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 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

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

דף מא,א גמרא

??? he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: Master, or ??? he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: Master, He said to him for what practical distinction ??? for he said: Rav Kahana It is a disagreement ??? but: ??? the words of all are ??? immediately He said to him No. we heard for me ??? No. ??? for me Thus said Rabbi ??? of Rav ??? Shmuel That is not the halacha like Rabbi Yosi Is this not ??? he that is not ??? this one ??? No. perhaps, No. ??? and not ??? yes. ??? The Rabbis taught (Ex. 12) in water yes. for me except in water the remainder of ??? is what you say? Do you really mean that? ??? for just as water that do not ??? are forbidden the remainder of ??? not all the more so? Rabbi says in water yes. for me except water the remainder of ??? Scripture states: (Ex. 12) ??? In any case, What then does it mean when it says ??? There is this difference between them: prayed ??? And the rabbbis This ??? What then does it mean when it says my slave them he had asked for him to account for that which was taught ??? and after this ??? or ??? and after this ??? he is liable This is satisfactory ??? and after this ??? he is liable for it is the case that ??? except ??? and after this ??? this one prayed fire he why is it that Rav said ??? So, with whom does it agree? It is Rabbi Yosei as it is taught: ??? One who has chosen to participate ??? that did not have ??? These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: ??? One who has chosen to participate but not ??? despite the fact that did not have ??? he said even you say ??? that I Here in this case, For scripture said: ??? In any case, The Rabbis taught It is possible ??? all ??? he is liable Scripture states: (Ex. 12) to It may be eaten from him please, ??? cooked in water please, ??? cooked Watch out for leading vav And I said to you and not ??? all ??? How so? Rav Ashi said ??? The rabbis taught: It is possible he ate an olive's volume ??? he is liable Therefore, scripture states: to ??? from him please, ??? cooked please, ??? Watch out for leading vav And I said to you and not ??? It is possible ??? is permitted. Therefore, scripture states: (Ex. 12) but instead prayed fire How so? please, Rav said ??? Rav Chisdah said ??? on Shabbat is exempt Passover ??? he is liable what is the difference here, on Shabbat that is not ??? fire in the case of there is not in this case. Passover also Is this not ??? fire he Rabba said: What then does it mean when it says he is liable where he teaches that he came he crossed It is because of this: prayed fire Rav Chiyya the son of of Rav he gave he would say over to it about this teaching of Rav Chisda clearly and explicitly R' Chisda said ??? on Shabbat is exempt Passover ??? he is liable that which is in the past It is because of this: prayed fire Rabba said: he ate please,

דף מא,ב גמרא

??? two cooked ??? two please, and cooked ??? three Abaye said yes. ??? on Is this not ??? that it is possible that they said both he that is not ??? one Regardless, ??? that it is possible that they said one also No. ??? that is not ??? Rava said: he ate ??? two ??? two ??? three Abaye said yes. ??? on Is this not ??? that it is possible that they said both he that is not ??? one Regardless, ??? that it is possible that they said one also No. ??? that is not ??? The Rabbis taught he ate an olive's volume please, while it is still day is exempt an olive's volume please, ??? he is liable he ate an olive's volume prayed while it is still day No. ??? himself ??? an olive's volume prayed ??? himself ??? Another teaching It is possible he ate an olive's volume please, while it is still day ??? he is liable It would be a logical inference for just as at the hour ??? prayed ??? It may be eaten please, at the hour that is not ??? prayed is it not logical ??? It may be eaten please, or No. at the hour that is not ??? prayed ??? It may be eaten please, at the hour ??? prayed he does not ??? It may be eaten please, and do not ??? for behold! ??? next to prayed Therefore, scripture states: (Ex. 12) to ??? from him please, ??? cooked in water but instead prayed fire that do not Therefore, scripture states: but instead prayed fire for just as Therefore, scripture states: but instead prayed fire to say to you at the hour ??? prayed ??? It may be eaten please, at the hour that is not ??? prayed he does not ??? It may be eaten please, Rabbi says I invoke, I ??? Just as Scripture states: cooked that it is possible yes. for me except ??? while it is still day from where do we learn Therefore, scripture states: ??? from all a place and that one ??? cooked ??? Rabbi ??? If so, Let Scripture say or ??? or ??? What then does it mean when it says ??? cooked ??? both The rabbis taught: he ate prayed while it is still day he is liable and an olive's volume please, ??? he is liable The tanna teaches: prayed is equivalent ??? Just as please, ??? Even prayed ??? This is satisfactory please, it is written to ??? from him please, except prayed From where do we derive this? As it is written (Ex. 12) and he ate the flesh by night ??? by night yes. by day No. This Is this not that comes from this general principle it would follow One who acts he and all Is this not that comes from this general principle it would follow One who acts One who acts Rav Chisdah said So, with whom does it agree?