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 נא,א גמרא

No. It is because of this: ??? of him. ??? If so, ??? in it he is liable this one is not there? ??? He said to him: yes. ??? and there are ??? the house of ??? he was that is high two ??? It was taught by He ascended ??? are his Behold! here, three and if You might have thought there are ??? in less ??? why do I have all this ??? ten except ??? for he said: ??? Rabbah said son of Avuah Scripture states: (Lev. 19) And you shall love ??? to him death proper If so, ??? It is because of this: ??? (Deut. 22) For ??? from him from him and not in its midst How so? it was ??? that is high from him ten handbreadths and it fell from its midst to its midst is exempt ??? from him ten handbreadths and it fell ??? to its midst he is liable And if it enters your mind to argue that there are ??? in less ??? why do I have ten He said to him that I the house of ??? less than for the ten Is this not the house of he If so, now also that there is ??? ten ??? of him ??? shall not be ten He said to him For example, ??? If so, For shall not be also ??? ten It concerns itself that there is ??? ten For example, ??? of it ??? except we were The reason is ??? reasoned ??? to the ground how much you shall four ??? how much you shall ??? this one ten ??? and so when ??? for the ten he that he came ??? except ??? where he teaches Just as a pit that he was so that ??? handbreadths Even all in which there is in it so that ??? handbreadths ??? also ??? They said: ???

דף נא,א משנה

a pit of two ??? he crossed upon it ??? and not ??? and the second and not ??? the second he is liable

דף נא,א גמרא

They said: a pit of two ??? in what way does It concerns itself This is satistfactory If it was ??? to us like Rabbi Akiva. for he said: a pit ??? he is liable It concerns itself ??? of both and a pit of both ??? and not ??? except If it was ??? to us a pit ??? is exempt in what way does It concerns itself ??? upon it in the public domain and in the public domain a pit of two ??? in what way does It concerns itself If it was ??? both of them. and there are those who say ??? to us and He went ??? them yes. ??? for a matter of transgression and if ??? This five and that one five ??? them It once happened ??? This is satistfactory to Rabbi ??? It concerns itself except to Rabbi ??? and According to the sages, between ??? between ??? in what way does It concerns itself Rabbi Yochanan said: For example, ??? "At the same time," ??? that ten What then does it mean when it says Rabbi And what does it mean when it says rabbis as it is taught: one One who digs a pit nine and someone else came ??? that ten ??? he is liable Rabbi says after the last ??? and after both ??? What is the reason? is a law established by the Rabbis For scripture said: (Ex. 21) For ??? And so ??? if on ??? he is liable on ??? is it not all the more so? except ??? after ??? It once happened ??? And Rabbi He could say to you ??? It was necessary to teach both, because otherwise you might err when extending one to the other. since we say: And the rabbbis also ??? It was necessary to teach both, because otherwise you might err when extending one to the other. except we were The reason is is a law established by the Rabbis Scripture states: For ??? a man a pit one and not two And Rabbi This certain individual should bring himself For ??? a man a pit and not ox a pit And the rabbbis two a man a pit are written And Rabbi ??? This the writing of This And from where do you derive ??? that was last Perhaps ??? that came first No. You might have thought For scripture said: (Ex. 21) and the dead it shall be to him This certain individual that he came does he act? death and that one and the dead it shall be to him he had asked for him ??? for he said: Raba ox invalid as regarding ??? is exempt as it is said and the dead it shall be to him ??? are his They said: Is this not ipso facto ??? death ??? The Rabbis taught one One who digs a pit ten and someone else came ??? and someone else came ??? all of them they are obligated They challenged this from a baraita: one One who digs a pit ten and someone else came ??? and decorated ??? he is liable

דף נא,ב גמרא

Let us say, this one Rabbi this one rabbis Rav said ??? this one Hey, isn't it the case that rabbis Up to this point, No. ??? rabbis the last he is liable except in a case that is not a slave that came first the measure death but: in a case ??? that came first the measure death even rabbis ??? they are obligated Hey, isn't it the case that ??? and decorated that he came a slave that came first the measure death And we have learned the last he is liable They said: there i.e., in another mishna that did not have he was in it ??? and someone else came ??? of it ??? that it is possible that they said Rav said ??? this one Hey, isn't it the case that Rabbi ??? where he teaches all of them they are obligated then the ruling is acceptable. this one where he teaches the last he is liable For example, that did not have he was in it ??? No. ??? and not ??? and someone else came ??? in it ??? between ??? between ??? Rabba said: ??? the stone ??? the pit ??? that ten we came ??? Rabbi And the rabbbis This is obvious! What would you have said? to the bottom he ??? that are his ??? for him but: is more that is not ??? that are his ??? I would say No. Come and learn from this. he is required Raba ??? its stones What then? who say What then does it mean when it says ??? that or, perhaps, took ??? It once happened ??? for him completely ??? Rabbah bar bar Channah said Shmuel said son of ??? a pit ??? and from them two handbreadths water he is liable What is the reason מאי טעמא all ??? is comparable ??? he is equivalent. They posed this difficulty: a pit nine and from them ??? one water What then? who say immediately that is not souls ??? is not there? ??? or, perhaps, immediately ??? is in it ??? a pit seven and from them three handbreadths water What then? who say immediately ??? water ??? is in it ??? or, perhaps, immediately that is not ??? is not there? ??? Rav brought this very question ??? What then? He said to him Behold! ??? He said to him ??? Behold! ??? except Rav Ashi said ??? We If it was ??? Behold! ??? If it was ??? Behold! ??? that it is possible that they said Rav Ashi said ??? We If it was ??? side stillborn lit., fallen Behold! ??? and if ??? side stillborn lit., fallen Behold! ??? it was said: a pit ??? Rabbah and Rav Yosef; who both say in the name of Rabbah son of son of ??? for he said: in the name of Rabbi with whom does it agree? One says In reality lit: In the world there is ??? until that it should be ??? on ??? and one says In reality lit: In the world there is not there ??? until that it should be ??? on ??? he crossed upon it ??? and not ??? Rabbah and Rav Yosef; who both say in the name of Rabbah son of son of ??? for he said: in the name of Rabbi with whom does it agree? One says ??? he makes use and one says ??? to him ??? water from the pit came his fellow and he said to him ??? for me and as for me, ??? water immediately ??? he makes use is exempt Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov says ??? to him ??? about what do they disagree? Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov reasoned there are ??? This ??? and that one ??? And the rabbbis reason that yes. ??? Ravina said ??? For it was taught in a baraita ??? benefit this from this are forbidden ??? to courtyard ??? son of Ya'akov says this enter ??? are his and this enter ??? are his about what do they disagree? ??? son of Ya'akov reasoned there are ??? This ??? and that one ??? And the rabbbis reason that yes. ??? R' Elazar said ??? a pit to his fellow immediately ??? to him ??? he bought How so? If it was ??? If it was with a "chazakah" show of strength ??? with a "chazakah" show of strength In reality lit: In the world with a "chazakah" show of strength he is required to say for him to you ??? And because of the fact ??? to him ??? like who ??? for him to you ??? R' Yehoshua ben Levi said: ??? the house of to his fellow

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.