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 לא,א גמרא

??? Hey, isn't it the case that he is required ??? And if you say ??? for him For didn't Rabbi say Zeira Rav said ??? It is necessary for him that one give ??? to the bottom ??? is more as it is said (Lev. 17) ??? in dust ??? It is not said except in dust This teaches ??? It is necessary for him that one give ??? to the bottom ??? is more ??? for him ??? he was ??? Rabbi Zeira said fill ??? except ??? They posed this difficulty: fill ??? except ??? where they did to it two ??? or, perhaps, fill ??? except ??? a smidge lit: a whatever Come and hear: he was ??? two ??? "At the same time," if there are ??? fill ??? one is valid What then does it mean when it says fill ??? one Shall I say fill ??? one And naught else now ??? One in the case of fill ??? except ??? them ??? one except This is obvious! fill ??? except for two ??? Learn from this fill ??? except ??? In what matters are we saying this? at a time i.e., in a case ??? and not ??? Rav said ??? that do not to him ??? He said to him: Rav Acha the son of of Rav ??? for Rav, ??? from sin What then does it mean when it says He said to him: from sin ??? from sin ??? What then does it mean when it says He said to him: ??? even Any thing that was Is this not from sin ??? No. ??? clearly and explicitly The tanna teaches: to it ??? What then does it mean when it says all ??? So, here, ??? For if it was ??? from sin ??? now from sin ??? for him ??? I thought to say ??? that do not to him ??? because ??? in which there is to him ??? Come and hear from this

דף לא,א משנה

"She has fallen ??? and it was slaughtered with the intent of consuming it despite the fact ??? is invalid as it is said (Deut. 27) ??? "And you shall eat that which you ??? you he eats

דף לא,א גמרא

The reason is ??? this one ??? he is valid and even though that is not ??? Which Tanna taught: that is not in the case of concentration and intent. ??? Rabba said: R' he gave She for it teaches: ??? their blood ??? In a case where he sprinkled the blood --- ??? in a wall and the halacha is and it was slaughtered with the intent of consuming it ??? R' he gave considers it proper and the sages ??? he It was taught by to it This is only in the case he said to it The halacha is ??? he gave Hey, isn't it the case that he said Raba one ??? For it was taught in a baraita and all of them ??? and others ??? those particular are slaughtered is valid say Which Tanna taught: that is not he is required concentration and intent. ??? Rabba said: Rabbi Natan She Watch out for leading vav And it was necessary to have both statements For if it was ??? there i.e., in another mishna It is because of this: that he came ??? in the world" But here, in this case, that is not ??? I would say No. and if we had heard Here in this case, It is because of this: ??? son of the understanding of but: there i.e., in another mishna that is not ??? son of the understanding of I would say No. ??? was it said; a menstruant ??? Rav Yehudah said Rav said that is tahor ??? forbidden to eat from terumah And R' Yochanan said: Even ??? No. ??? Raba said to him ??? for Rav, for he said: that is tahor ??? forbidden to eat from terumah iniquity he is spiritually cut off ??? prohibits death ??? He said to him: ??? Those who are ill he and Those who are ill it does not require concentration and intent. ??? For it was taught in a baraita a pile of stones ??? in it forty ??? and it fell on a person and on the vessels ??? Is this not a person is equivalent ??? Just as vessels that is not ??? Even a person also it does not require concentration and intent. From where can you derive Perhaps ??? is what we're dealing with (lit. what we're immersed in) when does the previous statement apply? ???

דף לא,ב גמרא

and vessels is equivalent ??? Just as a person ??? concentration and intent. Even vessels also that he came ??? them a person And if you say ??? what is there to say? What would you have said? ??? It is because of this: ??? of the rains So, too, ??? because ??? Come and learn from this. that is not ??? that is not ??? For it was taught in a baraita ??? And we do not immerse ??? that do not ??? except Those who are ill that is not he is required concentration and intent. from this From where do we derive this? For it was taught in a baraita fruits ??? "true" ??? who ??? his hands ??? fruits are not crying ??? and if on account of ??? his hands ??? fruits crying ??? Raba for Rav, ??? he immersed ??? is forbidden ??? yes. No. ??? No. thus he comes to say i.e., what he really means is: despite the fact ??? is forbidden ??? he immersed and not ??? it is as if No. he immersed Is this not it is as if No. he immersed A general principle: No. it is as if No. he immersed ??? but: he immersed ??? he reasoned ??? for him ??? as it is taught: he immersed and not ??? is permitted. ??? is forbidden ??? Abaye said to him: According to Rav Yosef Let us say, ??? of Rabbi Yochanan ??? He said to him Rabbi Yochanan he for he said: like Rabbi ??? son of Joseph as it is taught: Rabbi ??? son of Joseph says (Lev. 13) ??? Just as Scripture states: ??? There is an analogy between ??? the second ??? the first Just as ??? the first with understanding Even ??? the second with understanding If it was Just as there in the case of the understanding of a priest Even here, in the case of the understanding of a priest Scripture states: (Lev. 13) "vetaher"? from all a place He disagreed with this Rav ??? son of ??? And who said it? Rabbi Yochanan thus For didn't Rabbi Yochanan say The halacha is ??? and we have learnt in a Mishna: "She has fallen ??? and it was slaughtered with the intent of consuming it despite the fact ??? is invalid and we were at of it The reason is ??? this one ??? he is valid and even though that is not ??? say Which Tanna taught: that is not he is required concentration and intent. ??? Rabba said: Rabbi Natan She ??? even Rabbi ??? son of Joseph ??? the Merciful One ??? is invalid, from this general principle it would follow ??? No. in the case of concentration and intent. And the rabbbis ??? that is not in the case of concentration and intent. ??? in the case of Rabba said: In this case, ??? Rabbi Natan According to the sages, Is it written ??? (Deut. 12) ??? it is written If it was in the case of concentration and intent. ??? even ??? also that If it was should request No. in the case of concentration and intent. ??? also No. that How so? should request a menstruant ??? Shall I say ??? concentration and intent. ??? concentration and intent. that is elevated i.e., important She And furthermore, from terumah also ??? For it was taught in a baraita ??? if there are to them ??? those particular they eat from terumah Thus said Rabbi ??? to R' he gave ??? from ??? and According to the sages, who went down ??? Rabba said: ??? a cow ??? livestock ??? according to the words of The entirety is invalid

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.