Explanation: We do not learn from Sinai, for it was a Chidush.

Support: This is why Rabanan need Yihyeh. They do not learn from Sinai, even though below we want to say that even according to R. Shimon, she is Ro'ah, and she is Soser.

Explanation: We did not learn from a man, for it is obvious that he is Ro'eh;

Rather, we learn from a woman. Because she emits [semen], the Torah warned to refrain from [Bi'ah with] a woman for three days.

Implied question: [At the time of Matan Torah,] Parshas Tum'ah and expelling Teme'im [from the Machanos] was not yet said!

Answer: In any case it is proper to be stringent about them more than Poletes.

Explanation: However, regarding that any amount is Metamei, she is Ro'eh.

Question: It says in Pesachim (67b) that R. Shimon holds like R. Noson, that a Zav requires the Shi'ur Chasimas Pi ha'Amah, and he learns a Ba'al Keri from a Zav;

If so, why is any amount Metamei? We should say that it suffices to be like the man with whom she had Bi'ah!

Answer: Surely, R. Shimon is not Metamei b'Mashehu;

Here we say that even according to the opinion that one who emits does not become Teme'ah internally like externally, in any case Mashehu is Metamei, if he holds that a man is Metamei b'Mashehu.

Explanation: The blood is Tamei, for the Torah said that [Dam Tohar] depends on days and Tevilah (and it was uprooted before she immersed). She is Teme'ah Tum'as Erev due to touching it.

Observation: According to Abaye, who says below that this place in a woman is Belu'ah (enveloped), it is fine that he calls it Tum'ah Belu'ah;

Also according to Rava, who says that it is Beis ha'Setarim, we can say that we discuss when blood was uprooted from the Makor, and did not go out to Beis ha'Chitzon.

Implied question: We conclude that it must go outside!

Answer: According to Rava, it need not go outside totally. Rather, it must go to Beis ha'Chitzon, which is Beis ha'Setarim, and it is Metamei [her] through carrying [the blood].

However, "they made it like Neveilah of a Tahor bird" connotes that he holds like Abaye, for Rava said below that the place of Nivlas Ohf Tahor (i.e. Beis ha'Bli'ah, where one swallows) is Beis ha'Setarim. (This would not answer why we are Metamei what is Belu'ah in a woman!)

Implied question: Normally, Chachamim were not stringent about Tum'ah Belu'ah!

Answer: Here they decreed more, lest people come to err and be Metaher her through Tevilah even when the blood goes outside;

When he answers "also here, when it wet outside", he holds that they did not decree.

Explanation: However, while it is in the Prozdor itself she is Tahor, for it is not considered outside.

Question: It says above (17b) that if blood is found in the Prozdor, it is a Safek and we are Metamei!

Answer #1: There, we are Metamei the Safek when it went outside.

Answer #2: We can distinguish between birth and Dam Nidah. (It is considered outside only regarding Dam Nidah.)

Question: In Chulin (68a) and Bechoros (46b), we make a Tzerichusa (show why both are needed) for the Beraisos that say that [emergence of] the head is like birth regarding people, and regarding animals;

Citation (68a): Had it taught only regarding animals, we would have said that this is because they have no Prozdor.

What difference does it make because they have no Prozdor? We require that the head leave the Prozdor, like it says here!

Answer: There, "Prozdor" is not like here. There, "Prozdor" refers to the thickness of the thighs, which cover the baby's head;

One might have thought that it is not considered born. Also Rashi explained so there.

Explanation: [He taught that] when the head left the Prozdor, he is considered born.

Rav Oshaya taught his teaching regarding the question in Chulin (72a) about a woman whose fetus died inside her womb. If a midwife touched the fetus, she is Teme'ah.

Citation (72a): What is the reason? It is Tum'ah Belu'ah! Rav Oshaya answered [that once the head left the Prozdor, he is considered born].

Question: Why does it mention his head? If it is because [once it leaves] he is considered born, like it connotes here, even if he stuck out his hand, the midwife is Teme'ah, for she touched [the hand] or moved it, for now [that he stuck out] it is not Tum'ah Belu'ah!

Answer: It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that it is not Metamei until it is considered born, like R. Yishmael expounds there "Al Pnei ha'Sadeh" to exclude a fetus in his mother's womb;

Now it is fine that we asked there "what is R. Yishmael's reason?", even though the reason is obvious, for it is Tum'ah Belu'ah;

He knew that he is Metaher until it leaves so much that it is called born. (If the reason was Tum'ah Belu'ah, he should be Metamei once it is not Belu'ah, even before it is called born.)

Explanation: This is not an exclusion. If it were, why did we say "we should learn from a Kal va'Chomer!"?

Rather, "this is excluded" because it is not included in this verse.

Question: How will Rava answer the Beraisa?

Answer: It discusses when Beis ha'Bli'ah (the gullet, where one swallows) is so wide that he (Ploni) does not move the Neveilah that his friend inserted. (Tosfos (Chulin 7a DH Mi) says that his friend removed it, so Ploni never moved it. Tosfos Chachmei Angliyah - it fell from Beis ha'Bli'ah to the stomach, before Ploni moved. Then it is Belulah, so it is not Metamei b'Masa.)

Question: Since regarding eating, it is written that he must wash his clothes, and this is not written regarding touching, we should not establish a Shi'ur of eating to touching, rather, to moving, about which it is written washing clothes!

Above (9a) and in Yoma (14a), it says that "u'Mazeh Mei ha'Nidah Yechaves Begadav" refers to one who carries (water on which ashes of Parah Adumah were put);

The Torah used an expression of sprinkling, to give the Shi'ur of Haza'ah [to be Metamei] one who carries it [without need], and not for touching, for washing clothes is not written regarding touching.

Answer: There, carrying is not written explicitly;

However, here, if ha'Ochel refers only to one who carries, the Torah should not write carrying, and automatically we would say that "Ochel" refers to carrying, just like there, where carrying is not written, and we say that Mazeh refers to one who carries.

Question: Why did the Torah write washing clothes regarding one who eats?

Suggestion: Had the Torah not written washing clothes regarding this, we would have established it to discuss touching, and not carrying, which obligates washing clothes.

Question: If so, the Torah should not have written touching at all!

Answer: Perhaps it is needed for some Drashah.

Question: In Chulin (71a), we learn Tum'ah Belu'ah from this verse "veha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah Yechaves Begadav v'Tamei Ad ha'Arev";

Citation (71a): Is it not the case that he ate just before Shki'ah (and if he immerses immediately, he is Tahor at night, even though the Neveilah is in his stomach and he moves it?! This shows that the verse truly discusses eating.)

We say here that eating is not precise. It is [only] to teach that we apply to the Shi'ur of [liability for] eating (a k'Zayis) to [Tum'ah for] touching and carrying!

Answer: There, we derive [Tum'ah Belu'ah] because the verse does not leave its simple meaning.