Commentaria in Leviticum
13. If he be healed. Cured of gonorrhoea, or issue of seed, he is here commanded, for his legal expiation, to wash himself and his garments, and on the eighth day to offer two turtles or two young pigeons, one for sin, the second for a holocaust.
15. Who shall offer (immolate) one for sin—legal sin, that is, for the expiation of the legal uncleanness contracted by this issue of seed; see Canon 34. Again, secondly, “for sin” also in the true and proper sense, if he has any not yet expiated; for the legal sin was the symbol of this.
And he shall pray for him before the Lord, that he may be cleansed from the issue of his seed. In Hebrew it is, and the priest shall expiate him before the Lord from his issue, that is, from the legal uncleanness contracted from the issue of seed, which had now passed and ceased, as is here supposed. The same phrase is in verse 30.
16. The man from whom the seed of copulation goeth out (as if to say: The man who is defiled by copulation, whether lawful in marriage, or unlawful and illicit outside marriage), shall wash with water his whole body. Some think that the washing is commanded here not absolutely but conditionally, namely if such a defiled man wished to enter the sanctuary: for all these uncleannesses were established in relation to access to the sanctuary and other sacred things. Hence the Hebrews so defiled now do not wash themselves, because they now have no sanctuary. But Abulensis rightly refutes this; for in like manner in all the other things here commanded, the unclean could have waited and deferred their purification until the day on which they were to enter the sanctuary. Which is plainly false, even from the case of him who touched the dead: for he on certain days, namely the third and seventh, had to be sprinkled with the water of purification, Numbers xix, 19. And so this expiation after coition had to be made at once, namely those so defiled had to wash the whole body. God ordains this for the sake of modesty and continence, that the trouble and reluctance of purifying oneself might restrain assiduity of intercourse even in married persons, says Theodoret.
And himself being washed with water shall be unclean until evening—not on account of sin, for there is none here if he use his wife lawfully, but on account of legal uncleanness arising from the conjugal act, which is naturally unclean, and therefore legally also.
Where note that there were two kinds of uncleanness among the Hebrews: one was sin, because forbidden by God’s precept; such was to eat unclean flesh, blood, fat: for these are forbidden, Leviticus 11. Again, such was to eat what died of itself or was torn by beasts, Exodus 22:31: that this was a sin is plain from Leviticus 22. Such also was to touch the carcasses of unclean animals, and to touch reptiles, as I said chap. 11, verse 43. The other uncleanness was that which was not forbidden, but only indicated and established; such was to touch a leper, a dead body, one with an issue of seed. Such also was to suffer leprosy, an issue of seed, menstrual courses; for of these it is not said: Touch them not; but: He that toucheth them shall be unclean. Hence these were not sins, but only induced a certain legal irregularity in such persons, so that they could not enter the sanctuary before their expiation, which expiation was commanded them; and so such persons sinned not in the contact itself and the contamination of themselves, but in the neglect of the commanded expiation, if, namely, they did not expiate themselves at the appointed time. Hence it is plain which uncleannesses and expiations the Jews still observe, and which not: the former they still observe, the latter not: for these were only certain irregularities, keeping them from the sanctuary; but now they have no sanctuary; hence there is now no irregularity for them, and consequently no purification to remove it: and so the Jews, now remaining in their error and erroneous conscience (by which they think themselves still bound to Judaism and these laws), are bound by this conscience of theirs not to these latter, but only to the former. And this of the one with an issue of seed.
Tropologically: The one with an issue of seed is the teacher and preacher who is impure, wordy and importunate. The seed of intercourse is sound and lawful doctrine; for as man and woman are one flesh, so in spiritual conference teacher and hearer are joined in one spirit. The man, therefore, from whom this seed goes forth, is to wash his body, that is, to make himself blameless in all his actions, as one whose office it is to correct and rebuke the vices of others; so also the woman, that is, the hearer, must according to her strength cast away the filth of vices. So Rudolph and St. Gregory, book 23 of the Morals, chapter 15. Secondly, St. Augustine, in his book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 20, Cyril, book 15 On Adoration, and Rupert take this more generally. “By the man with an issue of seed,” says St. Augustine, “the law wished to signify a mind unseemly fluid and dissolute in the form of its discipline, which it signifies must be given form, when it commands such a flow of the body to be purified.” And Cyril: “The flow of the body,” he says, “which brings the supply of seed to nothing and weakens the firmness of those parts, signifies the mind, which brings forth no fruit of justice, but continually slips towards what harms, and by a headlong fall sinks into base things.” More particularly Rupert: “What is it to suffer a flow of seed or of blood, but to flow with slanderous or even criminal words?”
Consequently those with an issue of seed are the wordy and the garrulous. Rightly says Plutarch in his Morals: “As seed that is poured out at once is useless for generation, so the speech of the garrulous serves for nothing.”
Zeno, hearing a youth who was too talkative, said: “Your ears have flowed down into your tongue.” He showed that it befits a youth to hear much and speak little. So Laertius, book 7.
Isocrates, when someone who talked a great deal asked why he demanded a double fee from a student of the oratorical art, answered: “One I ask that you may learn to speak, the other that you may learn to be silent.”
“In the garrulous man there is a river of words and a drop of mind. For men possess a great rampart of teeth to restrain idle talk,” says Stobaeus, sermon 36.
Zeno again rebuked one who chattered much, thus: “Let us hear very much, but speak very little.”
He used to say that some of his disciples were lovers of learning, that is, eager for knowledge of things in all its variety; others lovers of speaking, that is, eager only for talk.
He said to one who chattered about trifles: “Unless you dip your tongue into your mind when you speak, you will go on offending far more by speaking.” Apophthegms on garrulity.
Clearchus used to say: “What you would not wish to hear, do not say either; what you would not wish to say, do not even listen to.” For there is great danger in the ears and the tongue.
Apollonius said that “talkativeness has many errors, but silence is safe.” Being asked, “Who are the best of men?” he said, “Those who are briefest in speaking.”
Demosthenes, to a man who talked much at a banquet, said: “If you had been as wise as you are talkative, you would never have spoken so much.”
Being asked “why we have one tongue and two ears,” he said: “Because we ought to hear twice as much as we speak.”
Lycon said that “as swallows by their perpetual chatter destroy the pleasure of familiarity, so the garrulous, by perpetually deafening their hearers, are troublesome to them”; hence the proverb: “Do not receive swallows (that is, the garrulous) under your roof.”
Archelaus, when a talkative barber asked, “How shall I shave you, O king?” answered, “In silence.”