Explanation #1 (Rashi): Below are small drops and above are big drops. We attribute a big drop above on a louse, up to a bean.

[We suggest that] up to a bean is like below, like less than a bean. [We reject] no, it is like above, like more than a bean.

Objection #1: This is astounding! Why does [the Tana] say above and below? He should have said big and small [drops]!

Objection #2: How does this connote to [the Makshan] like below? Why is this stronger than [the connotation of] our Mishnah [which also says "until a bean]?

Objection #3: [The Tana] should not have said "like above" and "like below." He should have said "like less than a bean" and "like more than a bean", i.e. the expression we used until now!

Explanation #2: It means as follows. "Below" is below the belt. "Above" is above the belt. She attributes to the top - she attributes [blood] below to above;

Perhaps just like the top came from elsewhere, also the bottom came from elsewhere, and up to a bean, we attribute to it;

[The Gemara] says, isn't "like a bean" below? I.e. "up to a bean" that was taught discusses that [a Kesem] below, up to a bean, she attributes to the top. The place from which the top came, [also] the bottom came.

Inference: If not for the top, we would be Metamei her, and we would not attribute to blood of a louse. This shows that a bean is like more than a bean!

[The Gemara answers] no, "like a bean" is above. I.e. she attributes a [Kesem] below to the top when the top is up to a bean, and it counts from above to below, i.e. the top is [the size of] three beans, or two beans, until a bean;

Then, we do not attribute the top to blood of a louse. Rather, it came from elsewhere. Then, we attribute the bottom to it.

We discuss when the bottom [Kesem] is more than a bean. However, if the top was a bean, the bottom would not be Tahor, for there are no Raglayim l'Davar that the blood came from elsewhere, for we can attribute the top to blood of a louse.

Explanation (Ri): The same applies if she engaged with less than a bean, and was found on her more than a bean. This is included in this question.

Suggestion: Perhaps this (she engaged with less than a bean) is obvious, that she does not attribute to it, even according to R. Yanai!

Rejection: If so, when we answer below "is it not the case...', we should [reject this, and] establish it when she engaged with less than a bean, for then it is obvious that she does not attribute to it!

Conclusion: Rather, surely he asks in every case.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is from something that resembles the Kesem - sap, or a potion for the eye. It surely came from elsewhere. She attributes to it many kinds of Kesamim that she found, and she does not recognize whether it is blood.

Explanation #2 (Ri): She found one kind above the belt. She attributes to it many kinds below the belt, for just like one above surely came from elsewhere, so we say about the bottom, that it came from elsewhere.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, above 57b): Since she was so pressed [to urinate], that she urinated standing, and she could not refrain [until she can sit], the urine returned to the Makor and brought blood;

[We ask that] also when she sat, we should say that the urine returned to the Makor! Now we are thinking that [the urine] oozes, for also now she was pressed.

We answer that [the urine] flowed. Since it came out normally, she was not pressed, and the urine did not return to the Makor, and it is not normal for blood of the Makor to come out with urine;

However, when it oozes, since she holds it in, we can say that it returned [to the Makor], as if she was standing. However, when she stands, it is impossible to flow.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We ask that also when it flows, granted, it does not return to the Makor. However, who will tell us that [the blood] came with the urine, that we should say that it is Vadai not from the Makor, since it came with urine, rather, it came from the place of urine, and she has a wound?

Perhaps after the urine finished, blood came from the Makor, and not from the urine! Until here is from Rashi.

Question: Rashi explained that when she stands, [urine] cannot flow. If so, why did [R. Meir] mention standing? He should mention only sitting, and distinguish between flowing and oozing!

Answer #1: He mentioned standing because then it is uniform that it always oozes.

Answer #2: He mentioned standing due to R. Yosi, [who holds that] even when she stands, and her womb is not open, he is Metaher. (Rosh - when the womb is not open, the urine cannot flow freely, so perhaps it returned to the Makor.)

Explanation #2: When she stands, [urine] can flow. The Makshan thought that our Mishnah discusses every case, whether oozing or flowing. Therefore, he asked about why it is different when she stands, that he is Metamei due to one Re'usa, that her womb is not open, even though [the urine] flows;

Also when she sits, she should be Temei'ah when it oozes!

[The Gemara] answers that it discusses only flowing.

Implied question: Why didn't [R. Meir] distinguish within the case of sitting, and teach that she is Temei'ah when it oozes?

Answer: He wanted to teach that when she stands she is Temei'ah, even if it flows.

Explanation #3: The Makshan thought that our Mishnah discusses oozing, for when it flows, even if she stands she is Tehorah, for we cannot say that the urine returned, since it flows;

Therefore he asked that when she sits, since it oozes, and there is one Re'usa;

He answers that it flows, and even so, when she stands, she is Temei'ah, for we can say that the urine returned... and we require both factors to favor (that she is Tehorah, i.e. she sat and it flows).

Explanation #1: Even if it flows, perhaps after it ceased flowing and it oozes, it returned to the Makor and blood came.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): After the urine finished, blood came normally.

Question: If so, also when it flows, we should ask that perhaps blood came normally, like another woman who sees [not when urinating]!

Answer: Rather, surely it is obvious to him that since she did not see before urinating or afterwards, if so, the blood did not come automatically, rather, through the urine, which returned to the Makor and blood came;

Perhaps at the time it flows, it is impossible for blood to come normally, for due to flowing, the source of blood is closed.

Explanation: "Kala" is in the name of a Chacham.

Assertion: The text does not say "l'Kula" (leniently). There would be no reason to mention this!

Question: Just the contrary! Since it does not say "R. Meir and R. Shimon are Metamei", this teaches that R. Meir is Metaher!

Answer: We could not have taught so, for we conclude that the Chazakah is that blood comes from the woman;

From here we conclude below that R. Shimon is Metamei even when a man and a woman sit, and R. Meir is Metaher even when a woman sits.