern usage; and such a destruction of boys has actually been practiced in the courts of Eastern monarchs.
Thevenot hints ('Travels,' part 2:, p. 98) at both these principles. He says that 'the kings of Persia are so afraid of being deprived of that power which they abuse, and are so apprehensive of being dethroned, that they destroy the children of their female relations, when they have brought forth boys, by putting them into an earthen trough, where they suffer them to starve' (quoted in Burder's 'Oriental Customs,' p. 140). [The sculptures represent midwives in the act of placing new-born infants in a vessel of the same character, and for the same purpose as the haa'aabªniym (H70) of the Hebrews.] This anecdote of Thevenot throws some light upon the subject. Still, the circumstance of the original word being in the dual, seems to indicate that the explanation is not full, or quite satisfactory. (For other solutions, see Calmet's 'Frag.,' cccxii., cccxiii., and Keil and Delitzsch's 'Commentary,' 1:, p. 425, Clarke's edition.)