תגלית: מאמר ‘השקפה טהורה’ מזמן החשמונאים

מאמר מערכת יתד נאמן “ניצחון החשמונאים” יום שלישי כז כסליו ג’ אלפים תקצ”ח

שנה שעברה נכנסו להיכל כמה אינשי דלא מעלי המתיימרים לקרוא לעצמם אנשי שלומנו, בעקבות הפעולה האלימה של התגרות באומות שאין דעת גדולים נוחה הימנה, מה שגורם לאחינו בית ישראל בכל תפוצותיו ובמיוחד לקהילה היהודית הגדולה והמשגשגת באלכסנדריה שנהנתה עד כה מחופש יחסי לצרות גדולות והצרת צעדיהם, ולאחר כל זאת ההינו אותם אנשים להיכנס להיכל ה’ “מתחם הכרת” כשהם טמאים טומאת מת רח”ל, וטימאו ההיכל הקדוש בדורסנות אין קץ תוך חילול השם חמור.
והוסיפו פשע על פשעם כשהכניסו כלי חדש למערכת “כלי הקודש והמקדש” כעין מנורה של עץ והם קוראים לה תחליף ל”מנורה הטהורה” עפ”ל.
ועכשיו בלא בושה לאחר שלקחו את המלוכה ממלכי בית דוד, שעליו התנבא כבר שמואל הרמתי ” ונאמן ביתך וממלכתך עד עולם לפניך כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם”, והם מכפישים את שם משפחתם משמרת יהויריב כשהם לוקחים המלוכה בכוח הזרוע ואז חותמים הסכמים עם המלך הסלווקי ומשמשים כנציביו.
והזדעזענו לשמוע שביום ראשון האחרון (יום השנה למעשה הנפשע), החליטו אותם פוחזים שהפעולה הנפשעת שלהם בשנה שעברה הינה לא פחות מאשר “נס משמים”, ברצותם לבסס את מלכותם השקרית כאילו היא רצון שמיים, ובל נחשוב חלילה שמעניין אותם כביכול רצון השם בעולם, אלא שהם יודעים שלא יוכלו להטעות את יראי השם, אם לא שיישאו את שם השם לשווא ויאמרו שמאת השם הייתה זאת, ומוכיחים הם זאת על ידי סיפור מפוברק שמוכיח כמה חסרי הבנה הם, כשהם טוענים שעל אף שטימאו היוונים את כל כדי השמן מצאו הם פך שמן טהור, וכל מי ששכל בקדקודו יכול לראות את הסתירה המגוחכת בדבריהם, שעל אף שהם נכנסים בטומאה להיכל בכל אופן חשוב להם שההדלקה (שאינה עבודה כלל שהרי אינם מדליקים במנורת הקודש) תעשה בשמן טהור.
והם מוסיפים ומספרים ש”השמן הטהור” כביכול שהיה אמור להספיק ליום אחד הספיק לשמונה ימים, תוך שימוש ציני במספר שמונה שהוא מעל הטבע כידוע ליודעי ח”ן, ואין נפשם בוחלת בכל טריק שעולה על דעתם על מנת לזרוע ספק ובלבול בקרב אנ”ש.
והשנה הם תיקנו להם “חג”, מה שלא יעלה על הדעת שנתקן בדורנו אנו כשכבר אין שכינה שורה, ואנו שרויים ב”גלות יוון” גלות החושך שהיא מהגלויות הקשות כידוע לכל בן תורה, ולא סתם חג אלא חג שמונה ימים, שהמוטיבים שלו מגיעים ממקורות בעייתיים ירחם השם, הדלקת נרות סיבוב סביבונים ועוד שאר מנהגים שאוי לנו אם רק נדע מה מקורם.
ולכן בקריאה נרגשת לכל עובדי השם “חזקו ונתחזקה”, שלא לטעות חס ושלום אחרי אותם מתעים ומבלבלים, וייתן ה’ שנשאר חזקים ואיתנים באמונתנו הטהורה, וכמובן שאין לנו שום שיתוף פעולה לא איתם ולא עם שכמותיהם, וכל שכן לא להשתתף בימי אידיהם וחגותיהם חס ושלום.
י. נ.
[איני יודע מי הכותב.]

יום העיון “לשון ותורה בחנוכה” – תשפ”ד

תוכנית יום העיון “לשון ותורה בחנוכה” – תשפ”ד

יום חמישי, ב’ בטבת, נר 7 של חנוכה:

1100הסופר הרב יוסף אליהו

יו”ר ארגון ‘עין טובה’  

“דבש תחת לשונך” – חידושי לשון בתנ”ך ובמשנה
1120ד”ר משה קהן

 

שירי יין ושמחה בתור הזהב
1140אליהוא שנון

חבר קבוץ סעד, גולה בים המלח

משמעות סדר המילים במקרא

בעברית החדשה אומצו שינויים רבים בסדר המילים לעומת העברית המקראית. לא תמיד אנחנו מבינים פסוקים בגלל הזרוּת. נביא ששה מיני שינוי ודוגמות, עם פיענוח פסוקים אחדים.

1200אוריאל פרנקשלום עם נאצים?!

מיהו נאצי? ומהו שלום? נדבר על שני שינויים לשוניים מבורכים בעקבות “מלחמת שמחת תורה”: גאולתה של המילה “שלום”, והחזרת ה”עטרה” (המפוקפקת) של התואר “נאצי” ליושנה.

1220משה אוסיאסלאם – זה לא סלאם – לעולם עם סקירה על ארגוני הטרור

מאתר מענה לשון, כאן.

If Not Higher, by I.L. Peretz – Plagiarism or Borrowing?

Find the Chassidic tale here…

Now, did Mr. Peretz adapt this from “Jack’s Queer Ways” in The Round Table?

See here:

Everybody liked Jack. He was a pleasant, manly boy, about fourteen years old, a boy who was on friendly terms with the whole world. His father was a physician, and his family lived in a small country town.

Of course Jack went to school. In the afternoon, when school was over, he always ran up to his mother’s room to tell her, in his bright, boyish way, how the day had passed, and to see if she had any errands for him to do, always glad to help in any way he could. After this little chat with his mother, he would dash off into the yard to play, or to busy himself in some other way. But he was never far away, ready to be called any moment, and generally where he could be seen from some of the many windows of the big, old-fashioned house.

This had always been his custom until the winter of which I am speaking. This winter Jack seemed to have fallen into queer ways. He came home, to be sure, at the usual time, but, after the little visit with his mother, seemed to disappear entirely. For an hour and a half he positively could not be found. They could not see him, no matter which way they looked, and they could not even make him hear when they called.

This all seemed very strange, but he had always been a trusty boy, and his mother thought little of it at first. Still, as Jack continued to disappear, day after day, at the same hour, for weeks, she thought it best to speak to his father about it.

“How long does he stay out?” asked the doctor.

“Very often till the lamps are lighted,” was the answer.

“Have you asked him where he goes?”

“Why, yes,” the mother replied; “and that’s the strangest part of it all! He seems so confused, and doesn’t answer directly, but tries to talk about something else. I cannot understand it, but some way I do not believe he is doing wrong, for he looks right into my eyes, and does not act as if he had anything to be ashamed of.”

“It is quite strange,” said the doctor. Then he sat quiet for a long time. At last he said, “Well, little mother, I think we will trust the lad awhile longer, and say nothing more to him about it; though it is strange!”

Time passed on, and the mother looked anxious many an evening as she lighted the lamps and her boy was not home yet. And when at last he did come in, flushed and tired, and said not a word as to how he had spent his afternoon, she wondered more than ever.

This kept up all winter. Toward spring the doctor was slowly driving home one day just at twilight, when, as he passed a poor, forlorn cottage, he heard a rap on the window. He stopped his horse at once, got out of his gig, and walked to the door. He knocked, but no one opened, only a voice called, “Come in!”

He entered the shabby room, and found a poor old woman, lying on a miserable bed. The room was bare and cheerless except for the bright fire burning in the small stove, beside which lay a neat pile of wood. The doctor did what he could to ease the poor woman s sufferings, and then asked who lived with her to take care of her.

“Not a soul,” she said. “I am all alone. I haven’t a chick nor child in all the wide world!”

The doctor looked at the wood near the stove, and wondered to himself how the sick old woman could chop and pile it so nicely; but he said nothing, and she went on sadly:—

“I have had a hard time of it this winter, and I would have died sure if it hadn’t been for that blessed boy.”

“Why, I thought you lived alone, and had no children!” exclaimed the doctor.

“No more I haven’t,” she said. “I am all alone by me lone self, as I told ye, but the good Lord has been a-takin’ care of me; for a bit of a boy, bless his heart! has been a-comin’ here every day this winter for to help me. He chopped the wood the minister sent me, and brought some in here every night, and piled it up like that” (pointing to the sticks in the corner): “and the harder it stormed, the surer he seemed to come. He’d never so much as tell me where he lived, and I only know his name is——”

“Jack?” asked the doctor, with unsteady voice.

“Yes, sir; that’s it. Do ye be knowing him, doctor?”

“I think perhaps I do,” was the husky answer.

“Well, may the Lord bless him, and may he never be cold himself, the good lad!”

The doctor did not speak for a few moments; then he left, promising to send some one to care for the sick woman that night. He drove home very fast, and a strange dimness came into his eyes every now and then, as he thought it all over.

He went to his wife’s room, and began, as usual, to tell her all that had happened during the day. When, at last, he came to his visit at the cottage, he watched his wife’s face, as he told of the lonely, sick old woman, the warm fire, and the young chopper.

When he had finished, tears were in her eyes, but she only said, “Dear Jack!”

Jack’s queer ways were explained at last. And “Jack’s old woman,” as they called her, never wanted from this time for any comfort as long as she lived. So, after all, Jack could not feel so very sorry that his kindness, done in secret, had at last “found him out.”

There Is a Universal ‘Language of Thought’ – Like the Rishonim Say in Berachos

You Don’t Think In Any Language

by David J. Lobina

(This is Part 2 of a brand new series of post, this time about the relationship between language and thought; Part 1 is here)

A provocative title, perhaps, and perhaps also counterintuitive. One thinks in the language one speaks, everybody knows that. Why would anyone ask bilingual speakers which language they think in (or dream in) otherwise?

I suspect that what people usually have in mind when they ask such questions is related to the phenomenon of inner speech, the experience of internally speaking to ourselves, which may well be ubiquitous in adults (but probably not in children), though not entirely universal. I certainly think that inner speech plays a role in thinking, but not as central a role as most people seem to think (I will come back to this on a later post, probably in Part 4 of this series, where I will also discuss how writers of fiction use the narrative technique of “interior monologue” to outline some of the mental processes of a given character (thinking, feeling, etc.) – but mostly to argue that authors generally go about it the wrong way!).

The point I want to make in this post is that no-one thinks in any natural language; not in English, or Italian, or whatever, but in a language of thought, an abstract, unconscious and moreover inaccessible, conceptual representational system of the mind. Or at least I intend to provide some of the evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that suggests that this is indeed the state of affairs.

The idea of a language of thought is in fact a rather old one. It effectively refers to the old doctrine that we think in a mental language that is not a spoken language. Traceable back to Aristotle, Boethius and William of Ockham (among others), the doctrine is to a large extent premised on the general observation that speakers of different languages can refer to the very same “things”, though they may employ different words to talk about them. As the French philosopher Claude Panaccio has aptly put it in a recent historical overview of the mental language, the French can talk about un homme whereas the English would say a man and the ancient Romans homo, but they all would have had the same “idea” in mind – the same concept, as cognitive scientists call such things, and as I myself mentioned last time around. Crucially, the same logic applies to the sentences in which the mentioned words can appear: homo curritun homme court and a man is running simply describe the same event – the same thought – in different languages.

This, at the very least, suggests a general intertranslatability among different languages, what the philosopher Jerry Katz once called the “effability principle” – namely, the intertranslatibility of whatever thought one might be able entertain in one language into another language (in rough outline, of course, not in precise, linguistic detail, and certainly not in terms of a one-to-one correspondence between words or phrases).

Continue reading…

From 3 Quarks Daily, here.