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 ב,א משנה

The entirety ??? and are slaughtered is valid except for a deaf-mute and a child lest ??? are slaughtered and all of them ??? and others ??? those particular are slaughtered is valid.

דף ב,א גמרא

The entirety ??? initially and are slaughtered is valid once it has been done He said to him: Rav Acha the son of of Raba to Rav Ashi and all The entirety it refers to a case where it was done a priori Except I can object with text from here: The entirety ??? one ??? and one the women So, here, ??? he Hey, isn't it the case that it is written (Lev. 27) No. ??? and not ??? that specific good ??? or evil" in the goodness of there i.e., in another mishna ??? The reason is No. ??? permission ??? except ??? ??? except The entirety ??? Here, too, ??? Hey, isn't it the case that it is written (Deut. 23) And so ??? No. it shall be about You Watch out for leading vav he sinned and then it is written (Ecc. 5) good who No. ??? and not ??? and it was taught: good from this and from this that is not ??? all the essence these are the words of Rabbi Meir R' Yehuda says: good from this and from this ??? and He will take restitution for And even if Rabbi Yehudah he does not come to say i.e., what he really means is not: except in the case of one who says Behold! This is

דף ב,ב גמרא

but: he said Behold! by the No. and all The entirety Is this not it refers to a case where it was done a priori except The entirety are obligated in a sukkah The entirety they are obligated ??? Here, too, ??? initially they are obligated No. ??? Except I can object with text from here: The entirety ??? one ??? and one the women Here, too, ??? initially Hey, isn't it the case that it is written (Lev. 1) ??? yes. that it is possible The entirety initially and there are The entirety once it has been done except The entirety ??? From where can you derive ??? he ??? to you Perhaps once it has been done he and not ??? to you He said to him I are slaughtered is valid it is a problem for me When the baraita teaches are slaughtered ??? once it has been done from this general principle it would follow ??? it refers to a case where it was done a priori For if it was once it has been done both once it has been done why do I have Rabbah said son of ??? Watch out for leading vav And this is what the tanna means to teach: The entirety ??? And even if tamei ??? tamei ??? what is there to say? ??? on ??? that which was sanctified for Temple use but his thought is Those who are ill ??? on ??? that which was sanctified for Temple use ??? How so? he makes sends ??? long ??? of it so that that did not have ??? in the case of the flesh. ??? It does not. lest ??? in the case of the flesh. and if ??? And it is said: ??? for me that did not have ??? is valid except for a deaf-mute and a child that even ??? in the case where it has already been done, also, it is not valid. lest ??? lest ??? lest ??? and all of them ??? Shall I say ??? a mute and a child He ascended he arises and if ??? should bring himself except ??? this one is what you say? Do you really mean that? in the case where he did it initially, also, ??? So rather, ??? for me ??? This tamei ??? from here ??? from there ??? all ??? are slaughtered is valid ??? is valid ??? and even in the case of the holiest of holy offerings but only that did not have ??? in the case of the flesh. Here in this case, the essence there i.e., in another mishna ??? but other invalid priests -- i.e., those who are invalid for other disqualifying reasons a Tanna taught: also tamei ??? And if you wish, I could say there i.e., in another mishna the essence ??? he arises Here in this case, ??? tamei ??? It was taught by also tamei ??? This tamei ??? in what way Shall I say ??? (Num. 19) ??? the Merciful One in the Torah says