[Elelaytet]

"Luzzatto describes Toaff's work as a "magnificent book of history...Toaff holds that from 1100 to about 1500...several crucifixions of Christian children really happened, "

Toaff has denied that he said that, apparently Luzzato misunderstood his work.

Two arguments for the falsehood of the libel was A. Jews dont consume blood of any kind, its against biblical law and later halacha and B. All of the confessions were forced.

What Toaff found was that A. In some obscure Kabbalistic texts, its mentioned that blood can be used medicinally. B. SOme of the confessions apparently included some yiddish versions of prayers that the interrogators couldnt have understood, so must have been genuine, ergo not EVERYTHING that came out of prisoners mouths was what the interrogators forced.


There is still NO evidence that anyone DID use human blood in any way, let alone that anyone killed for it, and theres abundant evidence that the interrogations did use massive torture.

[ibiDb4uu]

I think this is an interesting, though dangerous question.

Were all Jews out to snatch Gentile babies and eat them? Obviously not. Was there ever a deviant subsect of Judaism which did do this (and whose deeds were afterwards amplified)? I don't know. There were a lot of weird belief groups in Europe during the middle ages. How much did the millenarianism and extremist theology of some elements of the Christian community affect the Jews living among them?

It's a dangerous question because it might embolden some crypto-antisemites. I'm not certain it's something worth studying right now.

[JorgiOLusinio]

On the other hand, this guy's book just sounds like sensationalist crap.

Trying to separate out truth from fiction on this issue would be incredibly difficult.

[Duaceanceksm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think this is an interesting, though dangerous question.

Were all Jews out to snatch Gentile babies and eat them? Obviously not. Was there ever a deviant subsect of Judaism which did do this (and whose deeds were afterwards amplified)? I don't know. and neither does Toaff. All he has is that some Jews used dried blood, which was apparently widely used as a "medicine" and used an obscure justification (not widely held) to justify use of otherwise banned blood. So it would be more proper to ask "did all Jews use blood" No, most did not. A weird subsect DID use blood. There is no evidence that even that weird subsect killed ANYONE other than the forced confessions, and Toaffs speculations that victimization and hatred could have led to it.

We've had such accusations in modern times, the Beiliss case, and certainly Jews of Russia had reasons for hatred as well. Yet that case proved to be a fraud. Why should we think these other cases were not frauds, just because there was a reason for hatred - the mere fact that use of blood was not against Jewish law for some weird sect doesnt establish that they used it.

[Allbrunette]

Someone has to do it:

Throw the Jew down the well, so my country can be free.
You must grab him by his horns, then we have a big party.

[jokiruss]

We've had such accusations in modern times, the Beiliss case, and certainly Jews of Russia had reasons for hatred as well. Yet that case proved to be a fraud. Why should we think these other cases were not frauds, just because there was a reason for hatred - the mere fact that use of blood was not against Jewish law for some weird sect doesnt establish that they used it.

I am in agreement. I just think that cult religious practices and beliefs are vaguely interesting. People can convince themselves to do the oddest things.

[Vodonaeva]

This reminds me of the chupacabras

[actifadepette]

Frankly i'd be surprised if SOMEONE jewish during the entire middle ages hadn't killed children, and quite possibly for their blood hannibal-style or something. There are plenty of messed up murderers out there... and one of them being jewish would not surprise me in the least.

Whether that justifies writing something like this ... I probably wouldn't write it, given the possible effects; but I can't suggest preventing it having been written, because I believe the truth will out anyway, and in freedom of expression

[Rffkwfct]

pointed out that he's out for attention and presumably book sales. This is a commercial enterprise he's engaged in, or so it seems.

The simple act of trying to make money from such a deliberatly hateful story based in one of the most violent and warped periods of western history should be enough to give most of us reason to question this individuals sanity.

[Anykeylo]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I think what the historian means is, lets imagine,

crusades + christian armies marching thru europe to Constantinople, they find a jewish town, and destroy it, very probably surviving jews would be very angry and enraged, and probably maybe some jew whose sons were killed by crusaders hundreds of years ago to get revenge killed a christian kid...... but that is completely meaningless, and not enough to write a book.
some guy whose son had died hundreds of years before? So the guy is hundreds of years old when he takes revenge? damn, thats some serious kabbalistic magic dude.

[ElegeExcest]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



some guy whose son had died hundreds of years before? So the guy is hundreds of years old when he takes revenge? damn, thats some serious kabbalistic magic dude. I must have written that in horrible english


Anyway, the golem is quite kick ass jewish magic

[ChexEcodece]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Now he will have to defend what he wrote and try to not look like an ass.
Too late.

[casinobonusa]

I mean even if we were in positions of power.