Talk:Blood libel against Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

WikiProject Echo has identified Blood libel against Jews as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

I removed the external link because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Pata Hikari

Contents 1 Saint Dominguito del Val 2 Link: [1] 2.1 Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified' 3 To Add? 4 Sources 5 Page protection 6 as for the ref. to Toaff 7 Palestinian children organs 8 Circumcision 9 =Ariel toaff

[edit] Saint Dominguito del Val

I think Saint Dominguito del Val should be added. It was the first Spanish case in

[edit] Link: [1]

An Israeli professor recently wrote a book called Pasque di Sangue (based on 35 years of research) about blood libel. I'm copying/pasting the article here in case it soon leaves Haaretz:

[edit] Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified'

By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent

The author of a book on the use of blood by Jews in Ashkenazi communities in the Middle Ages said Sunday, in the face of the furor its publication aroused, "I will not give up my devotion to the truth and academic freedom even if the world crucifies me."

In an interview with Haaretz from Rome, Professor Ariel Toaff said he stood behind the contention of his book, "Pasque di Sangue," just published in Italy, that there is a factual basis for some of the medieval blood libels against the Jews. However, he said he was sorry his arguments had been twisted.

"I tried to show that the Jewish world at that time was also violent, among other things because it had been hurt by Christian violence," the Bar-Ilan history professor said. Of course I do not claim that Judaism condones murder. But within Ashkenazi Judaism there were extremist groups that could have committed such an act and justified it," he said.

Toaff said he reached his conclusions after coming across testimony from the trial for the murder of a Christian child, Simon of Trento, in 1475, which in the past was believed to have been falsified. "I found there were statements and parts of the testimony that were not part of the Christian culture of the judges, and they could not have been invented or added by them. They were components appearing in prayers known from the [Jewish] prayer book.

"Over many dozens of pages I proved the centrality of blood on Passover," Toaff said. "Based on many sermons, I concluded that blood was used, especially by Ashkenazi Jews, and that there was a belief in the special curative powers of children's blood. It turns out that among the remedies of Ashkenazi Jews were powders made of blood."

Although the use of blood is prohibited by Jewish law, Toaff says he found proof of rabbinic permission to use blood, even human blood. "The rabbis permitted it both because the blood was already dried," and because in Ashkenazi communities it was an accepted custom that took on the force of law, Toaff said. There is no proof of acts of murder, Toaff said, but there were curses and hatred of Christians, and prayers inciting to cruel vengeance against Christians. "There was always the possibility that some crazy person would do something."

Toaff said the use of blood was common in medieval medicine. "In Germany, it became a real craze. Peddlers of medicines would sell human blood, the way you have a transfusion today. The Jews were influenced by this and did the same things.

"In one of the testimonies in the Trento trial, a peddler of sugar and blood is mentioned, who came to Venice," Toaff says. "I went to the archives in Venice and found that there had been a man peddling sugar and blood, which were basic products in pharmacies of the period. A man named Asher of Trento was also mentioned in the trial, who had ostensibly come with a bag and sold dried blood. One of the witnesses said he was tried for alchemy in Venice and arrested there. I took a team to the archives and found documentation of the man's trial. Thus, I found that it is not easy to discount all the testimony," he added.

Toaff, who will be returning to Israel today, said he was very hurt by accusations that his research plays into the hands of anti-Semitic incitement. "I am being presented like the new Yigal Amir. But one shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth." Toaff also said, "unfortunately my research has become marginal, and only the real or false implications it might have are being related to. I directed the research at intelligent people, who know that in the Jewish world there are different streams. I believe that academia cannot avoid dealing with issues that have an emotional impact. This is the truth, and if I don't publish it, someone else will find it and publish it."

Still, Toaff says he is sorry he did not explain some of the points in his book more clearly.

He claims that he has been making the same arguments for a long time. "After 35 years of research, I have not become a stupid anti-Semite, and have not published a book to make money."

In any case, Toaff says he believes his findings have current implications. "Extremists in the past brought disaster on us by false accusations. I wanted to show that hatred and incitement of this kind can develop, because there will always be someone who will take advantage of it."

Meanwhile, Bar-Ilan University announced Sunday that its president, Professor Moshe Kaveh, will summon Toaff to explain his research. The university's statement said it strongly objected to what was implied in media publications regarding Toaff's research, and condemned "any attempt to justify the terrible blood libels against the Jews." However, the university also reiterated that Toaff was among the senior lecturers in his field in Israel and internationally.

--172.131.52.157 06:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, can we try to keep our arguments brief and in regular (unbolded) text? Thank you.Proabivouac 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. --Aminz 07:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean?Proabivouac 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your comment but on the original post. --Aminz 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It's the indent that makes all the difference; should have used only two.Proabivouac 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason people here are censoring information that is entirely valid and relevant; they are trying to keep the academic that did this research (Ariel Toaff) off of this page. I do not understand why this is, considering that the book relates directly to blood libel accusations and Jews. They deleted the external links about this professor and his book, along with a brief excerpt from an interview with him; now the mere mention of his name in the article is deleted (even though some info about him is in the main Blood libel article -- but shouldn't it be mentioned in this article especially?). What gives? He is obviously an authority on this subject, probably on the foremost researchers on this subject in the world -- shouldn't his name be mentioned at least ONCE somewhere (anywhere!) in this article? Here are a few more links:

• Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified' in Haaretz
• Article in Jerusalem Post
• Commentary by Johannes Heil of the University of Heidelberg
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

--172.131.52.157 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This is one scholar's view, and it has been rejected by others. In addition, all the information about his views has so far come from second hands rather than from the book itself. Beit Or 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so quoting "the neo-Nazi site www.JRBooksOnline.com" isn't undue weight? How'd that manage to creep in there? Yes it has (obviously) been rejected by many (even though these people haven't read the book yet), but the book hasn't even been translated in to English or Hebrew yet (it's still only in Italian). However, the article's I've listed above feature numerous interviews with Toaff, so it's him in his own words (not a reporter's second-hand account) telling us what the book is about. --172.131.52.157 08:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this summary,[6] see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and again, please stop using boldface unless absolutely necessary.Proabivouac 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems informative [7] . It is a page from "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies" p.166-167 --Aminz 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That ties in well with Scapegoating, and the use of Jews as generic targets of blame in medieval Europe. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Add?

Perhaps the following belongs in the "Actual Jewish practices regarding blood and sacrifice" section along with a brief mention of Ariel Toaff?

On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy. Town magistrates arrested 18 Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder - the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites. In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. Eight were executed in late June, and another committed suicide in jail. [8]

--172.128.202.99 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no blood libel support here. Beit Or 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in Simon of Trent. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just stopping by, and realize I am stepping into some very treacherous ground here, but he did a/write and publish a book on the subject, and b/ the book attracted world wide attention. Of course, he thought better of it & recalled the book, but what's done is done. I cannot imagine he's right, but he did publish the book and it is on the subject. I would leave out the suggested paragraph, for it adds no new information, but it does need the link. The contents of his book is adequately covered at the article on him. Simon of Trent is adequately covered by the brief paragraph here. Possibly that needs a cross ref also. I like you am aghast that it should have been published, but now that it is we will all have to deal with it. Makes it harder for every Jew and rational non-Jew, but there it is. (Better we should put it in ourselves, than it should be put in by one of the very few Nazis at WP)DGG 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's point. Toaff deserves mentioning as a critic even if his ideas are completely wrong. --Aminz 10:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Toaff's views are held only by Toaff himself and do not belong anywhere outside Ariel Toaff. Beit Or 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I just love the terse "responses" used by so many of these editors to try and silence debate -- by all means, please attempt to explain yourself and your biased edits further both here and elsewhere. Obviously Toaff warrants a brief mention in this article -- as I've said many times, I'm not trying to insert paragraphs of material about his views, just a brief mention of his name (2 measly words). As for "minority views": what about the Neo-Nazi website used (minority view) generously on this page [NOTE: Neo-Nazis are a 'fringe' minority group]? You people cite Neo-Nazi websites before you cite a SCHOLAR with a doctorate?! Also, what about the link used in the section about Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval (minority view) -- NOTE: ONE OF THE REFERENCES FOR THIS PARAGRAPH IS DIRECTLY FROM AN ARTICLE ABOUT TOAFF, from Haaretz...talk about HYPOCRISY on a colossal scale, one using an article about Toaff to try and reinforce Yuval's "minority view"! BTW: this blatant censorship/bias could (and should) be used as a test case dealing with the systematic bias found within Wikipedia when it comes to certain articles (mostly Jewish-themed articles) and certain editors (mostly the editors/'protectors' of said articles). FACT: many of them are no longer able to maintain a NPOV when it comes to this subject and set of articles; thus, they have no business editing these articles any longer. The worst part about all of this is the fact that this obvious bias has crept up in to the highest levels, the administrators. Talk about "rouge admins".... --WassermannNYC 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can hear lots of shouting, but no references to policies. Beit Or 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

" Israel Is 'Stealing Palestinian Children's Eyes,' Iranian TV Series Says" is used as a source for:

A 2004 story from Iran speaks of Jewish doctors stealing organs of Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals.

The source, however, does not use the word blood libel. Can anyone show what relation this has to the topic of this article? Thanks.Bless sins 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, is that where I'm supposed to find a source? You knwo wikipedia articles can't use other wikipedia articles as sources.Bless sins 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, once a Wikipedia editor feels something in an article is relevant to a topic, they can include any sources they want about the item raised in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. If it is shown, by reliable sources, that an idea is relevent to topic of the article, then reliable source on that idea can be included. You're going around talk page to talk page, accusing me thing I didn't do/putting words in my mouth. Please stop it.Bless sins 05:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've been quite explicit that individual sources do not have to explicitly refer to the topic of the article. Those are your rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh> I'm getting tired of your games where you criticize me, and thus evade the original argument. If you want to prove/disprove something's compatability with wikipedia, you have to use Wiki policies, not my statements. Please just find the sources that make a connection, and make life easier for both of us.Bless sins 05:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, do all sources used in an article need to explictly refer to the subject of the article? If you don't answer "yes", then you have no grounds to object to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No question has a "Yes or no, please, nothing else" (this is what you originally stated) answer. One needs a reliable source to make a connection between two topics. What is the connection between "doctors stealing organs", and "use of human blood in religious rituals"? Bless sins 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say "yes", so you have no grounds to object. Sorry, your rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I never said no either. Please just provide the source/connection, and stop violating WP:POINT.Bless sins 05:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, do all sources used in an article need to explictly refer to the subject of the article? If you don't answer "yes", then you have no grounds to object to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked me the question, and then you impose an answer on me. What makes you think the asnwer to that question is a "yes"/"no" answer? It isn't. I'll repeat: One needs a reliable source to make a connection between two topics. If you find something unclear in my response, then notify me. Also, don't violate WP:Point, namely disrupting Blood libel against Jews in order to make a point on Islam and antisemitism. Bless sins 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's not policy. WP:ATT says nothing about having to "make a connection between the two topics". It says every single source or argument must be attributed to a source in relation to the topic of the article. This article is about Blood libel. When you operate on people there is blood involved. All organs contain blood. There you have it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link that shows that the eye contains blood and blood vessels: [9] The link has been made. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that a source must be in relation to the topic of the article. Agreed. "Blood libel" is about "use of blood" in "religious rituals". The source says nothing about Israelis using "blood", rather using "organs". Also the source says nothing about whether the blood/organs were used in any "religious rituals [of Judaism]".

In any case are willing to have such a relaxed attitude on the article Islam and antisemitism.Bless sins 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I have locked the page to allow people an chance to discuss their differences. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] as for the ref. to Toaff

I really thing proportional representation needs at least the link. Actually, I think it needs a paragraph, both at the end, and for the section about his key example. But a link will do as a compromise.

You can't hide from it. I wish he had thought more carefully about the interpretation of his evidence. i wish he had thought about the likelihood of his conclusions. I wish he had considered writing the book just about the evidence for Jewish self-defense. And I deeply wish the book at not been published at the remarkably unfortunate time it was. I support free academic research into even this, but I also support common sense in publishing it. But is published. Everyone likely to be interested in the subject knows about it. All the bigots know about it. Leaving out the reference looks like excessively self-protective behavior, which I think we all can ill afford. It makes those predisposed against Jews to think that Jews have something to hideDGG 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "excessively self-protective behavior", but the adherence to WP:NPOV, which demands that fringe views are restricted to articles about themselves, in this case to Ariel Toaff. Beit Or 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian children organs

From what I can tell, the Palestinian children organs things isn't an accusation amounting to blood libel. The accusation was that they were stealing organs for transplants. Not for ritualistic purposes. While it seems to be anti-semitic and seems extremely unlikely to be true, it's not blood libel IMHO Nil Einne 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circumcision

Did the blood libel have anything to do with circumcision, this isn't mentioned. Like, the foreskin must be cut, then the rabbi has to draw blood.

So, okay, if this is in a Jewish family, then no Christian knows about it. But, what about in a mixed marriage, or what about if a Jewish family adopted a Christian child, or the child of relatives who had converted to Christianity?

Then, what do you have? A child who might be considered Jewish by descent to Jews (considered Christian by Christians)...who at an age perhaps well above infancy, being cut by a rabbi (or mohle) and then having his penis sucked until blood comes out...What would this look like to an observer?

Is it any surprise that the 'blood libel' should keep on coming up in an age of ignorance and the mutual suspicion and general separateness of races?

There is a feeling on this page that the 'blood libel' was created by Christians out of hatred, rather than something which might have a cause in Jewish ritual being misunderstood by Christians in a climate of mutual suspicion, fear, envy and jealousy.

This article even smacks of prejudice against Christians.194.112.59.100 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =Ariel toaff

I do not think it is possible to validly assert that Toaff is not a significant recent writer on the subject, or that a link to the article by him is undue weight. I also do not see the point of us reverting each other on a daily basis. A widely known book, and the lastest one, from a recognized scholar centered exactly on the precise subject in question here must be taken into account. I think a full paragraph is appropriate weight. How shall we decide this.? DGG 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)