Issue
Issue besides its ordinary sense of going forth (נגִד,Chald. to flow, Da 7:10; also תּוֹצָאוֹת, exit, i.e. source, Pr 4:23, frequently of the direction or terminus of a boundary; ἐκπορεύομαι, to go out, Re 9:17-18), and progeny מוֹלֶדֶת, Ge 48:6, elsewhere;' kindred; צפַיעוֹת, shoots, i.e. offspring, Isa 22:24; σπέρμα, seed, Mt 22:25), is the rendering employed by our translators for several terms expressive of a purulent or unhealthy discharge, especially from the sexual organs. The most emphatic of these זוֹב, from זוּב, to flow, both the verb and noun being frequently applied to diseased or unusual secretions, e.g. the monthly courses or catanenia of women, and the seminal flux or gonorrhea benigra of men (Le 15; Nu 5:2). SEE DISEASE. A more intense and chronic form of this discharge was the "issue of blood," or uterine hemorrhage of the woman in the Gospels (ῥύσυς αἵματος, Mr 5:25; Lu 8:43-44; αἱμοῤῥέω, Mt 9:20), which, as it made her ceremonially unclean, she was so anxious to conceal when she came in contact with the multitude and with Christ. (See monographs in Volbeding, Index, p. 49; Hase,-Leben Jesu, p. 141.). The term זַרמָה, Eze 23:20, signifies a pouring, and is applied to the emissio seminis of a stallion, to which the idolatrous paramours of Judaea are compared in the strong language of the prophet. SEE ADULTERY. The only other term so rendered is מָקוֹר, a fountain, applied to the womb, or pudenda muliebra, as the source of the menstrual discharge (Le 12:7; Le 20:18; comp. πηγή, Mr 5:29). SEE FLUX.
"The texts Le 15:2-3; Le 22:4; Nu 5:2 (and 2Sa 3:29, where the malady is invoked as a curse), are probably to be interpreted of gonorrhea. In Le 15:3 a distinction is introduced, which merely means that the cessation of the actual flux does not constitute ceremonial cleanness, but that the patient must bide the legal time, seven days (ver. 13), and perform the prescribed purifications and sacrifice (ver. 14). 'See, however, Surenhusius's preface to the treatise Zabim of the Mishna, where another interpretation is given. As regards the specific varieties of this malady, it is generally asserted that its most severe form (gon. virulenta) is modern, having first appeared in the 15th century. Chardin (Voyages en Perse, 2, 200) states that he observed that this disorder was prevalent in Persia, but that its effects were far less severe than in Western climates. If this be true, it would go some way to explain the alleged absence of the gon. virul. from ancient nosology, which found its field of observation in the East, Greece, etc., and to confirm the supposition that the milder form only was the subject of Mosaic legislation. But, beyond this, it is probable that diseases may appear, run their course, and disappear, and, for want of an accurate observation of their symptoms, leave no trace behind them. The 'bed,' 'seat,' etc. (Le 15:5-6, etc.), are not to be supposed to have been regarded by that law as contagious, but the defilement extended to them merely to give greater prominence to the ceremonial strictness with which the case was ruled. In the woman's 'issue,' (5. 19), the ordinary menstruation seems alone intended, supposed to be prolonged (5. 25) to a morbid--extent. The scriptural handling of the subject not dealing, as in the case of leprosy, in symptoms, it seems gratuitous to detail them here: those who desire such knowledge will find them in any compendium of therapeutics. See Josephus, War, 5, 5, 6; 6:9,3; Mishna, Chelim. 1, 3, 8; Maimon. ad Zabim, 2, 2: whence we learn that persons thus affected might not ascend the Temple mount, nor share in any religious celebration, nor even enter Jerusalem. See also Michaelis, Laws of Moses, 4:282" (Smith). SEE UNCLEANNESS.
