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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142
Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.

דף קיג,א גמרא

and let us say, for him ??? for Shmuel said: that is salted Behold! he ??? Behold! he ??? If it was ??? then I might incorrectly say: What case is he dealing with? their blood but: ??? No. Come and hear from this. They challenged him from this teaching: a fish tahor ??? with a fish tamei is permitted. Is this not that were ??? No. For example, that he was tahor that is salted and tamei ??? Hey, isn't it the case that When the baraita teaches at the end of the teaching, ??? if he was tahor that is salted and tamei ??? tahor that is salted and tamei ??? from this general principle it would follow that at the beginning of the teaching ??? is what we're dealing with (lit. what we're immersed in) ??? tahor ??? with a fish tamei is permitted. How so? that he was tahor that is salted and tamei ??? So, here, ??? For if it was You might have thought But the beginning of the teaching, both ??? now both ??? Sarai tahor that is salted and tamei ??? If it was It is because of this: this one No. ??? a Tanna taught: at the end of the teaching, ??? But the beginning of the teaching, that is not you say But the beginning of the teaching, tahor that is salted and tamei ??? but: both ??? is forbidden a Tanna taught: at the end of the teaching, tahor that is salted and tamei ??? from this general principle it would follow that at the beginning of the teaching ??? But nevertheless, Sarai Come and hear: from the end of the teaching: ??? but: if he was tamei that is salted and tahor ??? is forbidden tamei that is salted and tahor ??? he ??? this one ??? Sarai ??? But the beginning of the teaching, tahor that is salted and tamei ??? a Tanna taught: also at the end of the teaching, tamei that is salted and tahor ??? Shmuel said yes. ??? he would exit something ??? except If so, ??? proper proper ??? proper proper was it said; Rav Huna he said ??? in a baraita it was taught ??? and does not disagree this one ??? among ??? this one that is not ??? among ??? Rav Dimi ??? salt for him ??? for him Rav said ??? yes. ??? blood ??? Shmuel said yes. ??? meat that is salted except atop על גבי implements of ??? Rav Sheishet salt for him the tooth the tooth two What is the reason? No. It is because of this: ??? This one also ??? side ??? This side except there is no difference Shmuel said It is because of this: R' Chiyya ??? of livestock before ??? Behold! this ??? the flesh ??? ??? blood ??? They posed this difficulty: in what way does he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: ??? the flesh ??? ??? It is because of this: ??? blood ??? this one for him it is of acceptable worth. or, perhaps, for him he also forbids it. The question remains suspended and cannot be answered.

דף קיג,א משנה

??? ??? with ??? on the table he does not transgresses without shall you do

דף קיג,א גמרא

this one ??? transgresses without shall you do Learn from this meat "uf" ??? a law established by the Torah I would say ??? ??? with ??? on ??? he does not came to suffer lit, to the hands of No. shall you do

דף קיג,א משנה

meat livestock that is tahor ??? livestock that is tahor is forbidden ??? is forbidden to benefit from it meat livestock that is tahor ??? livestock that is tamei meat livestock that is tamei ??? livestock that is tahor is permitted. ??? and it is permitted to benefit from it Rabbi Akiva says: raw lit., living and "uf" ??? from the Torah as it is said (Ex. 23) No. ??? of its mother three occasions creates an exclusion to a beast ??? and livestock that is tamei Rabbi Yosei the Gallilean says it is said (Deut. 14) No. ??? all ??? and it is said No. ??? of its mother that he is forbidden It is because of this: ??? is forbidden ??? "uf" that he is forbidden It is because of this: ??? It is possible ??? is forbidden ??? Scripture states: ??? of its mother he has fulfilled his obligation "uf" that do not to him milk if

דף קיג,א גמרא

From where do we derive this? R' Elazar said Scripture states: (Gen. 38) and He sent Yehudah ???

דף קיג,ב גמרא

here, ??? this one in all places as it is said ??? even a cow and Rachel ??? of him it is written he read other than this (Gen. 27) and skins ??? here, ??? this one in all places as it is said ??? even a cow and Rachel ??? of him are they, them two ??? those who are coming back ??? and all two the Writings that come ??? yes. ??? This is satistfactory ??? yes. ??? except ??? What is there to say? two ??? are written ??? Shmuel said ??? ??? ??? ??? to discharge the mitzvah the blood ??? to discharge the mitzvah ??? to discharge the mitzvah ??? of its mother and not ??? male, ??? of its mother and not ??? of its mother and not ??? that is tamei this one three ??? are written and We ??? his reasoning is Shmuel prohibits ??? on prohibits prohibits milk ??? he read ??? blood also Is this not ??? he ??? also ??? in reality he ??? them two one ??? ??? and one ??? livestock that is tamei reasoned Shmuel prohibits ??? on prohibits For didn't Shmuel say It is because of this: R' Elazar from where do we learn ??? tamei who ate terumah that is tamei that is not ??? as it is said (Lev. 22) and they died? in it For ??? creates an exclusion ??? and is standing If you wish, I would say in reality prohibits ??? on prohibits and It is different there in that case ??? the Merciful One and they died? in it If you wish, I would say in reality his reasoning is Shmuel yes. prohibits ??? on prohibits that I Here in this case, of Rabbi the Merciful One ??? And if you wish, I would say this one according to his own reason this one according to the reason of his teacher Rav brought this very question ??? son of Ami ??? that did not have ??? What then? He said to him ??? to say ??? of its mother and not ??? male, male, he that is not will come ??? if but: This immediately ??? if is forbidden was it said; ??? milk ??? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi One says ??? and one says he does not ??? Let us say, In this case, what they disagree about ??? his reasoning is prohibits ??? on prohibits and the one who said he does not ??? his reasoning is yes. prohibits ??? on prohibits No. ??? yes. prohibits ??? on prohibits ??? does not disagree that is not ??? Because specifically, where they disagree is this: ??? one ??? he ??? he does not ??? the Merciful One as regard to eating, ???

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.