Question: Below (36b) it says "Damah" - [blood] due to herself, and not due to a child;

Citation (36b) Question: We should say "Damah" due to herself, and not due to Ones!

Citation (cont.) Answer: I am Metaher [due to] a child, for there is Taharah afterwards (Yemei Tohar). This does not apply to Ones.

Summation of question: There is no Taharah after a birth of Ru'ach! (We should not be Metaher blood due to it.)

Answer #1: We challenge the other opinion there, which answers that there is no greater Ones than a child.

Comment - Answer #2: Since there is a birth which has Taharah afterwards, we can establish the verse in every case of birth, even a birth of Ru'ach which has no Taharah afterwards;

The same applies to a Shefir she'Eino Merukam, even though there is Taharah only for a Shefir Merukam.

Question: Perhaps really, Vestos d'Rabanan, and we discuss when she checked herself and found that she is Temei'ah;

When there is fear, she is Tehorah retroactively, and we are Metamei only from when she found herself Temei'ah and onwards;

Inference: When there is not fear, and she checked herself and found that she is Temei'ah, she is Temei'ah from the time of her Veses;

Source: We say so below (15a) according to the opinion that Vestos d'Rabanan. If she checked herself afterwards and found that she is Temei'ah, she is Temei'ah. If she found that she is Tehorah, she is Tehorah;

According to the opinion that Vestos d'Oraisa, even if she checked and she found that she is Tehorah, she is Temei'ah, for the guest (Dam Nidah) comes in its time.

Answer #1: He infers from what it taught "[fear] removes blood." This connotes that the known blood that is clarified to come. This shows that Vestos d'Oraisa.

Comment - Answer #2: He relies on the Reisha, which teaches below (39a) that if the time of her Veses came and she did not check herself, she is Temei'ah. This shows that Vestos d'Oraisa.

Question: Below (16a), it proves from here that R. Meir holds that vdi, and there is an opinion there that does not explain that the Reisha is like R. Meir. If so, perhaps R. Meir argues with the Reisha!

Implied question: Why don't we answer that one might have thought that R. Meir requires both (within 24m, and she is nursing)? "Lefichach" teaches that one suffices!

Answer: It is unreasonable that she is Mesulekes Damim only through two matters.

Distinction: However, regarding R. Yosi, one might have thought that she is Mesulekes through one of two matters, either this or this.

Implied question: One on whom they sprinkle also needs Tevilah and hrvs, just like one who touches!

Answer #1: In any case, this is a Chidush, for this one (who touches Mei Nidah), Tum'ah comes to him through spg, and this one (on whom they spkd), Taharah comes to him through spg.

Answer #2: Here we discuss if they spkd on a Tahor without need, and like Rabanan in Yoma (14a);

Citation (14a - Beraisa - R. Akiva): If hza fell on a Tahor, it was Metamei him;

Citation (cont.): Rabanan say, a Kal v'Chomer [disproves this]. If it fell on a Tamei, it was Metamei him, and all the more so if it fell on a Tahor!

Question: What is the source to remove the verse from its simple meaning?

Answer: Since it says "v'Hizah ha'Tahor Al ha'Tamei", this connotes that he is always Tahor (i.e. even after he spkd).

Implied question: We also expound from this (Yoma 43b) "ha'Tahor" - this implies that he is Tamei. This teaches that a Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah Adumah!

Answer #1: We learn both of them from the verse.

Comment - Answer #2: Since he touches for the need of a Mitzvah, it is logical that he is Tahor. This is difficult.

Explanation: What a Tamei touches or carries is without need, but in order to spk on a Tamei, no (it is not Metamei).

Note: Maharshal says that this is the end of the previous Dibur.

Reference: Below (42b DH Mah) it is explained what they asked against this from the Neveilah of an animal.

Note: It seems that Tosfos should say "I explained", but I did not find anyone who changes the text to say so.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Does it depend on her opinion?!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It is someone whom it is proper to call her "Ima".

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The days of Tum'ah are the seven days of Nidah and three days of Zivah.

Objection: This is difficult, for he calls [some of] the 11 days [of Zivah] days of Tum'ah. Below (38b), a Mishnah teaches that all 11 days she has Chezkas Taharah! Also, the verse calls it "not at the time of her Nidah"!

Explanation #2: R. Chananel's text says "Rava said in the name of Rav Chisda, 23 [days]." (I.e. only the seven days of Nidah are days of Tum'ah.)

Explanation: [If she had three Onos without blood] close to the time of her old age, and another three Onos passed [without blood], she is Dayah Shaitah.

Implied question: A Mishnah (above, 7a) says "when did they say that she is Dayah Shaitah? For the first [sighting], but for the second, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es!

Answer: That is when she saw the second time at the end of 30 days.

Explanation (Rashi): E.g. [she saw after] 91, 92 and 93 days.

Objection: It is not precisely like this, for below (64a) Rav and Shmuel argue about one who saw on the 15th of this month, the 16th of the next month, and the 17th of the following month, whether she fixed a Veses for skipping!

Note: Aruch l'Ner explains that Tosfos asks that this is unlike Rav, who says that in such a case she fixed a Veses. However, we can say that Rashi holds that the Halachah follows Shmuel, and explains that even in such a case she did not fix a Veses!

Disclaimer: However, according to what I explained there (DH Itmar) that [they argue] only when she sees through skipping days in the month, but if she saw today, and after 16 days, and after 17 days, [all agree that] she did not fix a Veses for skipping, this is fine.