Ta Shema

Read Talmudic sages saying some unhinged and beautiful things

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Talmud Study Resources

This will hopefully be an ever growing list. If you have any Talmud study resources you like (online or in print), please send them to me and I’ll update accordingly!

The most important resource for study is community, so if you have a local synagogue, check if they have study group

Free Online Resources

Sefaria Mishnah — reading the Mishnah first can make the Gemara easier

Sefaria Talmud — the go-to free online translation. I believe it uses the Koren translation

Daf Yomi — daily image of the day’s daf with audio of it being read (not translated as far I can tell)

Hadran Courses — Absolutely top notch courses to give you the tools to study Talmud. Cannot recommend this enough.

New addition! Hebrewbooks.org — quality pdf scans of the Vilna Shas. Also advertises 64,962 classical Hebrew books available for free download

New addition! Mercava — tools for translation, marking up, and displaying pages of Talmud. Only displays the central column, Rashi, and the Tosafot, but Torah Or and Mesoret haShas can also be accessed and Rashi script can be changed to block

New addition! Jastrow — free, searchable version of Jastrow’s famous dictionary for Hebrew and Aramaic

Books

Your local Shul’s library probably has a copy of these or similar books! They are far from the only books on these topics

Reference Guide to the Talmud by Rabbi Steinsaltz

I love this book. It has the answers for almost every question a beginner could ask, from how a page of Talmud is laid out to the basics of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic

The Practical Talmud Dictionary by Yitzhak Frank

Not a comprehensive dictionary of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in comparison to Jastrow’s work, but it has a lot and is simple to use

Grammar for Gemara & Targum Onkelos: An Introduction to Aramaic by Yitzhak Frank

Sister text to The Practical Talmud Dictionary. Good for beginners with at least some knowledge of Hebrew

Everyman’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen

Basic overview of topics covered in the Talmud. Very dense

The Essential Talmud by Rabbi Steinsaltz

More digestible than Cohen’s book, but not as comprehensive

[snulbug]

all u catholics think u have the premium on sexy religious ritual but is there anything sexier than tefillin? no

[snulbug]

like oh just gonna bind the word of g-d to my arm with leather straps nbd

[disfiguredgrace]

being Jewish and worshipping Gd has elements that are inherently erotic, and we have too much going on existentially to be dealing in sexual shame most of the time

[hermthejewishwyrm]

ALSO in the times of the beis hamikdash men used to wear tefillin all day including when they were on the battle field and sometimes I imagine jewish warriors all bloodied and tough and wearing tefillin and… woah mama

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You see Gamliel named his son Shimon who then named his son Gamliel who then named his son Shimon who then ב״ה named his son Yehudah who then please no make it stop named his sons Gamliel and Shimon, but when someone says Rabban Gamliel, they’re probably referring to Rabban Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel or for Rabban Shimon, it’s usually Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel, likely because of their temporal proximity to Yehudah haNasi and their leadership after the destruction of the second temple, but it can be entirely context dependent. Do try to keep up

[hyperpotamianarch]

See, Gamliel the Elder (the first one), was also son of Shim‘on, but people forget about this guy so if someone talks about Rabban Shimon they probably don't talk about him, unless they say Shimon ben Hillel.

At least they took a couple more generations to get to the second Hillel, but wait until you hear about Yehudah Nesi‘a, the grandson (or great grandson?) of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi.

Just tuck "elder" at the end if you're talking about the earlier ones, and don't bother talking about post Rabbi Yehuda haNasi Nesi’im. They're not relevant, since we go by the Babylonian Talmud.

Well, except for Hillel the Second, codifier of the Hebrew calendar. And Gamliel VI, if you want to keep track of the last Nasi. And yup, there were six of them by the end.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You know, I knew there were more generations of this, but I only wrote what I could remember off the top of my head because I was scared to look up how long it went. And I was right to be scared. I could not keep up

[hyperpotamianarch]

I honestly barely remember rabbi Yehuda haNasi's children. And I do not know off the top of my head how many more shimons there were. But you can trust it got worse, I think.

Which might make one feel conflicted at the abolition of the Nesi’ut by the Roman Empire after Gamliel VI died childless, but I'm pretty sure when it comes down to it repeated names are more tolerable than the Roman Empire taking away what little agency they left the Jews of EY with.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

I only remember of his sons, Gamliel was the greater scholar, but Shimon had greater humility, so Shimon inherited the title.

Of course it goes without saying 613 Gamliels in a row would be preferable

[hyperpotamianarch]

Just saying, apparently after Shim‘on bar Rabbi apparently Yehudah switched Shimon in the circulation, because it's pretty much Yehudah-Gamliel-Yehudah-Gamliel from there on, with one Hillel in the middle.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Oh sorry I meant 613 Gamliels would be preferable to the Romans ending the Nesi’ut, but the pattern switch up is a breath of fresh air

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You see Gamliel named his son Shimon who then named his son Gamliel who then named his son Shimon who then ב״ה named his son Yehudah who then please no make it stop named his sons Gamliel and Shimon, but when someone says Rabban Gamliel, they’re probably referring to Rabban Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel or for Rabban Shimon, it’s usually Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel, likely because of their temporal proximity to Yehudah haNasi and their leadership after the destruction of the second temple, but it can be entirely context dependent. Do try to keep up

[hyperpotamianarch]

See, Gamliel the Elder (the first one), was also son of Shim‘on, but people forget about this guy so if someone talks about Rabban Shimon they probably don't talk about him, unless they say Shimon ben Hillel.

At least they took a couple more generations to get to the second Hillel, but wait until you hear about Yehudah Nesi‘a, the grandson (or great grandson?) of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi.

Just tuck "elder" at the end if you're talking about the earlier ones, and don't bother talking about post Rabbi Yehuda haNasi Nesi’im. They're not relevant, since we go by the Babylonian Talmud.

Well, except for Hillel the Second, codifier of the Hebrew calendar. And Gamliel VI, if you want to keep track of the last Nasi. And yup, there were six of them by the end.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You know, I knew there were more generations of this, but I only wrote what I could remember off the top of my head because I was scared to look up how long it went. And I was right to be scared. I could not keep up

[hyperpotamianarch]

I honestly barely remember rabbi Yehuda haNasi's children. And I do not know off the top of my head how many more shimons there were. But you can trust it got worse, I think.

Which might make one feel conflicted at the abolition of the Nesi’ut by the Roman Empire after Gamliel VI died childless, but I'm pretty sure when it comes down to it repeated names are more tolerable than the Roman Empire taking away what little agency they left the Jews of EY with.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

I only remember of his sons, Gamliel was the greater scholar, but Shimon had greater humility, so Shimon inherited the title.

Of course it goes without saying 613 Gamliels in a row would be preferable

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You see Gamliel named his son Shimon who then named his son Gamliel who then named his son Shimon who then ב״ה named his son Yehudah who then please no make it stop named his sons Gamliel and Shimon, but when someone says Rabban Gamliel, they’re probably referring to Rabban Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel or for Rabban Shimon, it’s usually Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel, likely because of their temporal proximity to Yehudah haNasi and their leadership after the destruction of the second temple, but it can be entirely context dependent. Do try to keep up

[hyperpotamianarch]

See, Gamliel the Elder (the first one), was also son of Shim‘on, but people forget about this guy so if someone talks about Rabban Shimon they probably don't talk about him, unless they say Shimon ben Hillel.

At least they took a couple more generations to get to the second Hillel, but wait until you hear about Yehudah Nesi‘a, the grandson (or great grandson?) of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi.

Just tuck "elder" at the end if you're talking about the earlier ones, and don't bother talking about post Rabbi Yehuda haNasi Nesi’im. They're not relevant, since we go by the Babylonian Talmud.

Well, except for Hillel the Second, codifier of the Hebrew calendar. And Gamliel VI, if you want to keep track of the last Nasi. And yup, there were six of them by the end.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You know, I knew there were more generations of this, but I only wrote what I could remember off the top of my head because I was scared to look up how long it went. And I was right to be scared. I could not keep up

[no-context-daf-yomi]

You see Gamliel named his son Shimon who then named his son Gamliel who then named his son Shimon who then ב״ה named his son Yehudah who then please no make it stop named his sons Gamliel and Shimon, but when someone says Rabban Gamliel, they’re probably referring to Rabban Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel or for Rabban Shimon, it’s usually Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ben Shimon ben Gamliel, likely because of their temporal proximity to Yehudah haNasi and their leadership after the destruction of the second temple, but it can be entirely context dependent. Do try to keep up

[homeshell]

now THIS is jewish culture

[jessicalprice]

the number of times I have said “and it was for this that ________ was thrown out of the house of study” in meetings only to get a round of blank stares

[captain-acab]

If a rabbi is thrown out of the House of Study by a distance within 50 cubits, he is still welcome to return there. If he is thrown farther than 50 cubits from the House of Study, he is banished and may never return to it.

Rabbi Balmalocha asked: If the rabbi is thrown out and lands with one foot within 50 cubits and one foot outside of it, what is the law?

It was for this question that Rabbi Balmalocha was thrown 50 cubits out of the House of Study, then shoved one cubit farther for good measure.

[eradacted]

It may not be that deep, but I have a shovel and I will make it as deep as I want.

[asteroidtroglodyte]

High key what House of Leaves is meta about

[no-context-daf-yomi]

I can’t tell masechta this is?

[no-context-daf-yomi]

[liifaan]

I am fully aware how in the English world Jordan is a boy name and not a lot know it's actually the name of a country

which only motivates me further to say I can't wait to be back in Jordan. I hope you snicker you homos

[liifaan]

@smute fully targetted by the way

[prismatic-bell]

It can also be a girl's name, so strap on.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Or a river, so splish splash

[lukewarmtomatosoup]

gar field? that’s not where they’re supposed to be

[encryptidarchivist]

ah,,, but they are such gentle beasts,,,

[lukewarmtomatosoup]

oh wow… how serene…

[no-context-daf-yomi]

גר פילד?

לא. מה פרוש ״פילד״? אני גר בבית.

[meowzel-tov]

on the debate whether or not kirby is kosher (to eat):

yes you shouldnt eat beasts that consume others - but is what kirby does considered consumption? that's the true question.

send post

[astra-the-dragon]

kirby holds onto what he swallows. it is then either transformed into his powers, spat out whole, or erased into nothingness.

we eat predatory fish like tuna, and even chickens will devour mice and insects. it's not so straightforward.

[astra-the-dragon]

hilacopter is right post canceled

[magnetothemagnificent]

No, Kirby isn't kosher because:

-If he was a land animal, he doesn't have split hooves and he doesn't chew his cud

-If he was a fish, he doesn't have fins and scales

-If he was a bird, there's zero mesorah of him being kosher and also he has none of the characteristics of a kosher bird (he presumably doesn't have a crop and he doesn't have an aducted hallux).

-If he was an insect, he's very clearly not one of the kinds of permitted locusts

[captainlordauditor]

Do we have any proof that those aren't shoes over cloven hooves

he does regurgitate and re-eat his food. I think the jury's out on whether or not he chews cud

[bigscaryd]

If he's a land animal or a bird, he doesn't have a neck. It's not even clear he has blood. We do know he breathes though.

[hermthejewishwyrm]

This is true. He clearly doesn't have fins or scales so he can't be a kosher fish and for birds and land mammals even if he were kosher there would be no kosher way to shecht him as he has no neck. Final answer. Not kosher

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Hm yes. Much like the humble giraffe which ironically cannot be shechted because of too much neck

[no-context-daf-yomi]

It was for this I was defenestrated at the house of study

[penguicorns-are-cool]

we all know the one big frog or many small frogs thing

but also, assuming one big frog, pharoah's magicians make a bunch of frogs right after to prove that it wasn't a big deal

but, they make plural frogs

this implies that they were unable to make a superior frog and instead resorted to many small frogs to counter the one big frog

in this case, is it possible the plague had both one big frog and many small frogs??

one big frog from Moses and god and many small frogs from the magicians???

[mohelconvention]

The thing is, at the beginning of the chapter, it does say “frogs” plural:

It then moves to the aforementioned use of the singular:

Which is probably why the midrashic explanation has the bit about frogs squirting out of the Kaiju frog when hit by the Egyptians.

You are then correct in saying that the magicians did summon “frogs”

But why would you summon frogs for the sake of summoning frogs? You’re either under attack by a a Kaiju frog spewing small frogs everywhere or you’re drowning in an army of frogs.

Now, in the case of the kaiju frog, it seems unlikely that an army of small frogs would serve as an effective counter. In the other case, congratulations! You’ve made a bad situation worse by just giving us more frogs to deal with. We also have to account for the magicians “doing the same”. These logical shortcomings lead us to only two possible scenarios, both of which being a kind of fighting fire with fire (frogs with frogs; I regret nothing):

Organized Frog Warfare

Or

Frogzilla vs King Froghidorah*

Case 1: Organized Frog Warfare

I reject the concept of a bunch of small frogs countering Frogzilla outright. Thus, summoning an army of small frogs only makes sense as a counter to an army of small frogs.

Now, this does assume the magicians didn’t simply summon frogs for the sake of summoning frogs. If there were a million frogs to begin with, but now there are two million, nobody is impressed. However, frogs meeting on the field of battle, fighting mano a mano is worthy of being recorded for future generations. Also, I find the mental image of a 4 star frog general to be hysterical.

Case 2: Frogzilla vs King Froghidorah

If you think about it for a second, you find that only way to fight a Kaiju frog is with your own Kaiju frogs. Imagine this, but with frogs:

This is only bolstered if you think of it as being a summoning jutsu situation. If you will, imagine Moshe/Aharon and the magicians facing off on their respective frogs:

I also find this to be the best fit for the plural-singular-plural usage:

1. Aharon summons one (1) Kaiju frog

2. Magicians summom one (1) Kaiju frog

3. The magicians throw down the gauntlet and challenge the Hebrew frog to a duel.

Hence, the magicians have now effectively “brought” two (2) frogs upon the land of Egypt. Additionally, this fulfills Hashem’s original command to bring “frogs” upon the land; summoning the Hebrew frog forced the magicians to summon their own frog, effectively making it so that Aharon summoned two (2) frogs.

In either case, they can also explain the last verse in the Frog Saga:

Either the Great Frog War raged throughout the land, its spillover necessitating the withdrawal of both armies, or predictably, having two giant monsters fight was not a good idea and needed to be stopped immediately.

The timelines probably don’t line up, but I like to think either case could also be an explanation for how the sphinx lost its nose.

*Frogthra? Frog Kong? Note to self: work on frog portmanteaus

Disclaimer: I can really only read liturgical Hebrew, so all of this is based on being able to recognize the plural and singular forms of words.

[magnetothemagnificent]

It's so funny to me how neo-pagan types in Jewish spheres try to say that the Ancient Israelites used to be pagan as some sort of "gotcha" and that the Evil Sinister Rabbis are keeping this fact a secret and that actually we should all be pagan again like. It's not a secret that the Ancient Israelites used to be pagan. It's talked about all the time throughout Tanakh and every other Jewish text afterwards. There's literally a section in the Pesach Haggadah where we say "מִתְּחִלָּה עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, וְעַכְשָׁיו קֵרְבָנוּ הַמָּקוֹם לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ", that "In the beginning, our forefathers served idols, and now HaMakom brought us close to His worship." It's not a secret!!! Yes, the Israelites were pagan, and then they decided to be monotheists and to only serve Hashem! That's what makes us Hebrews and not Canaanites!

[kosherdragon]

[magnetothemagnificent]

[id: screenshot of a tweet by @/paulthomasloan reading:

archaeologist, taking off his glasses: well actually the physical evidence suggests the ancient Israelites worshiped multiple deities

Jeremiah, weeping and sighing: yes I know

end id]

Yep. Yep exactly.

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Menachot 72a — Rabbeinu HaKadosh says: Shut Up

[captainlordauditor]

Saw a Threads post like "Jews what's your most heretical take" and everyone was giving really boring baseline Reform stuff like "patrilineal Jews are Jews" or "you don't need to keep kosher"

Had to come here to ask jumblr for the unhinged takes. Mine is that men shouldn't be rabbis because it makes a shul too much like the Beis HaMikdash

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Cocaine should be considered kitniyot since it might be confused for flour

[i-want-a-pomegranate]

Kosher for pesach alternative: 2C-B (Tussi)

[no-context-daf-yomi]

Imagine having to get certified kosher for Passover tussi to make sure it doesn’t have cocaine in it 😭

[captainlordauditor]

This could also be kitniyot, by the same argument that makes beans kitniyot (storage with chametz).

[no-context-daf-yomi]

We are quickly running out of options for the seder this year