Explanation #1 (Rashi, Aruch): This is a man's name.

Rebuttal: If so, it should have said "from Pumbedisa"!

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): It is an expression of leadership and authority.

Implied question: We can resolve this from our Mishnah, which says [that there is no concern for a child if a Shefir] is full of blood or water. (This connotes that if it is full of flesh, there was a child!)

Answer #1: (We cannot resolve from it.) Perhaps if it is full of flesh, we are concerned lest there was a child, but it is not Vadai that there was a child.

Answer #2: The Tana did not mention [when it is full of flesh] because he does not discuss laws about which Tana'im argue.

Implied question: Below, we want to say that they argue about when it is clear, but if it is cloudy, all agree that there was a child!

Answer: Rebbi was unsure also about this, for he said "perhaps". (Chachmas Betzalel - since Rebbi said "I did not hear", you are forced to say that he did not know the argument. Reish Lakish and R. Yehoshua ben Levi were not concerned for this, for they or R. Yishmael heard.)

Question: If a Shefir full of blood is like a piece with blood inside, also a Shefir full of flesh should be like a piece of flesh;

We say in our Perek that she is not Teme'ah Leidah [for a piece of flesh] if it has no bone!

Answer: A Shefir resembles a child more than a piece. She is Teme'ah [Leidah] even if it has no bone, even though they (a Shefir and a piece) are the same when they are full of blood.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): ["Clear" means that] it is full of water. Also [the Gemara] connotes like this.

Objection: This is no better [reason to be Metamei] than when it is full of blood. We said above that [in such a case] she is Teme'ah Nidah, but not Leidah, even according to R. Yehoshua!

Explanation #2: Rather, it seems that "clear" and "cloudy" refer to clear flesh and cloudy flesh.

Explanation: "Kosnos Ohr" refers to human skin, like the Targum "Al Meshech Bisreihon."

Explanation: This "Tinuf" is a [dissolved] child itself. It is unlike Tinuf below (29a), when we say that most animals secrete Tinuf (fluids, before giving birth);

There, it refers to Tinuf after the fetus was formed.

Note: Perhaps the text must be amended. Rashi says that here, the Tinuf was after the fetus was formed! In the Venice printing, it says "Acher Yetzi'as ha'Vlad." However, on 29a we discuss Tinuf that came out before the fetus!

Implied question: This is a leniency! We remove the animal from the Yisrael's Reshus [and force him to give it to a Kohen]!

Answer: This is because if he would not give it to a Kohen, he would come to permit shearing it or working with it.

Explanation: Rav holds that when it is cloudy, R. Yehoshua and Rabanan argue.

Question: In Sotah (45b), Abaye holds that its initial creation is from its stomach, and it sends its roots in all directions!

Answer (R. Tam): The text says k'Rashon. Also R. Chananel explained so.

Explanation: The Tosefta explains "like a grasshopper". The Targum of Sal'am (a species of grasshopper) is Rashon.

Support: The Beraisa discusses the [initial] size of the limbs.

Observation: First there is skin and flesh, and afterwards bones and sinews;

Distinction: Regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim in Yechezkeil, the order is opposite! [It mentions] sinews, and then flesh.

Explanation: The Midrash says that this is like one who removes his clothes, and then returns to wear what he removed. What he removed first, he puts on last;

However, at the beginning of the creation of a fetus, skin and flesh are first, and afterwards bones and sinews.

Implied question: It says that its Ever is the size of a lentil! (One can see it. Why must one feel with a chip?)

Answer: It does not stick out [the size of a lentil]. Rather, its place is recognizable [through a chip] like the size of a lentil.

Question: Regarding a Shilya, it should say that she is also [stringent like] Nidah. Perhaps the birth was a long time ago, and Yemei Tohar already finished, like it says below (28a) about one who miscarried a cut hand!

Suggestion: It says below that we do not attribute a Shilya to a child [born] more than three days ago!

Rejection: To be stringent, we are concerned even more than three days!

Answer #1: These are different. One who miscarried a cut hand, we can say that the head or the majority of the body was already born beforehand, and Yemei Tohar already ended;

However, regarding a Shilya, we can say that the fetus is inside it, either intact or dissolved.

Answer #2: Had it taught "and for Nidah", one might have thought that she brings a Korban and it may not be eaten, for it is a Safek birth;

The Mishnah [omitted Nidah] to teach that this is not so. She brings a Korban and it is eaten. We say so below.

Observation: According to R. Tam, who says that a pregnant woman cannot become pregnant with another fetus, even [a second fetus that will be] a Nefel, this is fine. We need to say that they were Mazri'a (gave off their seed) at once.

Question: However, Rashi (below, 45a) said regarding three women who have Bi'ah using a wad, that a pregnant woman does so lest the fetus become a Sandal, for the latter will mash the form of the first;

Implied question: We say that a pregnant woman cannot become pregnant with another fetus!

Answer: [She cannot become pregnant with another] viable fetus, but she can become pregnant with a Nefel.

Summation of question: There was no need to say that they were Mazri'a at once. We should have said that in the first Bi'ah, she was Mazri'a first, and in the second Bi'ah, he was Mazri'a first!

Answer: We can say that in such a case of two Bi'os, it is no Chidush to teach that she must observe [stringencies of Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah;

Obviously, sometimes he is Mazri'a first, and sometimes she is, so we do not say that since this [fetus] is a male, also this (the Sandal) is a male;

However, when they were from one Bi'ah, one might have thought that since this [fetus] is a male, also this (the Sandal) is a male. We learn that this is not so. Perhaps they were Mazri'a at once.

Question: What is the source that when they were from one Bi'ah, we do not say that since this is a male, also this is a male?

Perhaps we say so, and our Mishnah discusses two Bi'os. It teaches that a Sandal is a fetus, even without the form of a face. It teaches unlike R. Nechunya's testimony!

Suggestion: We already learned in [Mishnayos in] Bechoros and Kerisus, brought below (26a), that a Sandal is a fetus.

Rejection: We needed to teach that it is a fetus regarding [Tum'as] Leidah!

Answer: This is what the Gemara answers in Version #2 (that Tum'as Sandal is relevant when one was born before Shki'ah, and the other after Shki'ah. We are not concerned for different genders when they came from one Bi'ah.)

Question: Also according to R. Tam's Perush, below (28a) regarding a male and a Tumtum, we answer that [perhaps] both were Mazri'a at once. Why must we teach this twice [in the Mishnayos]?

Suggestion: Perhaps [that Mishnah] teaches that [a Tumtum] is a child [regarding Tum'as Leidah].

Rejection: The Reisha already teaches this explicitly! If she gave birth to a Tumtum or Androginus, she observes stringencies of [Yoledes] Zachar and Nekevah.