יד תא שמע רבי יצחק אומר והלא זב בכלל בעל קרי היה ולמה יצא להקל עליו ולהחמיר עליו להקל עליו שאין מטמא באונס ולהחמיר עליו
14 Consequently it must be for the purpose of uncleanness. And since the final clause refers to an examination in regard to uncleanness must not the first clause also refer to one for uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3, ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — What an argument! Each might refer to an examination for different purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'. sc. while the latter examination serves the purposes of ascertaining the person's subjection to uncleanness, the former (as stated supra) may serve that of ascertaining whether he is liable to a sacrifice. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled: Even at the third observation he must be examined on account of the sacrifice.' From which it follows, does it not, that the first Tanna requires it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The examination. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> on account of the uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By ascertaining whether the discharge was or was not due to a mishap. In the former case it would be deemed clean. An objection against R. Huna. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — No; all may require it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The examination. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> on account of the sacrifice, but here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the first Tanna. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> differ on the exposition of the eth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> particles. The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles and R. Eliezer does. 'The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles': 'He that hath an issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV. 33. V. following n. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> represents one discharge, 'his issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. E.V.. Of them that have an issue, ');"><sup>33</sup></span> represents a second one; so far 'for the man';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. (E.V.. whether it be a man). Sc. in the case of a mishap it is not subject to uncleanness. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> while at the third discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. (E.V. or a woman). Sc. even in the case of a mishap it is subject to uncleanness (cf. infra 36b) and also the obligation of a sacrifice. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> 'And R. Eliezer does': 'He that hath an issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 33. V. infra n. 3. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> represents one discharge, 'eth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> represents a second one, 'his issue'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. E.V., Of them that have an issue. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> represents a third one, while at the fourth discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. nn. In this case, however, the comparison is restricted to the case of a mishap. viz., if such a discharge occurred after some of the seven days have been counted all the counting is void. Uncleanness sets in after two discharges while a sacrifice is incurred after the third discharge. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> Come and hear: R. Isaac said, A <i>zab</i>, surely, was included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will he shown infra. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> why then was he excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In being given a special section to himself. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. 'To relax the law for him' in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; and to restrict it for him'