H. W. Robinson and G. R. Driver both take wenapela to indicate abortion: Robinson concludes that the woman was pregnant at the time of the trial and that even though her belly swells with pregnancy, she will abort (apud Gray, p. 48). Driver sees alternative results: if the woman is pregnant, she will abort; if she is not, her womb will get hot and dry (wesabeta bitnah) and she will not be able to conceive. The term nepel refers to abortion In Ps. lviii 9; Job iii 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.

. . . .There remains the question of the timing of the results. If the guilty woman was to suffer the collapse of her reproductive system, was this expected to happen as she stood before the Lord? Even if the anticipated result was abortion (which does not seem likely), was she expected to abort immediately? This is not an idle line of inquiry, for it is the key to the essential nature of the legal procedure. If the woman is expected to suffer the consequences immediately, then any women who did not would be immediately exonerated, regardless of what might happen later. Indeed, if she could be proved guilty by immediate results (as would happen in an ordeal), then we would expect the court to punish her immediately with the penalty appropriate for adultery, which is death. Immediate results, however, are not indicated by the text.

. . . .Snaith's suggestion of mārar from Arabic marra "pass by" and marmara "cause to flow" would mean waters of abortion, but the trial is not restricted to pregnant women[.]"