Niddah

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And both  agree  that if a woman performs immersion at night after a zibah  the immersion is invalid, for both agree that if a woman who observed a discharge during the eleven days  and performed immersion in the evening and then had intercourse she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat and both are liable to a sacrifice. They  only differ where a discharge occurred on the eleventh day in which case Beth Shammai ruled: They  convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice, and Beth Hillel exempt them from the sacrifice. Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: Why should in this respect the eleventh day differ from one of the intermediate of the eleven days; seeing that the former is like the latter in regard to uncleanness, why should it not also be like it in regard to the sacrifice? Beth Hillel answered Beth Shammai: No; if you ruled that a sacrifice is due after a discharge in the intermediate of the eleven days because the following day  combines with it in regard to zibah, would you also maintain the same ruling in regard to the eleventh day which  is not followed by one that we could combine with it in regard to zibah? Said Beth Shammai to them: You must be consistent;  if the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice, and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. Said Beth Hillel to them: If we impose upon a man  uncleanness in order to restrict the law  we cannot on that ground impose upon him the obligation of a sacrifice which might  lead to a relaxation of the law.  And, furthermore, you stand refuted  Out of your own rulings. For, since you rule that if she performed immersion on the next day and having had intercourse she observed a discharge, uncleanness is conveyed to couch and seat and she is exempt from a sacrifice, you also must be consistent.  If the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. The fact, however, is that they are like one another only where the law is thereby restricted but not where it would thereby be relaxed; well, here also, they are like one another where the law is thereby restricted but not where it is thereby relaxed. R. Huna stated: Couches and seats  which she occupies on the second day  are held to be unclean  by Beth Shammai even though she performed immersion  and even though she observed no discharge.  What is the reason? — Because if she had observed a discharge she would have been unclean,  she is therefore now  also unclean.  Said R. Joseph: What new law does he  teach us,  seeing that we have learnt, IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY  AND THEN HAD MARITAL INTERCOURSE AND AFTER THAT OBSERVED A DISCHARGE, BETH SHAMMAI RULED: THEY  CONVEY UNCLEANNESS TO COUCH AND SEAT  AND ARE  EXEMPT FROM THE SACRIFICE?  R. Kahana objected:  Where she observed a discharge  the case is different.  Said R. Joseph: But what matters it that she observed a discharge  seeing that it is one of menstruation?  — Abaye answered R. Joseph: R. Kahana  had this difficulty: Where the woman did observe a discharge one can well see the reason why uncleanness has been imposed since  an observation of menstruation had to be declared unclean as a preventive measure against the possibility of an observation of a discharge of zibah, but where one observed no discharge  what possibility was there to be provided against? And, furthermore, we have learnt:  If a man observed one discharge of zibah, Beth Shammai ruled: He is like a woman who waits a day for a day  and Beth Hillel ruled: Like a man who emitted semen,