- This topic has 28 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Which one in your opinion is a better dictionary to buy?
Jastrow wasn’t religious and wrote his dictionary over 100 years ago.
I find that the Jastrow is a lot more useful
I also found Jastrow to be more helpful, at the start. Then I noticed, as others had warned, he throws in his poison subtly in many instances, which can really be detrimental to one seeking Dvar HaShem.
Jastrow
(the best is when you get Jastrow Bonuses or Jastrow Jackpots depending on which yesheva you went to.)
Also the Practical Talmudic Dictionary is also up there for one of the greatest dictionaries.
“Jastrow wasn’t religious and wrote his dictionary over 100 years ago.”
Has anything of interest to Jews been written in Aramaic in the past 100 years?
I also found Jastrow to be more helpful, at the start. Then I noticed, as others had warned, he throws in his poison subtly in many instances, which can really be detrimental to one seeking Dvar HaShem.
Can you give an example or two of a translation in the Jastrow dictionary that is mistranslated or “slanted” in such a way to be considered “poison” that is “detrimental to one seeking D’var HaShem?”
The Wolf
WolfishMusings: Actually, I can. I hope I’m not ????? anyone. For instance the preface to ???? ?”?. A lot of other times he includes ????? ????? in his pieces.
Reb Eizana, are you talking about in his dictionary or any of his other accomplishments? I did see very Apikursive stuff from him, though not in his dictionary. I don’t use his dictionary anymore anyhow, as per advice of an Adam Gadol.
The Gemara describes how Reb Eliezer was punished for enjoying a ‘good Vort’ from an Apikoros. One may ask, what should he do if it’s true? The answer is as it says, V’shem Reshaim Yirkav, that we don’t give the unworthy a place in Torah. There has to be a special Zchus to have been Mechaven to Amita Shel Torah. Do’eg and Achitofal were very learned, and yet it says of them (Sanhedrin 106b) that they were not worthy to achieve the Halacha in their learning, as it says Sod Hashem Lirei’av.
There is a Tosafos that changes a Girsa based on this. The Gemara has a Rasha asking a Shaala and Tosafos says that it must be a mistake, since we don’t give such a person a place in the Torah — even as the one posing a question.
That’s why.
When I was in the 10th grade, in Yeshiva of Staten Island (in 1984), I was once learning bechavrusa (for the sake of accuracy, he was actually more of a tutor than a chavrusa)with one of the Rabbeim (he said a shiur to one of the high school grades) and we came upon a word which neither of us could translate. The Rebbe reached over for the only available dictionary, the Jastrow, and looked up the word. When he had his answer he looked up at me and said “not bad for a reform rabbi”. I still keep in touch with this Rebbe and about 8 years ago I mentioned this episode and he told me, now that there are other options that are just as good from ehrilcher yidden, use those instead.
I think that for the times, Marcus Jastrow was not Reform – he was MO lite by our standards which was haimish for those days!
600, did he keep Mitzvos?
Yes, Haleivi. The problem had to do with some innovations in his shul and some of his methods of research. He tried valiantly to keep his shul from going deformed, but sadly he failed.
I wonder if his shul exists today and if it is a kiruv shul, a deformed tembel, or no longer Jewish.
or, to be dan lekaf zchus, or to be makir tov, how many mitvos of talmud Torah were aided or enabled by his dictionary?
The Wolf: In 1970 Harav Alter Halpern ztsl, a chashuva Talmid Chochom in London, published a small pamphlet “Some facts about Marcus Jastrow’s dictionary” in which he points to some examples of all different types of mistakes and questionable translations. Although most of those are perhaps “not the end of the world”, at least one of them is indeed worrying when it comes to hashkofo. Under “ner” (page 936) he writes that into the Ner Maaravi “as much oil was put as all the others together contained”. From Chazal it is clear that the NM burned longer miraculously. (His contention doesn’t make sense anyway, as there was no need to put 6 times the amount of oil into a light which burned only twice as long as the others).
If you want, I don’t mind sending you a copy of that article. Just send me an e-mail. The moderator will presumably be prepared to give you my e-mail address
Jastrow is more complete and has more thorough etymology which helps you understand the language.
600,
Jastrow’s congregation, Rodeph Shalom, still exists today as a Reform synagogue. It is the oldest Ashkenazic synagogue in the western hemisphere. It eventually fired Jastrow because he was too (small c) conservative. Ironically, the Sefardic congregation it broke away from, Mikveh Israel, is still Orthodox.
My husband uses Jastrow a lot
If anyone wants mine they can have it. Maybe I can bring it along to the CoffeeRoom Meleva Malka.
The myth that R. Marcus Jastrow was a reform rabbis is simply not true. He actually was a powerful force in American Jewry for tradition. He was eventually ousted by his congregation because he was too traditional and they preferred Reform. During his farewell sermon, he chastised them over this. Many innovations Jastrow allowed in his synagogue have become ubiquitous in American Orthodox synagogues, like men and woman sitting separately on the same level (i.e. no balcony) and giving a sermon in the vernacular. Although he did allow an organ to played by a non-Jew on Shabbat and Yom Tov, it was based on the notion of “shvut d’shvut b’makom mitzvah,” an idea promulgated by the Hungarian Neologue movement. I think the reason Jastrow is assumed to be Reform is due to his joining with Isaac Mayer Wise for a brief period. But he quickly disassociated himself upon the promulgation of the Pittsburgh Platform. Instead Jastrow joined with Rabbi H. Pereira Mendes in founding the Jewish Theological Seminary, which at that time was to be an Orthodox institution. Persoanlly, I’m convinced that he has a huge and ongoing and increasing s’char in Olam Habah. He shares in the merit of the talmud Torah of every Jew who uses his dictionary in learning Torah. Yehi chelki ito,
The Neolog movement is apikorses.
For any serious scholar, there is no comparison between any of the other dictionaries and the Jastrow. The Jastrow is a real dictionary, based on etymological research, citations throughout shas, knowledge of contemporaneous usage to the gemara, etc. The others are glorified “teitch sheets”, based on the Jastrow.
There’s no question that Artscroll used the Jastrow for their shas. And even for anyone learning on their own, it’s better because he gives you different contexts, so you can use your own judgement in deciding how to translate.
I’ve seen his writing about a certain Gemara that “no doubt” came from eastern folklore and they just changed the names. Rachmana Litzlan.
These scholiars look for anything with a similar pattern and claim them to be one and the same. It is easy to get fooled, if you don’t think broader. Some patterns are very easy to create. It is similar to how they debunk psychic readings, that anyone has doubts about this or that. And anyone will succeed in someway someday.
Thanks for the link, mod. The more seforim I know of online the easier it is to learn when I’m at a computer.
@Imanonov I know this is 3 years later, but I have to say…Jastrow under “NER” is quoting Rav’s opinion on Shabbos 22b. It’s word for word
But it’s a misunderstanding of what Rav says, jj333. ??? ???? ??????? doesn’t mean “as much oil as all the other lamps combined,” but “the same amount of oil as was placed in each of the other lamps.”
ah, yes I see it now. That is so weird
Dr. Jastrow was a very traditional scholar for his times. One must realize that there were a lot of problems with every method of study in those days. The error with ner is one of a straight reading of the text, something that is common in the dictionary. (Nothing to do with any ‘agendas’ his only goal was to teach Torah and preserve the Jewish tradition. Rabbanim did not have side agendas in those days. People were genuine back then. Today, your non-rav has an agenda to convince the Rav that all the other Rabbis have an agenda.) Many of the confusions he refers to, took decades to clarify. the new dictionaries of today, have the same amount of errors, without the excuse of best available knowledge. The introduction to the Jastrow is just a fragment of a thorough understanding of what gemara is all about. The theories that are prevalent today, are silly and not mentioned by the Geonim. Use Jastrow he knew how to learn, unless your goal is to be an am ha’aretz.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.