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 ח,א גמרא

but as regard to eating, it does not make it acceptable.

דף ח,א משנה

=== CHAPTER II === A sin-offering of a bird: We do apply the laws of misappropriation to it. from the time that it becomes holy. Once its neck has been wrung it becomes subject to the laws of disqualifiction by contact with a tevul yom one who has already immersed in a mikveh but remains tamei until nightfall or one lacking in atonement or by sitting overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled, we are guilty on its account due to i.e., in cases of pigul, notar, and tamei And it is not subject to the laws of misappropriation.

דף ח,א גמרא

The tanna teaches: it becomes subject to the laws of disqualifiction from contact with a tevul yom one who has already immersed in a mikveh but remains tamei until nightfall or one who lacks atonement, or by sitting overnight, How do we understand this? Subject to disqualification, yes. But: to become tamei, No. Our mishna --- with whom does it agree? It is the rabbis' position for it was taught: Abba Shaul says: A tevul yom

דף ח,ב גמרא

is considered to be tamei at the outset i.e., in the first degree for purposes of holy things. Rabbi Meir says: he causes the holy things to become tamei and he causes the terumah to become invalid. but the sages say just as he renders invalid potables of terumah and edibles of terumah thus in the same way he renders invalid potables of holy things and edibles of holy things.

Rabba said: according to Abba Shaul, they created a higher standard regarding holy things The rabbis established for a tevul yom that he is like someone in the first degree According to Rabbi Meir, he is like food in the second degree According to the sages, since he has immersed his tumah is weakened he renders things invalid but he does not render things tamei.

Once its blood has been sprinkled, we are guilty.... The laws of misappropriation do not apply to it, But a prohibition does apply to it. But why? Is it not a possession of the priests? Rabbi Chanina said: It was taken out of the Courtyard And the mishna's view is that of Rabbi Akiva who said: sprinkling is effective on an offering that is taken out of the Courtyard. which is not a place of eating. ??? NOT IN SONCINO Rav Huna said Rav said The draining of the blood of A sin-offering of a bird: is not essential. For Rav learned: Once its blood has been sprinkled, Rav Adda bar Ahavah said that ??? Rav said The draining of the blood of A sin-offering of a bird: is essential. For Rav learned: Once its blood has been drained. Come and hear: (Lev. 5) and the remainder of the blood shall be drained at base the altar; it is a sin-offering. This is satisfactory according to Rav Adda bar Ahavah, it is written "and the remainder of the blood shall be drained ... It is a sin-offering" But, to Rav Huna, who does not agree with this derivation, What do we learn from "and the remainder..."? It is like that which was taught in the academy of R' Yishmael that if there remained any blood, then it must be drained, but if there is no blood to drain, then the act of draining is not an essential component of the offering. But how does Rav Huna explain the phrase (Lev. 5) "It is a sin-offering" He interprets it as referring to the earlier text Rav Acha the son of Rabba said to Rav Ashi Rather: From here, regarding a meal-offering where it is written (Lev. 2) "and the remainder" Here, too, do you understand it to mean "if there is a remainder"? And if you say Here, too, that it does mean that,

Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.