10 Comments
User's avatar
Simon Furst's avatar

Ofc, I was just wondering because of your specific interest in digital tools and more particularly the resource that you created for Jastrow.

I'm not familiar with the tech aspect too much, so I'm not sure what counts as a clean script, but I assume they would have to be digitized in a comprehensive format...

Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

Fair. Will definitely keep it in mind

Expand full comment
Simon Furst's avatar

Nice! Any chance you have scripts for bible resources, such as BHS and HALOT?

Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

Hi Simon! Big fan of your writing! :)

I don't, no. And haven't looked into it, in particular. In general, I'm very much open to any potential projects, where scripting could be helpful to people. A concern of mine here (as with many such potential projects) would be copyright issues, and accessibility. Are these open-access and accessible?

Expand full comment
Simon Furst's avatar

Thanks! And I of yours! (BTW I would love to meet you sometime 😊!)

BDB is open access on AlHatorah, but Halot is not open access AFAIK. There are free PDF's of the older prints available online and Brill has a digital format but it's not free, so not sure if that's helpful. BHS I'm not even aware of any digital versions. But if it's possible I know many people that would find it very useful!

Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

Cool. Definitely, feel free to reach out by email! (It's at my about me page). I'm based in Tel Aviv

Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

And re BDB, it's available in a few places, including Sefaria (wasn't aware of that until I just did a search):

https://www.sefaria.org.il/BDB%2C_%D7%90

https://www.blueletterbible.org/resources/lexical/bdb.cfm

Is there specific additional processing that you think would a) be relatively straightforward to script, and b) be especially helpful (similar to what I did with jastrow)?

Just to be upfront: my personal interest is more in rabbinics than in Bible per se. Especially since there already a ton of tools (relatively speaking) already available for Bible, due to more mainstream/wider interest in it

Expand full comment
DbMY's avatar

Agreed thoroughly, on both points: That it suffers from many flaws that make it very non user-friendly, and that, despite these many flaws, it is still a useful resource.

The only thing I would say is that I do think the usefulness is limited. It is, after all, over 100 years old. What would be very valuable today, in my opinion, would be a one-volume Hebrew work that *summarizes* the gist of the Aruch, the Aruch Ha-Shalem, and Jastrow, and also contains a basic one-word English translation of the word in question.

Expand full comment
Ezra Brand's avatar

Responses:

"it suffers from many flaws that make it very non user-friendly".

I don't believe it suffers from many flaws. The main challenges are usability, due to the abbreviations and archaic style, as I discuss in my post.

"The only thing I would say is that I do think the usefulness is limited. It is, after all, over 100 years old. What would be very valuable today, in my opinion, would be a one-volume Hebrew work that *summarizes* the gist of the Aruch, the Aruch Ha-Shalem, and Jastrow".

But that's essentially what Jastrow itself is: a relatively concise dictionary, that includes and supersedes Aruch and Aruch Ha-Shalem.

A relevant alternative open-access dictionary, which is more modern, is Hebrew Wiktionary. But that's a dictionary of all historical dialects of Hebrew, including biblical and modern

Expand full comment
DbMY's avatar
7dEdited

The flaws you yourself discuss constitute, in my mind, "many flaws".

Dont forget also, you are an academic/scholar. I myself have been accused of being such. If you and I see these problems in Jastrow, imagine what the average yeshivah student/layman thinks of it.

Expand full comment