It's a start Dafcast Draft
ברכות
שבת
עירובין
פסחים
ראש השנה
יומא
סוכה
ביצה
תענית
מגילה
מועד קטן
חגיגה
יבמות
כתובות
נדרים
נזיר
סוטה
גיטין
קידושין
בבא קמא
בבא מציעא
בבא בתרא
סנהדרין
מכות
שבועות
עבודה זרה
הוריות
זבחים
מנחות
חולין
בכורות
ערכין
תמורה
כריתות
מעילה
תמיד
נידה

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

דף טו,א גמרא

free men lit., sons of freedom and Jews lit., children of the covenant free men lit., sons of freedom ??? slaves Jews lit., children of the covenant ??? some texts read: worshippers of stars some texts read: gentiles And it was necessary to have both statements For if it was we had heard a slave It is because of this: ??? to him ??? but: a stranger i.e., a non-Jew ??? to him ??? I would say No. and if we had heard a stranger i.e., a non-Jew It is because of this: that is not ??? but: a slave ??? I would say No. ??? and the women are in the general category ??? words Rav Yehudah said Rav said and thus was taught of the academy of R' Yishmael Scripture states: (Num. 5) a man or a woman For ??? from all A sin-offering ??? the scripture a woman ??? for all ??? of the academy of Rabbi Eliezer a Tanna taught: (Ex. 21) ??? who ??? before them ??? the scripture a woman ??? for all ??? of the academy of ??? and Rabbi Yosei, the Gallilean a Tanna taught: Scripture states: (Ex. 21) ??? a man or a woman ??? the scripture a woman ??? for all ??? and It was necessary to teach both, because otherwise you might err when extending one to the other. For if it was we had heard the first there i.e., in another mishna he ??? the Merciful One He ascended so that thus it will be ??? to it atonement but: ??? a man a thing ??? and the giving of yes. a woman No. and if we had heard ??? so that thus it will be ??? to it ??? but: atonement a man a thing a commandment yes. a woman ??? the daughter of a commandment No. and if we had heard Behold! both Here in this case, It is because of this: atonement and here in this other case, It is because of this: ??? but: in the matter of ??? a man a thing a commandment to make whole ??? a woman No. and if we had heard ??? It is because of this: That there are ??? breath but: Behold! both ??? breath I would say No. ??? of the one who was damaged and the one who caused damage ??? was it said; a fraction ??? Rav Papa said, ??? Rav Huna the son of of Rav Joshua he said ??? Rav Papa said, ??? his reasoning is ??? Is this not of a presumption that "Standing watch" ??? In justice, he who seeks ??? completely and the Merciful One he ??? upon it ??? No. ??? Rav Huna the son of of Rav Joshua he said ??? his reasoning is ??? of a presumption that "Standing watch" they stand In justice, he that is not to make whole A general principle: and the Merciful One he ??? so that thus it will be ??? We have learnt in a Mishna: of the one who was damaged and the one who caused damage ??? This is satisfactory for one for he said: a fraction ??? we were ??? one who has suffered damage ??? except ??? a fraction ??? now ??? that are his ??? No. ??? except ??? roadkill ??? roadkill But hey, wasn't this already taught elsewhere But the beginning of the teaching, restitutions for damage This teaches ??? one ??? and one ??? And it was necessary to have both statements For if it was we had heard perfect It is because of this: ??? No. ??? but: festival I would say No. and if we had heard festival It is because of this: that he came must make restitution completely but: perfect I would say it is not necessary to teach this Come and hear: Just as between perfect ??? must make restitution ??? damage ??? must make restitution damage ??? from ??? and if ??? Let the Tanna teach: also this one perfect he does not must make restitution ??? himself festival must make restitution ??? himself a Tanna taught: ??? What then does it mean when it says ??? That this ??? If it was It is because of this: ??? Is this not ??? he So, with whom does it agree? Rabbi Yosei the Gallilean She for he said: perfect must make restitution ??? Come and hear:

דף טו,ב גמרא

??? so-and-so or ??? of so-and-so Behold! this must make restitution by the mouth of himself Is this not ??? No. ??? but: perfect What about in this case, too, ??? must make restitution by the mouth of himself If so, ??? at the end of the teaching, ??? his male slave of so-and-so yes. must make restitution by the mouth of himself ??? ??? ??? In what matters are we saying this? ??? but: ??? he does not must make restitution by the mouth of himself All of it ??? Come and hear: This is the general rule: all ??? -- more on Just as ??? he does not must make restitution by the mouth of himself Is this not this one less than ??? must make restitution No. this one how much ??? must make restitution but: less than What about in this case, too, that is not must make restitution If so, ??? This is the general rule: all ??? -- more on Just as ??? he does not must make restitution by the mouth of himself Let the Tanna teach: This is the general rule: all that is not must make restitution how much ??? less than ??? -- more ??? And the halacha is according to the opinion a fraction ??? And the halacha is according to the opinion yes. The reason is What then does it mean when it says ??? It is because of this: that is not The tanna teaches: just as ??? he the Tanna does not distinguish. immediately That there are ??? damage ??? to it ??? he It is because of this: thus No. The tanna teaches: and now that you said a fraction ??? This ??? he was eating ??? he and not ??? in Bavel and what case is he dealing with? ??? but: ??? he and if ??? No. ??? of him and if he said ??? for me ??? to the ground of Israel ??? for him and if No. Watch out for leading vav !! and it comes ??? for him or whether like that or whether like that ??? for him until ??? from that of Rabbi he gave as it is taught: Rabbi Natan says ??? that did not have ??? a person ??? evil" in the midst of his house and do not ??? in the midst of his house Scripture states: (Deut. 22) No. ??? in your house"

דף טו,ב משנה

five ??? and five ??? It is not ??? No. ??? and not ??? and not ??? and not ??? and not ??? to eat ??? to it ??? on the way ??? the festival ??? the one who caused damage ??? of the one who was damaged a person ??? and the lion, ??? Behold! these ??? Rabbi Eliezer says at a time i.e., in a case that are My son, an upbringing of are not ??? festival In reality lit: In the world

דף טו,ב גמרא

When the baraita teaches ??? to eat from this general principle it would follow ??? of the one who was damaged is what we're dealing with (lit. what we're immersed in) And we have learned livestock It is not ??? to make whole completely but: ??? damage ??? with whom does it agree? It is the rabbis' position that they said ??? the principal amount ??? of the one who was damaged ??? damage he ??? I would say at the end of the teaching, ox the festival ??? the one who caused damage ??? of the one who was damaged a person ??? to Rabbi ??? for he said: ??? the principal amount ??? of the one who was damaged damage ??? he ??? But the beginning of the teaching, rabbis and at the end of the teaching, Rabbi ??? yes. ??? for him Shmuel of Rav Yehudah ??? and come ??? But the beginning of the teaching, rabbis and at the end of the teaching, Rabbi ??? Rabbi Eliezer in the name of Rav he said

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.