Niddah 24

עד הארכובה רבי ינאי אומר עד לנקביו רבי יוחנן אומר משום רבי יוסי בן יהושע עד מקום טבורו

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

בין רבי זכאי לרבי ינאי איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה מר סבר טרפה חיה ומר סבר טרפה אינה חיה

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amora’im: The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai and that of Rabbi Yannai is whether a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. One Sage, Rabbi Yannai, holds that a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a tereifa, if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. And one Sage, Rabbi Zakkai, holds that a tereifa cannot survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.

בין רבי ינאי לרבי יוחנן איכא בינייהו דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר ניטל ירך וחלל שלה נבלה

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who both agree that a tereifa can survive, is with regard to a statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, i.e., the hind leg of the animal, and its recess were removed from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered an unslaughtered carcass; consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person’s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel.

אמר רב פפא מחלוקת מלמטה למעלה אבל מלמעלה למטה אפילו כל דהו טהורה וכן אמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת את שגולגלתו אטומה אמו טהורה

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amora’im is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body from below to above, i.e., the lower part of his body; but if it is lacking part of its body from above to below, even any amount of its skull, the woman is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

ואמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת כמין אפקתא דדיקלא אמו טהורה

The Gemara cites another halakha: And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that looks like the part of a palm tree that branches out, i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, its mother is pure.

איתמר המפלת מי שפניו מוסמסים רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טמאה ריש לקיש אמר אמו טהורה

§ It was stated with regard to a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is mashed but not completely flattened, that Rabbi Yoḥanan says its mother is impure, and Reish Lakish says its mother is pure.

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באתה ואם איתא ליתני שמא מגוף אטום או ממי שפניו מוסמסין

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a shaped hand, i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, or a shaped foot, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed, i.e., deficient, body. And if it is so, that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, let the baraita teach: We are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed.

אמר רב פפי בפניו מוסמסין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטמאה כי פליגי בפניו טוחות ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טהורה וריש לקיש אמר אמו טמאה

Rav Pappi says: In a case where its face is mashed, everyone agrees that the woman is impure. When they disagree, it is in a case where its face is completely flat, i.e., none of its features are discernible; and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

ולותביה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן מהא משום דשני ליה היינו גוף אטום היינו מי שפניו טוחות

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from this baraita, from which Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the baraita should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, because Rabbi Yoḥanan would have responded to him that the status of a sealed body is the same as that of one whose face is flat. There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.

בני רבי חייא נפיק לקרייתא אתו לקמיה דאבוהון אמר להם כלום בא מעשה לידכם אמרו לו פנים טוחות בא לידינו וטימאנוה

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages to inspect their father’s fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasn’t any incident brought to you for a halakhic ruling? They said to him: A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

אמר להם צאו וטהרו מה שטמאתם מאי דעתייכו לחומרא חומרא דאתיא לידי קולא היא דקיהביתו לה ימי טוהר

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? But your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman thirty-three days of purity after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.

איתמר המפלת בריה שיש לה שני גבים ושני שדראות אמר רב באשה אינו ולד בבהמה אסור באכילה ושמואל אמר באשה ולד בבהמה מותר באכילה

§ It was stated: With regard to a woman or female animal who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says that in the case of the woman, her discharged fetus is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of the animal, its fetus is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In the case of a woman, the discharged fetus is considered an offspring, and the woman is impure, and in the case of an animal, the fetus is permitted for consumption.

במאי קמיפלגי בדרב חנין בר אבא דאמר רב חנין בר אבא השסועה בריה שיש לה שני גבין ושני שדראות

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba, as Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said: The verse states: “Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [umimafrisei haparsa hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger” (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term hashesua is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate entity that has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.

רב אמר בריה בעלמא ליתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה במעי אמה אגמריה ושמואל אמר בריה בעלמא איתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה בעלמא אגמריה אבל במעי אמה שריא

It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. Rav says that there is no such living entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found in the womb of its mother after slaughter. And Shmuel says that there is such an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a living animal in the world, but a fetus that has two backs and two spines in the womb of its mother is permitted for consumption.

איתיביה רב שימי בר חייא לרב רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות פסול לעבודה אלמא דחיי וקשיא לרב אמר ליה שימי את ששדרתו עקומה

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any priest who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from the Temple service, as he is blemished. Evidently, an entity that has two backs and two spines can survive, and this is difficult for the opinion of Rav. Rav said to him: You are clearly Shimi, i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather to one whose spine is crooked and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.

מיתיבי יש בעוברין שהן אסורין בן ארבעה לדקה בן שמנה לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Among discharged animal fetuses, there are those that are forbidden in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, where the pregnancy is normally five months long, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, where the pregnancy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, i.e., if the pregnancy ended before this stage, the animal is forbidden. This excludes one that has two backs and two spines.

מאי יצא לאו יצא מכלל עוברין שאפילו במעי אמן אסורין

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is excluded? Does it not mean that it is excluded from the category of those fetuses, which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother’s womb, as such animals are forbidden even while they are in the wombs of their mothers? This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.

רב מתרץ לטעמיה ושמואל מתרץ לטעמיה רב מתרץ לטעמיה בן ארבעה לדקה בן שמונה לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור

The Gemara answers: Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden.

במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לאויר העולם אבל במעי אמו שרי יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות דאפילו במעי אמו נמי אסור

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the animal emerged into the airspace of the world; but if it was found in its mother’s womb after its mother was slaughtered, it is permitted for consumption. This excludes the case of a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even if it is found in the womb of its mother it is prohibited.

ושמואל מתרץ לטעמיה בן ארבעה לדקה בן שמנה לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור במה דברים אמורים בשלא כלו לו חדשיו אבל כלו לו חדשיו מותר יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות דאף על גב דכלו לו חדשיו אם יצא לאויר העולם אסור במעי אמו שרי

And Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, in the following manner: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden. In what case is this statement said? In a case when the fetus’s months of gestation were not completed; but in a case when its months of gestation were completed, it is permitted for consumption even outside the womb. This excludes a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even in a case where its months of gestation were completed, if it emerged into the airspace of the world, it is forbidden, whereas if it is found in the womb of its mother, it is permitted.

תני תנא קמיה דרב המפלת בריית גוף שאינו חתוך ובריית ראש שאינו חתוך יכול תהא אמו טמאה לידה תלמוד לומר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וגו׳ וביום השמיני ימול וגו׳

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav: In the case of a woman who discharges an entity that has a shapeless body, i.e., it does not have the outline of limbs, or an entity that has a shapeless head, one might have thought that its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Therefore, the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3).

מי שראוי לברית שמנה יצאו אלו שאינן ראויין לברית שמנה אמר ליה רב וסיים בה הכי ושיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות

Those verses teach that the impurity of a woman after childbirth applies only to one who gave birth to a child that is fit for circumcision on the eighth day, excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, as it cannot survive that long. Consequently, this woman does not have the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rav said to the tanna: And conclude the baraita like this: Excluding these cases, where the child is not fit for circumcision on the eighth day, and excluding the case of a woman who discharges a child that has two backs and two spines.

רבי ירמיה בר אבא סבר למעבד עובדא כוותיה דשמואל אמר ליה רב הונא מאי דעתיך לחומרא חומרא דאתי לידי קולא הוא דקיהבת לה דמי טוהר עביד מיהא כותיה דרב דקיימא לן הלכתא כרב באיסורי בין לקולא בין לחומרא

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba thought to perform an action, i.e., to issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, that a woman who gives birth to a child with two backs and two spines is impure. Rav Huna said to him: What is your thinking? That as this matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? Your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman a period of thirty-three days following her period of impurity when any blood that emerges is blood of purity. In any event, you should perform, i.e., issue your ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav with regard to ritual matters, whether his opinion leads to a leniency or to a stringency.

אמר רבא הרי אמרו אשה יולדת לתשעה ויולדת לשבעה בהמה גסה יולדת לתשעה יולדת לשבעה או לא ילדה

§ Rava says: The Sages said that a woman can give birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy or after seven months of pregnancy; but if a woman gives birth after eight months of pregnancy, the child cannot survive and is stillborn. Similarly, a large domesticated animal gives birth to a viable offspring after nine months of pregnancy, and if it discharges a fetus after only eight months, the newborn animal cannot survive. With this in mind, Rava asked: Can a large domesticated animal give birth to a viable offspring after seven months of pregnancy, like a human, or can such an animal not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תא שמע הימנו ולמטה אסור מאי לאו אגסה לא אדקה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the aforementioned baraita: If an animal discharges from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the fetus is forbidden in consumption as an unslaughtered animal carcass. What, is it not referring to large livestock, which indicates that large livestock do not give birth to a viable offspring after only seven months of pregnancy? The Gemara answers: No, the reference is specifically to small domesticated animals, which do not give birth to a viable offspring until after five months of pregnancy.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא אגסה אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובאשה חיי בבהמה נמי חיי קא משמע לן דלא חיי

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: What is this? Granted, if you say that the reference is to large livestock, it is necessary for the baraita to state that an animal does not give birth to a viable offspring after less than a complete period of pregnancy, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since in the case of a woman who gives birth after seven months the baby survives, it is logical that in the case of a large domesticated animal that gives birth after seven months the newborn also survives, and it is therefore permitted for consumption. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that such an animal does not survive.

אלא אי אמרת אדקה איתמר פשיטא בת תלתא ירחי מי קא חיי

But if you say that the ruling in the baraita, that if an animal discharged a fetus before the period of gestation was completed then the fetus is prohibited, was stated with regard to small domesticated animals, isn’t it obvious that if a sheep or goat fetus was discharged at this stage it cannot survive? Can it survive after only three months of gestation?

אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כל בציר תרי ירחי חיי קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers that in fact it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha with regard to small domesticated animals, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that any mammal that is born two months less than its complete gestation survives, just as a human born at seven months of gestation survives. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a sheep or goat that is born at three months of gestation cannot survive and is forbidden for consumption.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל המפלת דמות לילית אמו טמאה לידה ולד הוא אלא שיש לו כנפים תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי יוסי מעשה בסימוני באחת שהפילה דמות לילית ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו ולד הוא אלא שיש לו כנפים

§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that has the form of a lilith, a female demon with wings and a human face, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it is a viable offspring, only it has wings. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred in Simoni involving a certain woman who discharged a fetus that had the form of a lilith, and the incident was brought before the Sages; and they said that it is a viable offspring, only it has wings.

המפלת דמות נחש הורה חנינא בן אחיו של רבי יהושע אמו טמאה לידה הלך רבי יוסף וספר דברים לפני רבן גמליאל שלח לו רבי יהושע הנהג בן אחיך ובא

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. Ḥanina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, ruled that its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Yosef went and told this matter to Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel sent to Rabbi Yehoshua: Take hold of your nephew and come to me, so that I may admonish him for his ruling.

בהליכתן יצתה כלת (רבי) חנינא לקראתו אמרה לו רבי המפלת כמין נחש מהו אמר לה אמו טהורה אמרה לו והלא משמך אמרה לי חמותי אמו טמאה ואמר לה מאיזה טעם הואיל וגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם מתוך דבריה נזכר רבי יהושע שלח לו לרבן גמליאל מפי הורה חנינא

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, Ḥanina’s daughter-in-law went out to greet Rabbi Yehoshua, and said to him: My teacher, what is the halakha with regard to a woman who discharges an item that looks like a snake? Rabbi Yehoshua said to her: Its mother is pure. She said to him: But my mother-in-law said to me in your name that its mother is impure in such a case, and that you said to her: For what reason is she impure? It is because the pupil of a snake is round like that of a human. Due to her statement, Rabbi Yehoshua remembered that he had issued such a ruling. He subsequently sent a message to Rabban Gamliel: Ḥanina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

אמר אביי שמע מינה צורבא מרבנן דאמר מילתא לימא בה טעמא דכי מדכרו ליה מדכר

Abaye said: Conclude from this incident that a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who says a halakhic matter should say the reason for his statement, so that when his colleagues remind him of his reasoning, he will remember that ruling, as happened to Rabbi Yehoshua.

מתני׳ המפלת שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנונים אינה חוששת לולד ואם היה מרוקם תשב לזכר ולנקבה המפלת סנדל או שליא תשב לזכר ולנקבה

MISHNA: A woman who discharges a gestational sac full of fluid, full of blood, or full of different colors need not be concerned that it was an offspring. But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, her halakhic status is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female; she is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. A woman who discharges a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a sandal fish, and one who discharges an afterbirth observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female.

גמ׳ בשלמא דם ומים לא כלום היא אלא גנונים ניחוש שמא ולד הוה ונימוח אמר אביי כמה יין חי שתת אמו של זה שנמוח עוברה בתוך מעיה

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, one can understand why a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of blood or water is pure, as such an item is nothing, i.e., it is not an offspring. But if the gestational sac was full of different colors, let us be concerned that perhaps it was an offspring and it liquefied. Abaye says in response: How much undiluted wine, which can be harmful to an embryo, did the mother of this purported embryo drink, that her embryo was liquefied in her womb? In other words, there is no such concern.

רבא אמר מלא תנן ואם איתא דאתמוחי אתמח מחסר חסר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר גוונים תנן ואם איתא דאתמוחי אתמח כולה בחד גוונא הוי קאי

Rava says that there is a different explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac was full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo in the sac that liquefied, the sac would have been lacking some of the mass of the liquified portion. Rav Adda bar Ahava says that there is yet another explanation: We learned in the mishna that the gestational sac is full of different colors, and if it is so, that there was an embryo there that liquefied, it would all be of one color.

תניא אבא שאול אומר קובר מתים הייתי והייתי מסתכל בעצמות של מתים השותה יין חי עצמותיו שרופין מזוג עצמותיו סכויין כראוי עצמותיו משוחין וכל מי ששתייתו מרובה מאכילתו עצמותיו שרופין אכילתו מרובה משתייתו עצמותיו סכויין כראוי עצמותיו משוחין

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a person’s body, it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger, and I would observe the bones of corpses. I discovered that the bones of one who drinks too much undiluted wine during his lifetime look burnt, the bones of one who drinks too much diluted wine are black, and the bones of one who drinks the appropriate amount of wine are fat, i.e., full of marrow. And furthermore, I discovered that the bones of anyone who drinks much more than he eats look burnt, the bones of one who eats much more than he drinks are black, and the bones of one who eats and drinks appropriate amounts are fat.

תניא אבא שאול אומר ואיתימא רבי יוחנן קובר מתים הייתי פעם אחת רצתי אחר צבי ונכנסתי בקולית של מת ורצתי אחריו שלש פרסאות וצבי לא הגעתי וקולית לא כלתה כשחזרתי לאחורי אמרו לי של עוג מלך הבשן היתה

It is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says the following, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said it: I used to be a gravedigger. Once I ran after a deer, and I entered the thighbone of a corpse; and it was so large that I ran after the deer for three parasangs inside the thighbone, and although I did not reach the deer, the thighbone did not end. When I came back and related this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the thighbone of Og, king of Bashan, a known giant.

תניא אבא שאול אומר קובר מתים הייתי פעם אחת נפתחה מערה תחתי ועמדתי בגלגל עינו של מת עד חוטמי כשחזרתי לאחורי אמרו עין של אבשלום היתה

It is likewise taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened up underneath where I was standing, and I found myself standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I came back and told this to the Sages, they said to me: It was evidently the eye of Absalom.

ושמא תאמר אבא שאול ננס הוה אבא שאול ארוך בדורו הוה ורבי טרפון מגיע לכתפו ורבי טרפון ארוך בדורו הוה ורבי מאיר מגיע לכתפו רבי מאיר ארוך בדורו הוה ורבי מגיע לכתפו רבי ארוך בדורו הוה

And lest you say that Abba Shaul was a midget, and therefore he was capable of standing in an eye socket until his nose, Abba Shaul was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Tarfon reached only his shoulder, and Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Meir reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Meir was the tallest person in his generation. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the tallest person in his generation.

ורבי חייא מגיע לכתפו ורבי חייא ארוך בדורו הוה ורב מגיע לכתפו רב ארוך בדורו הוה ורב יהודה מגיע לכתפו ורב יהודה ארוך בדורו הוה ואדא דיילא מגיע לכתפו

The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Ḥiyya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Ḥiyya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rav was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav Yehuda reached only the shoulder of Rav, and Rav Yehuda was the tallest person in his generation. And Adda the attendant [dayyala] reached only the shoulder of Rav Yehuda,