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 ז,א גמרא

If one was thinking while performing the sprinkling that one plans to eat the flesh in an incorrect time or place about the lost offering or about the burnt up parts of the offering then that thought had an affect. And, hey, that which is lost or burnt up no longer exists in this world. But nevertheless, The tanna teaches: "If one was thinking about eating them improperly, it voids the offering." But who says that Rav Assi said this? He brought this very question (Rav Assi asked it of R' Yochanan) Consider the case where he thinks that he will take blood which is supposed to be poured on the altar, and instead will sprinkle it tomorrow What then? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Already you have taught us regarding offal which, although part of the animal being offered, is useless Perhaps, if one has an invalid intention about this offal, since it has no value, it does not acquire tumah. Here, the blood that is to be poured, too, an invalid intention regarding that which is to be destroyed, a thought that comes upon it does not take effect Rather, that which was taught about the lost offering or about the burnt up parts of the offering It is a difficulty. Rabba said: I would say that we should understand this as regarding an offering that was standing on the brink of being lost or standing on the brink of being burnt up. Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Akiva did not say sprinkling is effective when we are considering, in general, any offering that is to be taken out. Rather: Where the flesh went out Rabbi Akiva would agree that the sprinkling is effective but if the blood went out sprinkling is not effective on that which is taken out.

It was also taught here: If he slaughtered in silence without a declaration one way or the other and he took out the blood even though he returned and sprinkled the blood he did not do anything at all. In the case of the holiest of holy offerings the offering is subject to the laws of misappropriation. in the case of simple-holiness offerings. they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation

Rabbi Akiva said: What is this equivalent to? R' Eliezer said that Rabbi Akiva said that the sprinkling of one animal's blood suffices for both, when they are slaughtered at the same time. But: In the case of this one after that one, Rabbi Akiva did not say that.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon said: As I was going to Kfar Pani An elderly man found me and he said to me Was Rabbi Akiva one to say: sprinkling is effective on an offering that was taken out? I said to him: Yes, indeed. When I went and repeated these words before my colleagues that are in Bablyonian exile. They said to me: Hey, is not this one invalid? How can this be acceptable when done on one that is invalid? When I departed, and repeated these words before Rabbi Akiva He said to me: My son, Do you not say the same? Consider this case: He set aside i.e., designated one animal from a group as his sin offering and it was lost misplaced so he set aside another one as its replacement, and after this. the first one is found and behold, the both of them stand as designated both of the ones that were slaughtered are subject to the laws of misappropriation And in the case where their blood is resting in separate cups, they are both subject to the laws of misappropriation

דף ז,ב גמרא

Blood from one of them was sprinkled: If you acknowledge that just as its blood i.e., the blood of the one which has been sprinkled exempts its flesh i.e., exempts the flesh of that particular animal from the laws of misappropriation from the laws of misappropriation, in the same way, it exempts the flesh of the other one from the laws of misappropriation If it saves??? the flesh of the other one from the laws of misappropriation even though it is invalid. It would be a logical inference that it saves its own flesh. Raysh Lakish said in the name of Rav Oshaya: Rabbi Akiva replied with a deceitful lit: stolen reply to that student: "At the same time," yes. "In the case of this one after that one," no. Since in all cases that one is invalid, what is the point of making the distinction? What do I have to learn from "at the same time." What do I have to learn from "In the case of this one after that one," Rabbi Yochanan said to Raysh Lakish And you, If you say that, then how about the following case? If one designated lit: separated out two guilt-offerings each of them as backups for the other and slaughtered both of them, ??? and placed up on the altar the offal of one of them before the sprinkling Don't you acknowledge that if they put it up on the altar they must bring it down? And if it enters your mind to argue that it is treated like a single body, why is it that If they were put up on the altar they must descend from there? Did not Ulla say: The offal of simple offerings that were raised onto the altar before the sprinkling of blood May not descend, they have become the "bread" of the altar. He was silent. R' Yochanan said: I have cut off the legs of that infant.

דף ז,ב משנה

There is, in the matter of blood, in the case of the holiest of holy offerings cases to be lenient and to be stringent but with simple holy offerings everything is to be stringent. How so? The holiest of holy offerings --- Before the sprinkling of blood, they are subject to the laws of misappropriation regarding their offal and regarding the flesh. After the sprinkling of blood, they are subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of their offal but they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of the flesh. And on this and on that one is liable on account of pigul, notar, and tamei. It is found regarding matters of the blood in the case of the holiest of holy offerings cases to be lenient and to be stringent but with simple holy offerings everything is to be stringent. How so? simple offerings before the sprinkling of blood: they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation Neither in their offal nor regarding the flesh. After the sprinkling of blood: they are subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of their offal but they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of the flesh. On this and on that we are guilty on its account due to pigul, notar, and tamei It is found regarding matters of the blood in the case of simple-holiness offerings. everything is to be stringent.

דף ז,ב גמרא

The tanna teaches: they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation regarding the flesh. The laws of misappropriation do not apply to it, but nevertheless a prohibition does apply to it. But why? Is it not a possession of the priest? There is no difficulty. Since The tanna used the wording at the beginning of the teaching, "they are subject to the laws of misappropriation" He used the wording at the end of the teaching, "they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation" so that the texts would be parallel. I would say The end, in the case of simple-holiness offerings. everything is to be stringent. How so? The flesh of simple offerings before the sprinkling of blood: We do not apply the laws of misappropriation to them and in the case of their offal and we are not guilty regarding them due to pigul, notar, and tamei After the sprinkling of blood, they are subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of their offal but they are not subject to the laws of misappropriation in the case of the flesh. The laws of misappropriation do not apply to it, but nevertheless a prohibition does apply to it. But why? Is it not a possession of its owners? R' Chanina said It was taken out of the Courtyard And whose was the opinion in our Mishna? It was Rabbi Akiva for Rabbi Akiva said: sprinkling is effective to take out for burning

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.