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

דף ה,א גמרא

or, do we learn thatit means "permitted for sprinkling" or, do we learn that it means "permitted to eat"? Hezekiyah said: We learn that "permitted" means by "slaughter" R' Yochanan said: We learn that it means "permitted to eat" R' Zayra said: We cannot reconcile our mishna Not like Hezekiyah And not like Rabbi Yochanan We have learnt in a Mishna: That which sat overnight And that which became tamei, And that which was taken out from the Courtyard Does this not mean that the blood sat overnight And we have learned the laws of misappropriation do not apply so learn from this we learn it means "permitted for sprinkling" No. The flesh sat overnight But the blood was sprinkled and because of this The tanna teaches: the laws of misappropriation do not apply.

We have learnt in a Mishna: And what is an example of an offering that does not have an hour when it is legal for the priests? one whose slaughter involved the intention to consume its meat outside its designated time or outside its designated place And that whose blood was collected by invalid priests And they sprinkled its blood. How so? How should we understand this? Shall I say that its sprinkling was performed by invalid priests and its acceptance of the blood was performed by invalid priests Why do I need this to be there twice? Rather: Is it not that its acceptance of the blood was performed by invalid priests and its sprinkling of blood was performed by valid priests? And we have learned the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. Learn from this that we learn that it means "permitted for sprinkling" Rav Yosef disagreed And if it enters your mind that it is possible to distinguish in this way, How do you explain what we learned there in another Mishna: An invalidated sin-offering its blood need not be washed off ??? whether it had an hour when it was legal for the priests and then became invalid or whether it did not have an hour when it was legal for the priests and then became invalid Which is it that had an hour when it was legal for the priests and then became invalid That which sat overnight And that which became tamei, or that which was taken out of the Courtyard. Which are they that did not have an hour when it was legal for the priests? one whose slaughter involved the intention to consume its meat outside of its designated place or outside of its designated time, And that whose blood was collected by invalid priests and they sprinkled its blood. How so? Shall I say that its acceptance of the blood was performed by invalid priests and its sprinkling of the blood was performed by invalid priests this is the case where its blood need not be washed off? On the other hand, If its acceptance of the blood and its sprinkling of the blood were performed by valid priests its blood must be washed off? Read here (Lev. 6) "Where its blood will be sprinkled" ??? and not where the sprinkling has been done. ??? Rather: This Mishna is not being precise /davka/

דף ה,ב גמרא

So, here too, This Mishna is not being precise /davka/ Rav Assi said: If so, why do I have this teaching twice? Rather: In reality lit: In the world As regards the laws of misappropriation, it *is* precise. And, hey, Come and learn from this: that an invalid priest makes the blood a leftover even though if an invalid priest accepted and sprinkled the blood and then after that a valid priest accepted and sprinkled the blood This action is nothing at all. i.e., the valid priest's subsequent action does not accomplish anything. What is the reason? Because the blood is a leftover. And, hey, He brought this very question (Resh Lakish asked it of R' Yochanan) Does the sprinkling by an invalid priest make the blood a leftover? And he said to him: There is nothing that makes the blood a leftover except when it is performed with the intention of eating the flesh Outside its designated time or outside its designated place Because it makes the offering "desired" i.e., accepted by God as regards the laws of its disqualification as pigul Is this not speaking of the case of one who is invalid? No. even one who is invalid. But, hey, didn't the Tanna teach "There is nothing... that makes the blood a leftover except 'outside'..."? This is what he means: There is nothing that makes an offering unacceptable (in the case of a community offering) and that makes the blood "leftover" except when it is performed with the intention of eating the flesh Outside its designated time or outside its designated place But a priest who is tamei, who is permitted to officiate for the community when a majority of the community are also tamei, causes the blood to be "leftover" but other invalid priests -- i.e., those who are invalid for other disqualifying reasons that are not permitted to officiate for the community do not cause the blood to be "leftover."

Come and hear: "Pigul is always subject to the laws of misappropriation" ??? source ??? Is this not Because he did not sprinkle. And learn from this that we learn that it means "permitted for sprinkling" No. The blood was, in fact, sprinkled. And what do we mean by "always"? It is to learn from this like Rav Gidal. For Rav Gidal said that Rav said A sprinkling of blood that is compromised ??? does not remove the sacrifice from being subject to lit: from the hands of the laws of misappropriation and does not include the sacrifice as being subject to lit: from the hands of the laws of misappropriation

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.