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 כא,א גמרא

Consider this case: prayer which is a matter that the community is engaged in it and we have learnt in a Mishna: He was standing in prayer i.e., Amidah and he remembered that he was one who has had a seminal emission: he does not interrupt; but rather, he abridges. The reason is that he had begun But in this case, if he had not yet begun, then he does not begin It is different in the case of prayer in which there is not the kingdom of heaven. That is, the berachot in the Amidah do not say "Melech ha-Olam"

Consider the case of the blessing after the meal in which there is not the kingdom of heaven and we have learnt in a Mishna: on the meal he does bless after it and he does not bless before it Rather: the recitation of Shema and the blessing after the meal are both a law established by the Torah and prayer is a law established by the Rabbis

Rav Yehudah said from where do we learn that the blessing after the meal is from the Torah? as it is said (Deut. 8) "And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied and you shall bless..." from where do we learn that the blessing of the Torah before it is read comes from the Torah? as it is said (Deut. 32) "When the Name of Hashem I invoke, declare ye greatness to our God" R' Yochanan said: we have learned the blessing on the Torah after it has been read can be derived from the blessing after the meal by a "kal vachomer" and the blessing before the meal from the blessing on the Torah by a "kal vachomer" How so? The blessing on the Torah after it from the blessing after the meal can be derived by a "kal vachomer" as follows: for just as food that does not require a blessing to be recited before it does require a blessing to be recited after it so, too, Torah that requires a blessing to be recited before it is it not logical that it requires a blessing to be recited after it? And the blessing after the meal -- how do we derive that a blessing is required before it from the blessing on the Torah? From a "kal vachomer", for just as Torah that does not require a blessing to be recited after it requires a blessing to be recited before it so, too, food that requires a blessing to be recited after it, is it not logical that it should be required to recite a blessing before it? It is possible to find fault with this argument What is it that allows you to compare Torah to food, which provides physical benefit and what is it that allows you to compare food to the Torah which provides spiritual life eternal? And furthermore, We have learnt in a Mishna: On the meal he does bless after it and he does not bless before it. -- This definitively refutes it!

Rav Yehudah said In a case where one is in doubt whether he read the recitation of Shema or doubt whether he did not read, he does not return and read. If one is in doubt whether he said "True and Certain" or doubt whether he did not say, he returns i.e., repeats and says "True and Certain" What is the reason? the recitation of Shema is a law established by the Rabbis "True and Certain" is a law established by the Torah Rav Yosef challenged this by citing (Deut. 6) "and when you lie down to sleep and when you arise" Abaye said to him: That, regarding words of Torah, it is written.

We have learnt in a Mishna: One who has had a seminal emission murmurs in his heart and he does not bless -- not before it and not after it but on the meal he does bless after it and he does not bless before it. And if it enters your mind to argue that "True and Certain" is a law established by the Torah and therefore he should come to recite a blessing after it; What is the reason he makes the blessing? If it was on account of the Exodus from Egypt this is mentioned by him in the recitation of Shema And let him say this one "True and Certain" and not seek this one "Shema"! The recitation of Shema is preferable, for there is therein both the Exodus from Egypt and accepting the yoke of heaven. and R' Elazar said If one is in doubt whether he read the recitation of Shema or doubt whether he did not read, he returns and reads the recitation of Shema If one is in doubt whether he has prayed the Amidah or doubt whether he did not pray he does not return and pray. And Rabbi Yochanan said: If only that a person should pray all the day entire!

And Rav Yehudah said that Shmuel said In a case where one was standing in prayer i.e., Amidah and he remembered that he prayed already, he interrupts and even in the midst of a blessing. Really? For didn't Rav Nachman say "When we were at the academy of Rabbah bar Avuah we asked of him Behold! The members lit. sons of the academy lit. house of Rav that erred and that began to recite ??? of weekday on Shabbat What then? That they shall complete it? and he said to us They complete all that particular blessing How now? There, in the first case, a person a "son of obligation" is he And it is the rabbbis that do not burden him because of lit., from the name of the honor of Sabbath. But here, in this case, this one prayed it.

And Rav Yehudah said that Shmuel said In a case where one prayed and he has entered to the House of Assembly synagogue and found community who are praying if It is possible to renew in it a thing i.e., he can add something new to his recitation of the prayer, then he should return and he prays. And if not, let him not return and pray! And it was necessary to have both statements For if we had heard the first then we might have said that is only in the case lit., "these words" הני מילי where an individual prayed alone, and now and an individual will pray alone again.

דף כא,ב גמרא

or where he prayed with the community and again, and community but: an individual who has prayed alone, and is now going to join with the body of the community is like who? Like one who has not prayed he is equivalent. Come and learn from this that the teaching was necessary. And if we had heard here the second clause, I might have thought it is because it is a case where he had not begun it; but there, in the first case, where he had begun it, I would say it is not necessary to teach this That is why both teachings were needed.

Rav Huna said One who enters to the House of Assembly i.e., the synagogue and found community who are praying if it is possible to begin and to complete before it was even the case that he (the "emissary of the community" (Shaliach Tzibbur)) came to "Modim", he prays and if not, let him not pray! Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said if it is possible to begin and to complete before it was even the case that he (the "emissary of the community" (Shaliach Tzibbur)) came to "Kedushah", he prays And if not, let him not pray! On what point do they come to disagree? One master reasons that an individual says "Kedushah" and one master reasons that it is not the case that an individual says "Kedushah" and thus Rav Adda bar Ahava said from where do we learn that the individual does not say "Kedushah"? as it is said (Lev. 22) "And I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" any thing which is in the realm of holiness shall not be recited in a group that comprises less than ten. What is to be heard to support this reading? For thus teaches Rabinai the brother of Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba We come to compare betwixt and between two sources. It is written here "And I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" And it is written there (Num. 16) "Separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation." Just as there ten So, too, here, ten. And everyone agrees lit: according to the whole world regardless, an interruption he does not interrupt.

They posed this difficulty: What is the case to interrupt for "May His Great Name be Blessed" the response in the middle of Kaddish When Rav Dimi came R' Yehudah said and Rabbi Shimon his student of Rabbi Yochanan They said: for all they do not interrupt except for "May His Great Name be Blessed" for even if he is involved in studying mystical topics in the works of the Chariot, he interrupts And the halacha is not is according to either opinion like their position.

R' Yehuda says: he makes the blessing before them and after them. This comes to imply that thus reasoned Rabbi Yehudah One who has had a seminal emission is permitted to occupy himself in words of Torah For didn't Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say from where do we learn regarding one who has had a seminal emission that he is forbidden in words of Torah? as it is said (Deut. 4) "And you shall make them known to your children and to the children of your children" and right next lit: and leaning to it "the day when you stood etc." Just as there those who had a seminal emission are forbidden So too, here, those who had a seminal emission are forbidden And if you say Rabbi Yehudah does not expound halachic derivations from adjacencies, well, didn't Rav Yosef say even one who does not expound halachic derivations from adjacencies, in all the Torah in Deuteronomy ("Mishne Torah") he expounds. For it is so that Rabbi Yehudah does not expound halachic derivations from adjacencies, in all the Torah entire, but it Deuteronomy ("Mishne Torah") he expounds. And regarding all the Torah entire, what is our source for this claim that he does not expound from adjacencies? for it was taught: ben Azzai says it is said (Ex. 22) "A sorceress you shall not let her live" and it is said "All who lay with livestock shall certainly die" They are adjacent lit: they lean one topic to it to the other to say Just as laying with livestock is punished by death by stoning, so, too, sorcery also is punished by death by stoning, R' Yehudah said to him: And so because of the fact that they are adjacent lit: leaning one topic to the other shall we take out to this to be stoned? Rather: ??? are in the general category all ??? they were and for what reason they have fulfilled the mitzvah ??? to them and to say to you Just as ??? by stoning, Even "A sorceress by stoning, ??? Torah What is our source for this claim who derives an explanation from as it is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: ??? a person ??? his father ??? his father ??? his son ??? his son R' Yehudah ??? his father ??? his father and Rav Gidel said that Rav said What is the reason? with R' Yehudah As it is written (Deut. 23) No. ??? a man ??? his father and not ??? his father ??? who saw his father No. ??? And from where do you derive ??? his father it is written ??? for him and gave Watch out for leading vav "and the man ??? etc. We say: Yes! ??? Torah he expounds. and Behold! ??? he had asked for him ??? for thus said R' Yehoshua ben Levi: all the One who teaches for his son Torah ??? upon it the scripture it is like ??? as it is said (Deut. 4) "And you shall make them known to your children and to the children of your children" and it is written secondly: day who you stood before Hashem your God ??? We have learnt in a Mishna: One suffering from gonorrhea who saw a seminal emission and a menstruant who discovered??? emitting seed a woman who had sexual relations and she saw blood they all require immersion And Rabbi Yehudah exempts Up to this point, he has not exempted Rabbi Yehudah except in the case of a zav who saw a seminal emission originally Is this not he is one who must be immersed but: One who has had a seminal emission ??? he is obligated And if you say ??? that even One who has had a seminal emission ??? also Rabbi Yehudah exempts and that one that he came ??? in the case of a zav who saw a seminal emission to make you acknowledge ??? is a law established by the Rabbis I would say at the end of the teaching, a woman who had sexual relations and she saw blood it requires immersion for one The tanna teaches: to it Shall I say According to the sages, This is obvious! now for just as One suffering from gonorrhea who saw a seminal emission originally Is this not he is one who must be immersed ??? rabbis a woman who had sexual relations and she saw blood originally the daughter of immersion She is it not all the more so? except Is this not it is R' Yehudah ??? The tanna teaches: to it