Niddah

We learnt, IF SHE PERFORMED IMMERSION ON THE NEXT DAY AND THEN HAD INTERCOURSE, SUCH AN ACT IS IMPROPER CONDUCT, BUT THE UNCLEANNESS OF THEIR TOUCH AND THEIR LIABILITY TO A SACRIFICE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR INTERCOURSE ARE IN SUSPENSE. Does not this represent the general view?  — No, it is only the view of Beth Hillel. For it was taught: Said R. Judah to Beth Hillel: Do you then call such an act improper conduct, seeing that this man only intended to have intercourse with a menstruant? — 'A menstruant'! How could such an idea be entertained? — Rather read: To have intercourse with a zabah. 'A zabah'! How could this idea be entertained? — Rather read: To have intercourse with one who waits a day for a day. It was stated: As to the tenth day,  R. Johanan ruled, The tenth is on a par with the ninth; as the ninth  must be followed  by observation  so must the tenth  be followed by observation.  Resh Lakish ruled: The tenth is on a par with the eleventh; as the eleventh  need not be followed by observation  so the tenth need not be followed by observation. Some there are who teach this  in connection with the following. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said to R. Akiba, Even if you were all day to draw inferences from  the repetition of 'with oil'  I would not listen to you, the fact being that the prescribed quantities of half a log of oil for a thanksgiving-offering, and a quarter of a log of wine for a nazirite, and the eleven days that intervene between one menstruation period and the next are the halachah of Moses handed down from Sinai. What is the 'halachah' referred to? — R. Johanan replied: The one halachah applicable to the eleventh day.  Resh Lakish replied: The halachahs  applicable to the eleventh day. 'R. Johanan replied: The one halachah applicable to the eleventh day' i.e., the eleventh day  only need not be followed  by a day of observation  but for the other days  it  does serve as a day of observation. But 'Resh Lakish replied: The halachahs applicable to the eleventh day', i.e., neither need the eleventh be followed by one of observation nor does it serve as one of observation for the tenth.  But are these  halachahs? Are they not in fact derived from Scriptural texts? For it was taught: As it might have been presumed that if a woman observes a discharge on three consecutive days at the beginning of a menstruation period she shall be a zabah,  and that the text  'If a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood'  applies  to one who observed a discharge on one day only  it was, therefore, explicitly stated,