In the Insights you write:>
(a) TOSFOS (DH veha'Yoledes) answers that the Mishnah earlier is discussing blood that a woman sees during the normal course of her pregnancy, and that was not caused by birth pangs. However, blood that comes as a result of birth pangs is different; we are stringent for such blood, and she is Metamei me'Es l'Es. The RITVA explains that since it is the birth that causes the flow of blood, and we do not know exactly when the effects of birth started in order to cause this flow of blood, it makes sense to rule that she is Metamei me'Es l'Es.<
This is very misleading -- "and that was not caused by birth pangs." Dam that is caused by birth pangs is tahor, koshe samuch leliaidah.
What you mean is "not caused by birth" -- i.e. dam laidah!!
The MAHARI SHAPIRA explains this further. The Gemara in Shabbos (129a) records an argument about when exactly a woman becomes a Nidah when she is giving birth. Abaye says that she becomes a Nidah when she crouches on the birthing stone. Rav Huna says that she becomes a Nidah when the blood starts flowing. The argument appears to be due to the fact that we...<
The mahloket there is not when she becomes a Nidah, but when is she considered giving birth pesihat hakever to become temehah laidah.
Thank you for your questions. You have a good point in your first question. The word "pangs" is misleading, and I will try to have it deleted.
As far as the second point, I do not think that there is any significant difference in saying that the argument is when the woman becomes a Nidah when this is the topic we are discussing here. After all, this is the clear Halachic difference which this argument is famous for. Moreover, I clearly go on to state that:
> The apparent argument is that it is unclear when the "Pesichas Kever" occurs during the birthing process, which makes a woman Tamei (as the Gemara often says: "Ain Pesichas ha'Kever b'Lo Dam"). <
("Apparent" here refers to the second part of the sentence, that the argument is apparently when a woman becomes a Nidah, afecting our case).
Though it could possibly be written differently, I do not think any change is necessary.
Thanks for your helpful comments,