Explanation: R. Yehudah holds that it is Dam Nidah, and it congealed and became a piece, like it says below regarding one who is Mapil (fell from her Ervah) a form of fish;

Rabanan hold that the Makor produces a piece. It is not Dam Nidah.

Question: [Rabanan] should say that half (are blood), and it should be Vadai Tamei in Reshus ha'Yachid, even though there is Chezkas Taharah [against it]!

Answer: We say above (18b) that even R. Yehudah holds that it is not an absolute majority, and we do not burn Terumah due to it;

Rabanan hold that it is not even half. Just the contrary, most pieces are not from the four kinds of blood!

Explanation: [The Beraisa means that] one who is Mapil red or black, its law is like R. Yehudah explains in the Seifa;

[The Gemara rejects this. It could have taught only yellow and white, and we would say that R. Yehudah is Metamei] even yellow [and white are Tamei. All the more he is Metamei red and black!]

Observation: R. Chananel's Perush connotes that his text did not say "perhaps you will say that Rabanan argue only about yellow and white!"

Support: It seems that this is correct. They explicitly taught black and red. The Gemara does not do so (suggest that the law taught is not correct).

Explanation: Perhaps she did not see [blood] and did not give birth.

Implied question: She should bring two Korbanos. Perhaps she saw [blood] and gave birth!

Answer: If she did, this is Koshi (blood due to birth) adjacent to birth, and it is Tahor, since she did not cease 24 hours [between the blood and the birth. The law of] Koshi applies to Nefalim.

Support: We must say that R. Yehoshua (who says that surely there was blood) holds that Koshi applies to Nefalim. If Koshi did not apply, she should bring two Korbanos;

She should bring a Korban for Zivah, which is Vadai, and it is eaten, and a Korban for birth, which is Safek, and it is not eaten!

One Korban does not suffice for Zivah and birth, just like we find regarding [one who ate b'Shogeg] Chelev and blood (Kerisus 9b, below 40a).

Question: According to this version, how can we understand R. Yochanan's words above (18a), that in three places Chachamim followed the majority. What does [three] exclude?!

Note: The Ramban (Sof 18b) says that R. Yochanan's words above are according to Version #1 here, in which we say that the Tana'im argue about when we do not know the color of what she miscarried. Aruch l'Ner (18b) - whenever the womb opens, there is blood. Most blood from the Makor is Tamei. R. Yehoshua considers this like Vadai, and burns Terumah due to it; R. Yehudah disagrees. R. Yochanan holds like Yehoshua, therefore he did not say "three" to exclude this case.

Explanation: This is even if it is not red outside.

Assertion: It seems that if it is red outside, this is better (more reason to be Metamei), even if it is not red inside, just like blood [is better outside than inside];

Inside, [blood] helps only according to Sumchus. Outside, it helps even according to Rabanan.

Explanation: The Aruch explained that this is the name of a Chacham.

Implied question: Why was this taught before the case of much blood, which also discusses Nidah (like the laws before this), and not birth? (We should teach all the teachings about Nidah together!)

Answer: We taught all the Beraisos first [before R. Yochanan's teaching in the name of R. Shimon].

Question: He should support him from [the first Tana of] our Mishnah, who requires that there is blood with it!

Answer: [The first Tana says so] because he holds that it (the blood in the piece) is not Dam Nidah.

Question: What is his source to say so? I could say that [if it were] Dam Nidah, she would be Teme'ah because it is convoluted (and there is blood in the folds, and it touches the wall of the womb), and "bi'Vsarah" applies, like Abaye answers, according to Rashi!

Answer: The Makshan holds that Rabanan argue with what R. Eliezer explicitly said, that "bi'Vsarah" excludes [blood] in a Shefir (the outer skin of a fetus before bones form) or piece of flesh;

Rabanan come to teach that she is Tehorah not due to "bi'Vsarah", rather, because it is not Dam Nidah;

Inference: If it were Dam Nidah, she would be Teme'ah, even [if it left] in a tube!

Source: If Dam Nidah [that left] in a tube were Tahor (is not Metamei her), Rabanan would not argue with what R. Eliezer explicitly said.