Niddah

BETH SHAMMAI RULED etc. What is Beth Shammai's reason? If it be suggested: Because it is written, And the queen was exceedingly pained,  and Rab explained, 'This teaches that she had experienced a menstrual discharge', so that here also,  owing to the fright of the angel of death, she experiences a discharge [it could be retorted]: Have we not in fact learnt that fear causes blood to disappear?  — This is no difficulty since fear  detains it while sudden fright  loosens it. But [then what of] that which was taught,  'Beth Shammai stated: All men die as zabs and Beth Hillel stated: No dying man is deemed to be a zab unless he died when he was actually one', why  should not one apply here  the text, Out of his flesh  but not on account of a mishap?  — Beth Shammai's reason is rather as it was taught: Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion all utensils that had been used by dying menstruants,  but as living menstruants felt ashamed in consequence  it was enacted that utensils used by all dying women should be subject to immersion,  out of a deference to the living menstruants. Formerly they were wont to subject to ritual immersion utensils used by dying zabs,  but as living zabs felt ashamed in consequence it was enacted that utensils used by all dying men  should be subject to ritual immersion, out of deference to the living zabs. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT  CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN  AND IT  ALSO CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING.  R. JUDAH RULED: IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A STAIN, SINCE IT WAS DETACHED AFTER SHE HAD DIED.  R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT WHERE A WOMAN SITTING ON THE TRAVAILING STOOL DIED AND A QUARTER OF A LOG OF BLOOD ISSUED FROM HER, IT  CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN.  R. JOSE RULED: HENCE  IT CONVEYS NO UNCLEANNESS BY OVERSHADOWING. GEMARA. Does it then follow  that the first Tanna  holds that even though blood was detached after she died  it conveys uncleanness as a bloodstain?  — Ze'iri  replied: The difference between them  is  the question whether the interior of the uterus is unclean. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, AGREES. Does it then follow that the first Tanna  holds that it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing also?  — Rab Judah replied: The difference between them  is  the question of mingled blood;  for it was taught: What is meant by 'mingled blood'?  R. Eleazar son of R. Judah explained: If blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and it is doubtful whether [a full quarter of a log] issued while he was still alive or when he was already dead or whether it partly issued while he was alive and partly while he was dead, such is mingled blood.  But the Sages  ruled: In a private domain such a case of doubt is unclean while in a public domain such a case of doubt is clean. What then is meant by 'mingled blood'?  If a quarter of a log of blood issued from a slain man both while he was still alive and when he was dead and the flow had not yet ceased  and  it is doubtful whether the greater part  issued while he was alive and the lesser part when he was dead or whether the lesser part issued while he was alive and the greater part when he was dead, such is mingled blood.  R. Judah ruled: The blood of a slain man, from whom a quarter of a log of blood issued while he was lying in a bed with his blood dripping into a hole, is unclean, because the drop of death is mingled with it, but the Sages hold it to be clean  because