PREVIEW OF THE DAFCAST WEBSITE FOR CYCLE 13

Please do not forward this link around yet! This is still in development and will be "released", God willing, on August 1, in time for the thirteenth cycle of Daf Yomi.

Disclaimers, Copyright, and Credits

Disclaimers

This is an early draft. I haven't proofread; there are plenty of typos and probably some more significant errors as well.

Most pages on this site are currently auto-translated. The autotranslations are intended as a starting point for my manual translations. At best, they are awkward stringing-togethers of words and phrases in the corpus database that can benefit from cleaning up. At worst, they are picking the wrong homograph. Auto-translations are indicated by italics.

I am not a rabbi or an expert. These are my translations, and in some cases I am certainly misunderstanding things.

The Talmud is a document of its time. While the Talmud is a foundational document of Judaism, it must be read in its historical context. There are passages that are xenophobic, sexist, and irreconcilable with modern science. Not everything in these pages represents contemporary Judaism.

Copyright

This translation is protected by copyright. I'm putting a lot of effort into this project. Please respect that by only copying with my permission.

I intend to provide free licenses for most uses. I plan to use a Creative Commons CC-NC-BY-SA license, which will allow you to re-use my translations as long as you don't charge money for them (NC), as long as you give me credit (BY), and as long as you make your derived work available under the same terms (SA). But I'm not ready to do that yet because this is still a very rough work-in-progress.

In the meantime, if you want to re-use this, please contact me. I am willing to discuss re-use on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps the one page you want to use is actually ready for re-use. Ask. I'll probably work out a way to say "yes."

Credits

I need to clean up this section. But for now, I'll note that I've made use of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Bavli at Mechon Mamre; Jastrow's dictionary; "The Practical Talmud Dictionary" by Yitzchak Frank. I've also used the big three translations of the Talmud --- Soncino (English), Artscroll (English), and Steinsaltz (Hebrew) --- and the Kehati (English) edition of the Mishna, to help me understand passages before translating them.

Go to daf 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.

דף טו,א גמרא

??? and wash his hands and he shall place tefillin and he shall read the recitation of Shema and he shall pray and this is accepting the kingdom of heaven complete. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said that R' Yochanan said All ??? and washes his hands and places tefillin and reads the recitation of Shema and he prays ??? upon it the scripture it is like he built an altar and he sacrificed upon it a sacrifice As it is written (Ps. 26) I shall wash in cleanliness my hands and I will encircle Your altar, Hashem Raba said to him Do you not derive from this, Master, that it is as if he immersed As it is written I shall wash myself some texts read: in cleanliness and it is not written: I shall wash transitively some texts read: my hands He said to him Ravina to Raba Look, Master, at this ??? from the rabbis who has arrived from the West and says Whoever does not have water to wash his hands he wipes his hands in dust and with pebbles and with sawdust He said to him What he comes to say is acceptable. Is it written "I will wash in water"? On the contrary! "In cleanliness" it is written All things that render the object clean For thus Rav Chisda would curse anyone who searched for water in the time of prayer ??? and what case is he dealing with? With the recitation of Shema but for prayer he searched for water and up to how much distance may one walk in his search? until a parsa And these words apply only in the case of והני מילי where he is searching in front of where he had been standing, but: to his rear even one mil he does not return Some texts read: and from this we learn that if one mil it is than he does not returns But if this case is less than a mil he returns

דף טו,א משנה

One who reads the Shema but does not hear it in his ears he has fulfilled his obligation R' Yosei says He has not fulfilled his obligation. he read but was not careful with the pronunciation of the letters R' Yosei says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehudah says He has not fulfilled his obligation. One who reads out of order He has not fulfilled his obligation. In the case where he read and he erred he shall return to the place where he erred

דף טו,א גמרא

What is the reason of R' Yosi? It is because of this: As it is written "Hear!" It should be heard by your ear that which you sent forth from your mouth I.e., you must recite Shema loudly enough to hear yourself. And the first tanna reasoned "Hear!" comes to teach that the Shema may be recited in all tongues that you are able to understand when you listen and R' Yosi derives both laws from the single source. Learn from this It was taught there: A deaf person who can speak but does not hear does not separate terumah but if he separated terumah his terumah-offering is indeed valid terumah Which Tanna taught: A deaf person who can speak but does not hear his terumah-separation is valid once it has been done but he should not act thus in the first place. Did not Rav Chisda say it was R' Yosi For it was taught in a baraita One who reads the Shema but does not hear it in his ears he has fulfilled his obligation these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. R' Yosei says He has not fulfilled his obligation. Up to this point, R' Yosi does not come to say i.e., what he really means is not that he has not fulfilled his obligation. except regarding the recitation of Shema which is a law established by the Torah but: terumah is forbidden only because of the blessing associated with it and the blessing is a law established by the Rabbis and not on the blessing hangs the validity of the act of separating terumah; i.e., the terumah separation is valid post facto even if it cannot be accompanied by the required blessing. And from where do you derive that it is R' Yosi? Perhaps it is R' Yehudah and he said regarding the recitation of Shema also where it has already been done, yes. But initially, no. Know ye that the following proof is conclusively true: where he teaches "One who reads" This wording describes a case where where it has already been done, yes, it is valid post facto, but initially, it is not permitted They said This case where he teaches "One who reads" to make you acknowledge the strength of his argument of R' Yosi for he said: once it has been done also we rule that it is not valid. For if it was R' Yehudah Even if initially also he has fulfilled his obligation in what way have you established the case? like R' Yosi So rather, how do you explain that which was taught: A person shall not bless Birkat ha-Mazon the blessing of the meal in his heart and if he blesses thus he has fulfilled his obligation With whom does it agree? Not Rabbi Yosi and not R' Yehudah For if it was R' Yehudah this statement that he said poses a contradiction: initially also he has fulfilled his obligation On the other hand, If it was R' Yosi then this is the problem: in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. Rather, what can we conclude? It must be R' Yehudah and he must hold that and where it has already been done, yes, it is valid post facto, but initially, it is not permitted but how do you reconcile that with this teaching for thus teaches R' Yehudah the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who can speak but does not hear separates terumah initially, Who says this? Not R' Yehudah and not R' Yosi If it was R' Yehudah this statement that he said poses a contradiction: once it has been done, yes, it is valid post facto, but initially, it is not permitted If it was R' Yosi this statement that he said poses a contradiction: in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. But rather, in reality lit: in the world, it is Rabbi Yehudah who considers and even in the case where he did it initially, also, and there is no difficulty. this one according to his own reason this one according to the reason of his teacher For it was taught in a baraita Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of R' Elazar ben Azarya One who reads the Shema It is necessary for him that he hears his own recitation in his ear as it is said (Deut. 6) "Hear, O Israel, Hashem our God, Hashem is one!" Rabbi Meir said to him: Behold! It says "which I command you today on your heart" following the forming of intention of the heart is there, there are the things Now that you have come to this understanding, you can apply the same understanding to this other problem: even if you say it’s Rabbi Yehudah, like his teacher he reasons for himself. And there is no difficulty. this one is Rabbi Meir this one is Rabbi Yehudah It was taught there: All are proper to read the megillah except for a deaf-mute and a child And Rabbi Yehudah considers it proper in the case of a child. Which Tanna taught: A deaf person in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid Thus said Rav Matanah: It is Rabbi Yosei For it was taught in a baraita One who reads the Shema but does not hear it in his ears he has fulfilled his obligation these are the words of R' Yehudah Rabbi Yosei says: He has not fulfilled his obligation. From where can you derive that it is R' Yosi? in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid

דף טו,ב גמרא

perhaps, it is Rabbi Yehudah and it refers to a case where it was done a priori for this is not the case where it has already been done, it is of acceptable worth. Don't let it enter your mind! for this would teach that a deaf person is equivalent to a mute person and a child Just as a mute and a child in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. So, too A deaf person in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. and perhaps, this case like the rule that it has and this case like the rule that it has and who seeks to establish that it is like Rabbi Yehudah Hey, isn't it the case that When the baraita teaches at the end of the teaching, Rabbi Yehudah considers it proper in the case of a child. from this general principle it would follow that at the beginning of the teaching It is not Rabbi Yehudah or, perhaps, in all of it it is R' Yehudah and two kinds of a child are differentiated and it is lacking a missing clause And this is what the tanna means to teach: all are proper to read the megillah except a deaf-mute, an imbicile, and a child In what matters are we saying this? in the case of a child that did not come yet, due to youth, to an education but a child who did arrive to an education even a priori is valid to read the megillah these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. for Rabbi Yehudah considers it proper in the case of a child. in what way have you established that it is like Rabbi Yehudah and where it has already been done, yes, it is valid post facto, but initially, it is not permitted but how do you reconcile that with this teaching For thus teaches Rabbi Yehudah the son of R' Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who can speak but does not hear separates terumah initially Now, considering that teaching, with whom does it agree? Not R' Yehudah and not R' Yosi If it was R' Yehudah then you cannot explain the position that once it has been done, yes, it is valid post facto, but initially, it is not permitted If it was R' Yosi then you cannot explain the position that in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. Rather, what can we conclude? R' Yehudah and even in the case where he did it initially, also, Watch out for leading vav So rather, how do you explain that which was taught: A person shall not bless the blessing after the meal in his heart and if one who recites a blessing he has fulfilled his obligation with whom does it agree? Not R' Yehudah and not R' Yosi If it was Rabbi Yehudah this statement that he said poses a contradiction: Even if in the case where he did it initially, also, and if it was R' Yosi this statement that he said poses a contradiction: Even if in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. In reality lit: In the world it is R' Yehudah and even in the case where he did it initially, also, And there is no difficulty. this one according to his own reason this one according to the reason of his teacher as it is taught: R' Yehudah said: It is because of this: R' Elazar ben Azarya One who reads the Shema It is necessary for him that he hears in his ear as it is said "Hear, O Israel, R' Meir said to him: Behold! It says "which I command you today on your heart" after the forming of intention of the heart are they. "They" are the words. Now that you have come to this understanding, you can apply the same understanding to this other problem: Even if you say R' Yehudah like his teacher he reasons, And there is no difficulty. this one is the position of R' Yehudah this one is Rabbi Meir

R' Chisda said Rav Shila said The halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and the halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah And it was necessary to have both statements For if we had heard "The halacha is like R' Yehudah" then I might incorrectly say: even initially Come and learn from this. "The halacha is like R' Yehudah who said it in the name of R' Elazar ben Azarya" and if we had heard "The halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah who said it in the name of R' Elazar ben Azarya" then I might incorrectly say: It is necessary to do it thus, And it does not have the possibility of repair if done improperly Come and learn from this. The halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah

Rav Yosef said It is a disagreement in the case of the recitation of Shema but in the remainder of the commandments the words of all are that one who has recited his prayer silently he has not fulfilled his obligation. As it is written (Deut. 27) "Attend and hear, O Israel," They challenged him from this teaching: A person shall not bless the blessing after the meal in his heart and if he blesses thus he has fulfilled his obligation Rather: If it was said, thus was it said: Rav Yosef said It is a disagreement in the case of the recitation of Shema As it is written "Hear, O Israel" but: in the remainder of the commandments the words of all are he has fulfilled his obligation For it is written "Attend and hear, O Israel," That is written regarding words of Torah.

Our mishna continues with the case where he read and was not grammatically careful in pronouncing its letters R' Tuvi said: R' Yoshaia said: The halacha is in accordance with the words of both to be lenient And R' Tuvi said: R' Yoshaia said: What then does it mean that it is written (Prov. 30) three there are that are not satisfied: the grave ... and the barren womb And so What is the connection between the grave that it is placed next to the womb It can be nothing except to say to you Just as the womb brings in and sends forth So, too the grave brings in and sends forth Is it not the case that these matters are a kal vachomer for just as the womb which brings in to itself in silence brings out from itself in loud voices the grave which brings in to itself in loud voices is it not logical that it shall bring forth from itself in loud voices From here is a response to those who say there is not resurrection of the dead from the Torah

It was taught by R' Oshaia in front of Raba "And you shall write them" The entirety in writing even commandments He said to him Who said this to you? it is R' Yehudah for he said: regarding Sotah the curses is written the commands are not written and there in that case it is written: (Num. 5) "and the writing of these curses" But here, in this case, As it is written "and you shall write them" even commandments also are included. Do you contend that his reason -- that of R' Yehudah -- is because of this: As it is written "and he shall write"? The reason of R' Yehudah is because of this: As it is written "curses" From this, he deduces that specifically for the curses the law is yes, they are written, for the commandments No. It was necessary to provide both opinions For it might have entered your mind that I would say: let a conclusion be drawn by comparing ??? "writing" in this source with "writing" from there Just as there curses, yes, are written, but commandments, no, are not; So, too, here in this case, also, commandments, no, are not; Therefore, to avoid this incorrect deduction, the Merciful One wrote: "And you shall write them" even commandments.

Rav Ovadiah recited in front of Raba "And you shall teach them" that it should be -- i.e., your teaching -- perfect that you shall give a resting place between the joints. Responded Raba secondly, For example, "on your heart" "on your hearts" "with all your heart" "in all your hearts" "grass in your field" "and you shall be destroyed rapidly" "the corner a thread" "you from the land" Rabbi Chama the son of Rabbi Chanina said: Anyone who reads the recitation of Shema and is careful in its letters they cool for him Gehinna (hell) as it is said (Ps. 68) when the Almighty scatters kings in it it snows in Tzalmon. We will suggest an alternate reading of this text: Do not read "when He scatters" but rather, "when he expounds" clearly We will suggest an alternate reading of this text: Do not read "in Tzalmon" but rather, in the shadow of death.

And thus says Rabbi Chama the son of Rabbi Chanina For what reason are they next to lit: leaning on