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

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

דף כז,א משנה

"to nullify has sworn the Commandment and not he nullifies is exempt to establish and not stood i.e., as long as he lived is exempt that he was In justice, that it should be he is liable in accordance with the words of R' Yehudah en Beteira R' Yehudah said: en Beteira Just as if freedom that is not ??? upon it ??? Behold! he he is liable upon it a commandment that he was ??? upon it ??? is it not logical that it should be he is liable upon it They said to him: No. if is what you say? Do you really mean that? ??? freedom which provides One who acts of it Is this not a priest shall you say ??? a commandment that did not have One who acts of it Is this not a priest ??? "to nullify has sworn and not he nullifies is exempt

דף כז,א גמרא

The Rabbis taught It is possible "to nullify has sworn the Commandment and not he nullifies ??? he is liable Scripture states: (Lev. 5) ??? or ??? Just as ??? is a voluntary act Even the evil is a voluntary act ??? "to nullify has sworn the Commandment and not he nullifies that he was is exempt It is possible "to establish has sworn the Commandment and not stood i.e., as long as he lived that it should be he is liable Scripture states: ??? or ??? Just as the evil is a voluntary act Even ??? is a voluntary act ??? "to establish has sworn the Commandment and not stood i.e., as long as he lived that he was is exempt It is possible "??? has sworn for himself and not evil It is possible ??? is exempt Scripture states: ??? or ??? Just as ??? is a voluntary act Even the evil is a voluntary act ??? "??? has sworn for himself and not evil ??? in his hand It is possible "??? has sworn to others and not evil that it should be he is liable Scripture states: ??? or ??? Just as ??? is a voluntary act Even the evil is a voluntary act ??? "??? has sworn to others and not evil that do not freedom in his hand from where do we learn ??? others Scripture states: or ??? And what is meant by this term ??? others ??? so-and-so ??? ??? And from where do you derive ??? In the matter freedom are written Perhaps In the matter a commandment are written Don't let it enter your mind! ??? is equivalent ??? and the evil is equivalent ??? the evil ??? Just as ??? It is not ??? a commandment Even the evil It is not ??? a commandment the evil ??? She ??? Just as the evil It is not ??? a commandment Even ??? It is not ??? a commandment ??? the evil She If so, In the matter freedom also No. It concerns itself except ??? or ??? others Learn from this In the matter freedom are written For if it was ??? In the matter a commandment are written now ??? others ??? others ??? and that one or should bring himself ??? It is not necessary he read This is satistfactory to R' ??? except to R' ??? What is there to say? as it is taught: (Lev. 20) a man who ??? his father and of its mother yes. for me except his father and his mother his father and not of its mother of its mother and not his father from where do we learn Scripture states: (Lev. 20) his father and his mother ??? his father ??? of its mother ??? these are the words of R' ??? R' ??? says ??? both ??? one alone by itself

דף כז,ב גמרא

until ??? to you the scripture ??? Even if you say R' ??? derive it like Rabbi Akiva. who derives an explanation from ??? for him or ??? If you say, This is satisfactory In the matter freedom it is written ??? a thing a commandment except If you say, In the matter a commandment it is written From where can you derive ??? R' Yehudah said: en Beteira Just as if freedom ??? And the rabbbis then the ruling is acceptable. ??? for him according to R' Yehudah en Beteira and Rabbi Yehudah en Beteira He could say to you because ??? others Is it not the case that this is so even though ??? are in the general category ??? others And Rabbi the Merciful One Here in this case, also, ??? a commandment even though ??? a commandment ??? the Merciful One And the rabbbis there i.e., in another mishna ??? without ??? Here in this case, who ??? without ???

דף כז,ב משנה

??? that did not have he eats a loaf -- this refers to ??? that did not have ??? that did not have ??? he is not liable except One This is ??? on ??? and on ??? sacrifice an elevation-offering and descends ??? without worth they are obligated on ??? and on ??? is exempt

דף כז,ב גמרא

why do I have ??? that did not have he eats ??? that did not have ??? Thus can we come and learn from this. The reason is for he said: that did not have he eats and then, separately, i.e., in addition to Moses pitching the tent, we had he said that did not have ??? that is not ??? except one but: he said that did not have ??? and then, separately, i.e., in addition to Moses pitching the tent, we had he said that did not have he eats ??? both ??? for he said: Raba ??? that did not have he eats a loaf -- this refers to immediately who ate from it an olive's volume he is liable that did not have ??? he is not liable until ??? ??? that did not have ??? he is not liable except One ??? this one Watch out for leading vav And, too, why do I have Thus can we come and learn from this. ??? he ??? this one ??? that it is possible For if it was ??? for what Watch out for leading vav And the halacha is according to the opinion ??? for he said: Raba ??? on ??? is credited lit, rises to him the second underneath it Let us say, ??? for him who ??? two euphemisms for nazarite vows and a maneh worth one hundred dinars the first ??? upon it sacrifice and after this ??? on ??? is credited lit, rises to him the second in the first, thus now there i.e., in another mishna euphemisms for nazarite vows from this ??? and so when with whom does it agree? ??? he is required ??? to the second without Watch out for leading vav !! and the request Here in this case, ??? the second who ??? A general principle: Rabba said: "on has sworn a loaf ??? if ??? from it an olive's volume ??? upon it ??? All of it yes. ??? upon it Rav Acha the son of Rabba said to Rav Ashi How so? How should we understand this? If it was for he said: that did not have he eats an olive's volume that came first ??? If it was for he said: that did not have ??? why does he the Tanna seize on the particular case of an olive's volume