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

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

דף ב,א משנה

all ??? that did not have ??? are proper except that did not have if they put it up on the altar ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of guilt-obligation except for the Paschal offering ??? the Paschal offering ??? in all time Rabbi Eliezer says: Even ??? the Paschal offering ??? in all time he said Rabbi Eliezer ??? she entered on Watch out for leading vav he sinned ??? came on Watch out for leading vav he sinned Just as An invalidated sin-offering that did not have ??? Even ??? is invalid, that did not have ??? son of ??? says ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover and for the sake of a sin-offering. ??? Shimon my brother ??? says ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of that is high from them are proper for the sake of lit. in the name of ??? from them ??? How so? The holiest of holy offerings ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of simple offerings ??? simple offerings ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of The holiest of holy offerings are proper the first-born and the tithe ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of peace-offerings are proper peace-offerings ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of first-born for the sake of lit. in the name of tithe ???

דף ב,א גמרא

why do I have ??? except that did not have if they put it up on the altar Let the Tanna teach: and not if they put it up on the altar ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of guilt-obligation Thus can we come and learn from this. ??? he that is not if they put it up on the altar for the sake of lit. in the name of guilt-obligation but: ??? they stand is forbidden ??? in them? ??? for he said: Raba an elevation-offering ??? that did not have ??? is forbidden to throw of its blood that did not have ??? If you wish, I would say reason out the logic. If you wish, I would say he read If you wish, I would say reason out the logic. It is because of this: ??? of it all Behold! ??? of it ??? If you wish, I would say he read (Deut. 23) "one who finds" ??? and You did as it was ??? to Hashem ??? etc. This ???

דף ב,ב גמרא

??? he except if how much ??? you did ??? and if No. ??? who Sarai ??? of it He said to him: Ravina for Rav, ??? No. you were ??? among ??? Raba words that is elevated i.e., important ??? and a second person them What then does it mean when it says words that is elevated i.e., important We have learnt in a Mishna: all ??? that did not have ??? etc. The reason is ??? this one ??? if they put it up on the altar also ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of guilt-obligation Perhaps, ??? also ??? he is equivalent. We challenge that from the following baraita all ??? that did not have for the sake of lit. in the name of a woman is invalid, ??? also is invalid, and a second person offerings? ??? they stand a woman ??? Is this not ??? is standing and offerings? ??? kosher From where do we derive this? Shall I say ??? For it was taught in a baraita all ??? that did not have ??? etc. and not The tanna teaches: that did not have ??? regarding writ also ??? all ??? that did not have for the sake of lit. in the name of a woman is invalid, and not The tanna teaches: that did not have ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of a woman is invalid, except ??? For it was taught in a baraita How so? ??? or in the case that one is not ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover for the sake of lit. in the name of peace-offerings The reason is for he said: for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover for the sake of lit. in the name of peace-offerings this one for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover ??? is valid Perhaps, plainly ??? he is equivalent. perhaps, It is different there in that case for he said: Anyone who does on the understanding of the first he makes except from the end of the teaching: that did not have ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of peace-offerings for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover The reason is for he said: for the sake of lit. in the name of peace-offerings for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover this one ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of Passover is valid perhaps, It is different there in that case for he said: He corrects ??? on ??? So, too, ??? or in the case that one is not ??? a Tanna taught: also that did not have ??? except ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of Six items ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of zevach-offering for the sake of lit. in the name of ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of in that place for the sake of lit. in the name of ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of ??? for the sake of lit. in the name of ??? and a guilt-offering for the sake of lit. in the name of Watch out for leading vav he sinned R' Yosi said Even who that did not have he was in his heart for the sake of lit. in the name of One from all these is valid ??? a court he ??? a court that is not Let us say, ??? perhaps, will come to say that did not have ??? and if You might have thought ??? is invalid, they stand a court and he would say over the validity ??? of him. and regarding writ ??? is invalid, From where do we derive this? Shall I say ??? For it was taught in a baraita he was transgresses ??? and he heard ??? a man so-and-so ??? so-and-so and he said this my Name and this in that place ??? is invalid, ??? in it perhaps, Watch out for leading vav And it is like Rav ??? for he said: Rav ??? Here in this case, ??? is what we're dealing with (lit. what we're immersed in) and not ??? A general principle: except ???