Niddah

Come and hear: It once happened that R. Gamaliel's  maid was baking bread loaves of terumah and after each  she rinsed her hands with water and held an examination. After the last one when she held the examination she found herself to be unclean and she came and asked R. Gamaliel who told her that they were all unclean.  'Master', she said to him, 'did I not hold an examination after each one'?  'If so', he told her, 'the last  is unclean  while all the others are clean'. At all events was it not here stated, 'bread loaves of terumah'?  — By terumah was meant  the bread loaves  of a thanksgiving-offering.  But how does it come about that the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering  should require to be baked?  This is a case where they  were set aside  while they were being kneaded,  this being in line with what R. Tobi b. Kattina  ruled: 'If a man baked the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering in four loaves  he has performed his duty'. [For when] the objection was raised, 'Do we not require forty loaves',  [the reply was that] this  is just a religious requirement.  But, surely, [it was asked,] is it not necessary to separate terumah  from each?  And should you reply that one might break off a piece from each  [it could be retorted that:] The All Merciful said, one  which implies that one must not break off a piece.  [To this] it was replied that 'they were set aside while they were being kneaded';  so here also  it may be explained that they were separated while they were being kneaded. Come and hear: Another incident took place when R. Gamaliel's maid was sealing wine jars with clay that after each she rinsed her hands with water and held an examination. After the last one when she held the examination and found herself to be unclean she came and asked R. Gamaliel who told her that they were all unclean. 'But, surely', she said to him, 'I held an examination after each one'. 'If so', he told her, 'the last  is unclean while all the others are clean'. Now if it is conceded that one incident  concerned hallowed things and the other terumah, it can be well understood why she asked a second time, but if it is contended that the former as well as the latter concerned hallowed things, why should she have asked him a second time? — [Each] incident occurred with a different maid. Another version: R. Huna ruled, [The retrospective uncleanness during] the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow is conveyed both to hallowed things and to terumah. Whence is this  inferred? From its omission in the enumeration of  the various grades [of sanctity].  Said R. Nahman to him: Surely, a Tanna  recited [that the retrospective uncleanness]  applies only to hallowed things and not to terumah. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac accepted this [teaching]  from him [and explained it] as applying to common food that was prepared under conditions of hallowed things and not to common food that was prepared in conditions of terumah. We learnt elsewhere: If a question of doubtful uncleanness has arisen about a dough  before it was rolled  it may be prepared in uncleanness,  [but if the doubt has arisen] after it had been rolled  it must be prepared in cleanness.  'Before it was rolled it may be prepared in uncleanness', because it is common food and it is permitted to cause uncleanness to common food in Erez Israel. 'After it had been rolled it must be prepared in cleanness', because common food that is in a condition of tebel  in respect of the dough-offering is regarded as dough-offering, and it is forbidden to cause uncleanness to the dough-offering. A Tanna taught: