The Rabbinical Council of America has issued the following statement on Pasque di Sangue. It is my understanding that it was vetted by a world famous medieval Jewish historian :
Mar 1, 2007 -- The accusation that Jews practice a ritual in which they murder a Christian child in order to utilize his blood has led to untold suffering inflicted on innocent Jews from the twelfth century into modern times. During the last several generations, all civilized people came to realize that this is a hostile fantasy with no basis in reality. Notwithstanding this consensus, virulent anti-Semites, from the Nazis in Der Sturmer to a disturbing number of contemporary Arab enemies of Israel, have maliciously continued to affirm its validity.
Now, a book by the Israeli professor Ariel Toaff has provided aid and comfort to such anti-Semites by implying that a small group of late medieval Jewish extremists might have actually engaged in such behavior. Toaff has withdrawn the book and insisted that he never meant to say this, but his work has been widely understood to suggest such a possibility. Readers of news reports naturally wonder whether he has really discovered evidence that should lead to a reassessment.
It is extremely important that everyone understand that he has uncovered nothing—absolutely nothing—that calls the utter falsity of the blood libel into question. His argument rests essentially on the following: Some medieval Europeans—Jews and Christians-- believed that blood had curative powers; a few of them traded in medicines containing blood; Jews had reason to be hostile to Christians who persecuted them, and they sometimes expressed this hostility in their religious texts; Jews interrogated under torture confessed to ritual murder; some of these Jews supplied accurate texts of the Passover haggadah to their interrogators, though the texts themselves lend no support whatever to the accusation in question.
It is an insult to the intelligence to affirm that these considerations generate even a minuscule degree of support for the proposition that Jews murdered Christians for their blood. Internal Jewish texts contain not a scintilla of evidence for such a practice. They flatly forbid murder, and the legal principles they embody render unthinkable the practice of blood rituals of the sort that the torturers report. Jews, Christian scholars, even the vast majority of Jewish converts to Christianity through the ages affirmed that such charges are entirely, outrageously false. Indeed, Adriano Prosperi, a distinguished non-Jewish Italian historian, described Toaff’s book as a “carnivalesque joke in the worst taste.” Jew-haters have no interest in truth and will both embrace and inflate reports purportedly confirming their fabrications. It comes as no surprise that their websites have gleefully disseminated the imagined findings of Toaff's book. But people of good will should not be confused. The blood libel has always been a lie—and it remains a lie.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Siddur on Line
A few months ago I complained that there's no siddur on line. Well, that's been rectified (for Ashkenazim, at least). At My Siddur you can get davening for Shabbos and Hol. Thanks to JR for the reference.)
On the other hand, I wonder how Hazal survived without this handy little item.
On the other hand, I wonder how Hazal survived without this handy little item.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Are There Limits to Academic Freedom?
Hence, the answer of Professor Reuven Bonfil, in today's Haaretz:
ממה חוששים שם, בבר אילן
האומנם גוזר החופש האקדמי חובה שלא להגיב על פרסומים בעייתיים
מאת ראובן בונפיל
האומנם גוזר החופש האקדמי חובה שלא להגיב על פרסומים בעייתיים
מאת ראובן בונפיל
חלפו שלושה שבועות מאז החל מחול השדים סביב ספרו השערורייתי של אריאל טואף "פסח של דם". אך המבוכה, הבלבול והחרדה שנגרמו בעטיו לא נמוגו. אדרבה, בעקבות התנהגותו ההפכפכה של המחבר והעמדה העמומה של אוניברסיטת בר אילן, ויותר מכך בעקבות התגובה של ועדת החינוך של הכנסת, שעוררה אצל רבים וטובים חשש להתערבות שלטונית בחופש המחקר במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה, מוסט עתה הדיון לכיוון עוד יותר בעייתי. ישראל היא מדינה חופשית ודמוקרטית. במדינה חופשית רשאי אדם לכתוב ולפרסם מה שלבו חפץ, ובלבד שלא יחצה את גבול הפלילים.
אשר על כן, חופש הדיבור והבעת דעות אינו כלל ממין העניין כאן. במדינה חופשית אין גם מקום להתערבות שלטונית בחופש ההוראה המחקר והפרסום במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה. שאלה אחרת לגמרי היא שאלת זכותו של אדם להשתמש בלא הגבלה באצטלה המקצועית המוענקת לו בתור חבר סגל במוסד אקדמי. אריאל טואף הוא פרופסור מן המניין באוניברסיטה מכובדת בישראל. מעמדו מעניק לו זכות וחובה להורות לתלמידים ולהדריך אותם במלאכת המחקר ההיסטורי, לשפוט את הישגי עמיתיו בשבתו בוועדות מקצועיות ולהכריע בגורלם האקדמי.
אם אמנם ראשי אוניברסיטת בר אילן רואים את שיטותיו המחקריות של טואף כתואמות את הסטנדרטים של המוסד ומייצגות אותם נאמנה, זכותם ואף חובתם לגבות אותו בשם החופש האקדמי, יהא המחיר אשר יהא. אם זה המצב, רשאים ראשי אוניברסיטת בר אילן גם להתעלם מחוות הדעת של המומחים שפסלו את "פסח של דם", ולבכר את דברי הסבורים שהוא ראוי להתייחסות אקדמית רצינית במסגרת מחלוקת חוקרים הראויה להתקיים, תוך התעלמות מהנזק לביטחונם של יהודים בעולם, מהאפשרות לשימוש בספר בתעמולה האנטישמית, או מהפגיעה בתהליך העדין של ההידברות עם הכנסייה הקתולית. הם גם רשאים להתעלם מתסכול של ההיסטוריונים העושים מלאכתם באמונה באוניברסיטת בר אילן. אולם אם יש ספקות בעניין זה בקרב הנהלתה, על נשיא האוניברסיטה, על הרקטור ועל דיקן הפקולטה למדעי היהדות להציג עמדה ברורה ולנקוט צעדים המתבקשים מעמדה כזו.
ממה הם חוששים? וכי ידיו של המוסד כבולות לחלוטין, גם כאשר מתברר שמי מחברי הסגל שעד אתמול היה נראה ככשיר מבחינה מקצועית ואתית אינו כזה ונוהג בצורה שאינה הולמת את מקצועו וגורם נזק גדול? האומנם גוזר החופש האקדמי חובה בלתי מוגבלת שלא להגיב ולהתייחס בשוויון נפש בפני הגילויים של שנאת ישראל שהפרסום מלבה בחוץ לארץ ואחריתם מי ישורנו? אם במקרה כזה יחליטו ראשי האוניברסיטה לשחרר את טואף מכל תפקידיו האקדמיים ויסתכנו בתביעה משפטית, היעלה על הדעת ששופטים בישראל או בכל מדינה חופשית אחרת יחייבו אותם להעניק חזקת אמינות מקצועית למי שנראה פשוט וברור שאינו ראוי לה?
כל הדיבורים על חופש הדיבור, חופש המחקר, חופש הפרסום ושכמותם אינם ממין העניין כאן כלל ועיקר. מי שמסיט את הדיון לכיוון זה גורם נזק תדמיתי נוסף למדינת ישראל, ולמערכת ההשכלה הגבוהה בה.
הכותב הוא פרופסור אמריטוס להיסטוריה של עם ישראל, באוניברסיטה העברית
Of Temple Emanuel, Kavod ha-Beriyot and Other Problems
In the past, I have had occasion to mention the fact that I grew up in a Conservative home, and to acknowledge (with thanks) the education that I received, as a result. That is, perhaps, why I feel a tinge of outrage at the abysmal ignorance (ignorant arrogance, and arrogant ignorance) that characterizes Conservative rabbis and (a fortiori) laypersons.
I recently came upon a poignant case in point, on the website of my former haunt, Temple Emanuel in Newton Centre (Ma.). The current rabbi, a very nice fellow who I once met at the Kotel on Shavuoth morning, has posted his position on Gay 'commitment ceremonies.' Truth to tell, I was not surprised that he supports these, and is willing to perform them. Nor was I bowled over to read that the performance of such 'ceremonies' in the synagogue will be put to a congregational vote. (After all, as the late Marshall Sklare once pointed out, Conservative Judaism is the Jewish version of American Congregationalism.)
What upset and angered me, as it always does, was the shallowness of the argument presented. In addition, I never cease to be amazed at the incredible moxy of Conservative apologists, who distort, distend and disembody elements of Jewish tradition in order to achieve their ends. (Here, indeed, I place the onus on the appointed spokesmen and scholars of the movement. The rabbis they train mere repeat their words.)
Enough has already been written about the illegitimate use of the word 'halakhic' (sic!) to describe the violent removal of a verse from the Bible. There's no novelty in that either. The Conservative movement has been doing that for sixty years. (In fact, I must add that while I was well on my way out of the movement when I read it, the so-called 'responsum' on driving to synagogue on Shabbos gave me an added push. Rarely, before or since, have I encountered a more intellectually dishonest presentation. Even if it was written 'from a good place.') Shabbos, Gilui Arayos...What's the difference?
What really got my lather up was the appeal to 'Human Dignity' or Kavod ha-Beriyot. Quoting, Rabbi Elliott Dorff, the rabbi writes:
He then brought in another crucial halakhic concept called k’vod habriot, human dignity, which itself flows from one of the Torah’s most powerful teachings: that all human beings are created in God’s image. And if they are created in God’s image, they deserve dignity.
This is not some fuzzy funkadelic 21st century concept. The Talmud itself makes a big deal about human dignity as being a halakhic imperative which can override rabbinic and even biblical precepts.
So, now: Human Dignity trumps submission to God. Human Dignity allows one to sin (and commit Giluy Arayot, at that). Human Dignity is, in effect, the highest value known to Man, er... Judaism. Truth to tell, that has been the case with the Conservative Movement, ever since it was hijacked by Mordechai Kaplan. It is a narcissistic religion that worships man. God, as a result, must bend His Will to fit Man's ever-changing perception of Life. As Chernihovsky put it, they put Tefillin on the Statue of Apollo. I wish they would simply be intellectually honest and admit (as Reform Judaism did over a century ago) that they reject anything Jewish that does not fit their dynamic weltanschauung.
On the other hand, Kavod ha-Beriyot certainly is a powerful and central feature and value of Judaism. It overrides a number of De-Rabbanans (which are based on De-Oraysas). Many,many people who view themselves as observant Jews could well use a refresher course in the Laws of Human Dignity. (See the Introduction of the Netziv to his commentary on Bereshis.)
Nevertheless, it has its limits, however. Human convenience, even human need, never overrides God's Will. Does that raise moral issues? Certainly. Do we need to grapple and address those issues within the parameters afforded us? No Question. Does it require of us both sensitivity and respect? Absolutely!!! Does it justify doing violence to the Torah, or intellectual and spiritual dishonesty. Under no circumstance!!!
Food for thought, as we go to dispense of our spiritual חמץ
I recently came upon a poignant case in point, on the website of my former haunt, Temple Emanuel in Newton Centre (Ma.). The current rabbi, a very nice fellow who I once met at the Kotel on Shavuoth morning, has posted his position on Gay 'commitment ceremonies.' Truth to tell, I was not surprised that he supports these, and is willing to perform them. Nor was I bowled over to read that the performance of such 'ceremonies' in the synagogue will be put to a congregational vote. (After all, as the late Marshall Sklare once pointed out, Conservative Judaism is the Jewish version of American Congregationalism.)
What upset and angered me, as it always does, was the shallowness of the argument presented. In addition, I never cease to be amazed at the incredible moxy of Conservative apologists, who distort, distend and disembody elements of Jewish tradition in order to achieve their ends. (Here, indeed, I place the onus on the appointed spokesmen and scholars of the movement. The rabbis they train mere repeat their words.)
Enough has already been written about the illegitimate use of the word 'halakhic' (sic!) to describe the violent removal of a verse from the Bible. There's no novelty in that either. The Conservative movement has been doing that for sixty years. (In fact, I must add that while I was well on my way out of the movement when I read it, the so-called 'responsum' on driving to synagogue on Shabbos gave me an added push. Rarely, before or since, have I encountered a more intellectually dishonest presentation. Even if it was written 'from a good place.') Shabbos, Gilui Arayos...What's the difference?
What really got my lather up was the appeal to 'Human Dignity' or Kavod ha-Beriyot. Quoting, Rabbi Elliott Dorff, the rabbi writes:
He then brought in another crucial halakhic concept called k’vod habriot, human dignity, which itself flows from one of the Torah’s most powerful teachings: that all human beings are created in God’s image. And if they are created in God’s image, they deserve dignity.
This is not some fuzzy funkadelic 21st century concept. The Talmud itself makes a big deal about human dignity as being a halakhic imperative which can override rabbinic and even biblical precepts.
So, now: Human Dignity trumps submission to God. Human Dignity allows one to sin (and commit Giluy Arayot, at that). Human Dignity is, in effect, the highest value known to Man, er... Judaism. Truth to tell, that has been the case with the Conservative Movement, ever since it was hijacked by Mordechai Kaplan. It is a narcissistic religion that worships man. God, as a result, must bend His Will to fit Man's ever-changing perception of Life. As Chernihovsky put it, they put Tefillin on the Statue of Apollo. I wish they would simply be intellectually honest and admit (as Reform Judaism did over a century ago) that they reject anything Jewish that does not fit their dynamic weltanschauung.
On the other hand, Kavod ha-Beriyot certainly is a powerful and central feature and value of Judaism. It overrides a number of De-Rabbanans (which are based on De-Oraysas). Many,many people who view themselves as observant Jews could well use a refresher course in the Laws of Human Dignity. (See the Introduction of the Netziv to his commentary on Bereshis.)
Nevertheless, it has its limits, however. Human convenience, even human need, never overrides God's Will. Does that raise moral issues? Certainly. Do we need to grapple and address those issues within the parameters afforded us? No Question. Does it require of us both sensitivity and respect? Absolutely!!! Does it justify doing violence to the Torah, or intellectual and spiritual dishonesty. Under no circumstance!!!
Food for thought, as we go to dispense of our spiritual חמץ
Monday, March 05, 2007
Moderate Palestinians? Give Me A Break!
This latest from Martin Sherman (via YNet; Emphases Added):
Myth of moderation: Fundamentalist Hamas, secular Fatah have same vision: Israel's destruction
Martin Sherman
Strangely enough, a poll recently published by Near East Consulting (NEC,) an institution that conducts monthly surveys of Palestinian public opinion, was given hardly any attention by the Israeli media – despite its grave and far reaching ramifications. The results of the poll showed that when asked the question: "Does Israel have the right to exist?" an overwhelming majority (75 percent) of the respondents answered with a resounding "No."
However, worrying as these findings are, analysis of the results according to the age of those polled gives even more cause for concern. These show that the younger the respondents are, the greater their tendency to reject Israel's right to exist. For example, among those aged 18-21, about 90% stated that Israel had no right to exist. For younger age groups, the refusal to acknowledge this right was virtually absolute, reaching almost 100%. Accordingly, there appears little hope that future generations will be the harbinger of better understanding.
In spite of the gravity of these results, they should come as no real surprise to the sober observer of Palestinian society. After all, we should recall that the great majority of the Palestinian public belongs to, supports and/or identifies with, either the Hamas or the Fatah movements. This is reflected in the results of the last election for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006, in which these two organizations won over 90% of the seats in the Council – 119 out of 132.
Just what the intrinsic nature of these groups is, can be easily ascertained from an examination of their founding charters, which reveal the fundamental raison d'etre for their existence and the motivations behind their creation.
In the case of Hamas, there is of course little room for doubt. In the opening paragraph of its Charter, one finds the following declaration: "Israel … will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." The impossibility of accepting the State of Israel and its right to exist are further underscored in Article 28, which asserts: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
Presumably, the venomous style and content of the Hamas' texts will not come as a great shock to much of the Israeli public. This, however, is not the case when it comes to the Fatah, the organization headed by Mahmoud Abbas, a man invariably portrayed as the epitome of moderation and ardent advocate of peace.
Confront leaders with troubling question
In the public debate in Israel, the prevailing custom is to strive to differentiate clearly between the implacable enmity of Hamas towards Israel, and the allegedly more restrained Fatah attitude. However, cursory perusal of the Constitution of the organization will quickly dispel this illusion. For it is immediately apparent that it articulates the very same burning hatred of the Jews and very same repudiation of the right of Jews to a state in the Land of Israel.
Thus for example, Article (19) proclaims: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated." This sentiment is reinforced in Article (12), which declares that Fatah's goal is the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
So it turns out that the major difference between the extremist Hamas and the moderate Fatah is that while the former formulates its aspirations to destroy Israel in religious terms, the latter does so in more secular terms. But this cannot obscure the fact that both are immutably committed to erase all remnants of Zionism from the face of the Earth.
In light of all this, one might expect the Israeli public to urgently confront those charged with safeguarding its destiny, with a troubling and trenchant question: When the political leadership constantly stresses the need to strengthen "the moderate factions" among the Palestinians, who is it actually referring to? Who is it recommending should be allowed to control the hills overlooking Ben Gurion Airport, to deploy along the length of Highway 6 (the trans-Israel motorway,) to take over vital water sources east of the coastal plain and the approaches to the "strategic installations" around Ashkelon? Those who wish to destroy Israel in the name of Islam; or those who wish to do so in the name of a more secular rationale?
One might expect that the democratic duty of the Israeli public would be to force this question onto its leadership and insist on clear, coherent and convincing answers. But will the public take the time to put aside the weekday pressures of mortgage payments and the weekend pleasures of barbeques and beaches to do so? If the past is any criterion to judge by, this would appear doubtful – and perhaps that is exactly what the political patrons of the myth of moderation are counting on.
Myth of moderation: Fundamentalist Hamas, secular Fatah have same vision: Israel's destruction
Martin Sherman
Strangely enough, a poll recently published by Near East Consulting (NEC,) an institution that conducts monthly surveys of Palestinian public opinion, was given hardly any attention by the Israeli media – despite its grave and far reaching ramifications. The results of the poll showed that when asked the question: "Does Israel have the right to exist?" an overwhelming majority (75 percent) of the respondents answered with a resounding "No."
However, worrying as these findings are, analysis of the results according to the age of those polled gives even more cause for concern. These show that the younger the respondents are, the greater their tendency to reject Israel's right to exist. For example, among those aged 18-21, about 90% stated that Israel had no right to exist. For younger age groups, the refusal to acknowledge this right was virtually absolute, reaching almost 100%. Accordingly, there appears little hope that future generations will be the harbinger of better understanding.
In spite of the gravity of these results, they should come as no real surprise to the sober observer of Palestinian society. After all, we should recall that the great majority of the Palestinian public belongs to, supports and/or identifies with, either the Hamas or the Fatah movements. This is reflected in the results of the last election for the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006, in which these two organizations won over 90% of the seats in the Council – 119 out of 132.
Just what the intrinsic nature of these groups is, can be easily ascertained from an examination of their founding charters, which reveal the fundamental raison d'etre for their existence and the motivations behind their creation.
In the case of Hamas, there is of course little room for doubt. In the opening paragraph of its Charter, one finds the following declaration: "Israel … will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." The impossibility of accepting the State of Israel and its right to exist are further underscored in Article 28, which asserts: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
Presumably, the venomous style and content of the Hamas' texts will not come as a great shock to much of the Israeli public. This, however, is not the case when it comes to the Fatah, the organization headed by Mahmoud Abbas, a man invariably portrayed as the epitome of moderation and ardent advocate of peace.
Confront leaders with troubling question
In the public debate in Israel, the prevailing custom is to strive to differentiate clearly between the implacable enmity of Hamas towards Israel, and the allegedly more restrained Fatah attitude. However, cursory perusal of the Constitution of the organization will quickly dispel this illusion. For it is immediately apparent that it articulates the very same burning hatred of the Jews and very same repudiation of the right of Jews to a state in the Land of Israel.
Thus for example, Article (19) proclaims: "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated." This sentiment is reinforced in Article (12), which declares that Fatah's goal is the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
So it turns out that the major difference between the extremist Hamas and the moderate Fatah is that while the former formulates its aspirations to destroy Israel in religious terms, the latter does so in more secular terms. But this cannot obscure the fact that both are immutably committed to erase all remnants of Zionism from the face of the Earth.
In light of all this, one might expect the Israeli public to urgently confront those charged with safeguarding its destiny, with a troubling and trenchant question: When the political leadership constantly stresses the need to strengthen "the moderate factions" among the Palestinians, who is it actually referring to? Who is it recommending should be allowed to control the hills overlooking Ben Gurion Airport, to deploy along the length of Highway 6 (the trans-Israel motorway,) to take over vital water sources east of the coastal plain and the approaches to the "strategic installations" around Ashkelon? Those who wish to destroy Israel in the name of Islam; or those who wish to do so in the name of a more secular rationale?
One might expect that the democratic duty of the Israeli public would be to force this question onto its leadership and insist on clear, coherent and convincing answers. But will the public take the time to put aside the weekday pressures of mortgage payments and the weekend pleasures of barbeques and beaches to do so? If the past is any criterion to judge by, this would appear doubtful – and perhaps that is exactly what the political patrons of the myth of moderation are counting on.
Don't Fence Me In
Over the past few months, we've watched the behemoth rise over us: The so-called security fence that: a) won't stop suicide bombers b) will weaken our claim on most of JUdea and Samaria c) won't stop rockets and missiles d) won't discourage our enemies e) will embitter our lives and those of our visitors f) won't stop the flow of arms to the Israeli Arabs and g) will advance the cause of the leftists who run the judiciary (who've never met an Arab they didn't like or a Jew they didn't loath. E.g. they upheld Arab land claims in Gush Etzion that were 'certified' by the State of Israel, on YomKippur and 'signed' by clerks long dead.)
In light of that, consider the following:
A Call to Yesha Residents: Pass Through Freely!
15 Adar 5767, 05 March 07 03:39
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) The Yesha-based Komemiyut (Uprightness) organization calls upon the pioneering Jewish residents not to cooperate with plans to stop all non-local cars from driving freely to Yesha (Judea and Samaria).A test-run of a new army system to control traffic into and out of Yesha is in place at the Eliyahu Crossing, leading into Karnei Shomron, Tzofim, Alfei Menashe and other areas. Local residents are identified by car-stickers or electronically by their license plates, and are allowed through freely; other vehicles - such as those of visitors and suppliers - will have to either wait in line with Arabs, including the potential terrorists who are the reason for the checkpoints, or will be routed through a different line.A recent issue of Komemiyut's weekly journal wrote as follows:
In the past few years, the horizons around us are changing, as are our daily lives. The expanses of Samaria, Binyamin and Judea are being sliced and cut through with ugly, broad concrete walls, which have wounded both the landscape and the loyal Jewish heart.Of late, large threatening "border crossings" have been added to these walls, closing us off even further. The security establishment has now unilaterally decided on a system that effectively turns the checkpoints into full-fledged border crossings. The test-run at the Tzofim Checkpoint is designed to check our behavior, in preparation for its implementation at all the checkpoints....So what's so terrible if we get to pass freely through special lanes? But what about our relatives and guests who will have to wait for a long time in the slow lanes - they will think twice about coming! In addition, the new system turns the Partition Wall into a de-facto political border in every sense. The authorities will be able to close of the crossings at any time, and hermetically seal off and isolate our communities for various purposes, such as when they want to destroy outposts.The new system is a copy of the closing of the Kisufim Crossing - which hermetically sealed off Gush Katif in preparation for its destruction - throughout all of Judea and Samaria. With our past bitter experience, we know that we cannot let this begin to happen. But most important of all is the far-reaching psychological influence this will have on the public regarding the status of our communities. People will regard our towns as being practically in another country! We will be out the public eye, and out of the public heart. Therefore, we must stand strong at this time - and refuse absolutely to cooperate with the new system, so as to cause it to be withdrawn and canceled. We call upon the residents not to mark their cars with stickers, and not to register our cars with the electronic identification system. Let us arrive at the checkpoints and demand to be let through. If they stop us, we will stand in place and not move until they let us. It will cost us much time and nerves at first - but we must realize that the army needs these fast lanes even more than we do, in order to avoid a dangerous mixing of Israeli and Arab cars.If we are willing to pay a price in the short run, and don't give in to IDF threats and the natural desire for short-term convenience, the situation will return to what it was. If not, we will pay a much higher price in the medium and long range.This civil struggle is part of a larger campaign involving Knesset Members, regional council heads, lawyers, and more. We have too many walls, fences and checkpoints! We must wake up, stand upright, and continue to be a free nation in our land!
In light of that, consider the following:
A Call to Yesha Residents: Pass Through Freely!
15 Adar 5767, 05 March 07 03:39
by Hillel Fendel
(IsraelNN.com) The Yesha-based Komemiyut (Uprightness) organization calls upon the pioneering Jewish residents not to cooperate with plans to stop all non-local cars from driving freely to Yesha (Judea and Samaria).A test-run of a new army system to control traffic into and out of Yesha is in place at the Eliyahu Crossing, leading into Karnei Shomron, Tzofim, Alfei Menashe and other areas. Local residents are identified by car-stickers or electronically by their license plates, and are allowed through freely; other vehicles - such as those of visitors and suppliers - will have to either wait in line with Arabs, including the potential terrorists who are the reason for the checkpoints, or will be routed through a different line.A recent issue of Komemiyut's weekly journal wrote as follows:
In the past few years, the horizons around us are changing, as are our daily lives. The expanses of Samaria, Binyamin and Judea are being sliced and cut through with ugly, broad concrete walls, which have wounded both the landscape and the loyal Jewish heart.Of late, large threatening "border crossings" have been added to these walls, closing us off even further. The security establishment has now unilaterally decided on a system that effectively turns the checkpoints into full-fledged border crossings. The test-run at the Tzofim Checkpoint is designed to check our behavior, in preparation for its implementation at all the checkpoints....So what's so terrible if we get to pass freely through special lanes? But what about our relatives and guests who will have to wait for a long time in the slow lanes - they will think twice about coming! In addition, the new system turns the Partition Wall into a de-facto political border in every sense. The authorities will be able to close of the crossings at any time, and hermetically seal off and isolate our communities for various purposes, such as when they want to destroy outposts.The new system is a copy of the closing of the Kisufim Crossing - which hermetically sealed off Gush Katif in preparation for its destruction - throughout all of Judea and Samaria. With our past bitter experience, we know that we cannot let this begin to happen. But most important of all is the far-reaching psychological influence this will have on the public regarding the status of our communities. People will regard our towns as being practically in another country! We will be out the public eye, and out of the public heart. Therefore, we must stand strong at this time - and refuse absolutely to cooperate with the new system, so as to cause it to be withdrawn and canceled. We call upon the residents not to mark their cars with stickers, and not to register our cars with the electronic identification system. Let us arrive at the checkpoints and demand to be let through. If they stop us, we will stand in place and not move until they let us. It will cost us much time and nerves at first - but we must realize that the army needs these fast lanes even more than we do, in order to avoid a dangerous mixing of Israeli and Arab cars.If we are willing to pay a price in the short run, and don't give in to IDF threats and the natural desire for short-term convenience, the situation will return to what it was. If not, we will pay a much higher price in the medium and long range.This civil struggle is part of a larger campaign involving Knesset Members, regional council heads, lawyers, and more. We have too many walls, fences and checkpoints! We must wake up, stand upright, and continue to be a free nation in our land!
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Layl Purim 5767
A Gut un freilichen Purim to Everyone! The Rav זצ"ל in this shiur, published in the first chapter here, notes that Purim is both a serious and a deliriously happy day. So, a few notes in that light.
1) Purim Torah Number One: Today someone in shul started a discussion as to whether men are allowed to wear wedding rings. He told me that two rabbanim (both of whom I respect) are against it, unless the wife wants it. I hope this is Purim Torah. If it's prohibited, the wife's desires are irrelevant. As it happens, it's not assur. Why should it be? 1) It's not כלי אישה because we're talking about men's rings. 2) It's not a problem with the קידושין because we're no discussing double ring ceremonies (which are allowed, if properly done. IOW, the חתן gives the ring after שבע ברכות and it's made clear that this gift has no halakhic significance.) 3) It's not חוקות עכו"ם because it's a) not irrational b) not arrogant c) not done in order to assimilate. Ayyy, yeshivish people don't do it. Zollen mir zayn gezunt un shtark. That's irrelevant.
2) Pasque di Sangue Redux- For those of you who think that the book has no defenders. Think again. The noted post-Jew, Yehiam Shorek, has stood up for the exposing of nefarious Jewish practices. Ben Dror Yemini responds to him here. As for the Muslims, they're eating this up. Note this exchange on Egyptian TV (courtesy of MemriTV.)
3) Amalek Redux- The commandment to wipe out Amalek certainly poses moral questions. It is especially challenging in light of the famous comment by Reb Hayyim Brisker זצ"ל that nations who try to destroy the Jews attain the sttus of Amalek. Some of the issues are noted by Gil, here. So let's ask ourselves the following question: The Iranians (i.e. Persians) are planning to nuke the Jews of Israel and murder 6,000,000 Jews. That's a fact. The world will do absolutely nothing to prevent. That too is a fact. (See Caroline Glick's latest column.) So, do we hit first and kill untold numbers of Iranians, or do we do what the Leftists and the rest of the World would prefer, 'Go gently into that (not so) good night'? The trouble is that while the idea of dying for the salvation of mankind may have emerged from Judaism, we do not believe in it.
I promised hilarity. No go. I'll go open the bottle of Chivas I bought in the JFK duty free. Then we'll see what develops.
1) Purim Torah Number One: Today someone in shul started a discussion as to whether men are allowed to wear wedding rings. He told me that two rabbanim (both of whom I respect) are against it, unless the wife wants it. I hope this is Purim Torah. If it's prohibited, the wife's desires are irrelevant. As it happens, it's not assur. Why should it be? 1) It's not כלי אישה because we're talking about men's rings. 2) It's not a problem with the קידושין because we're no discussing double ring ceremonies (which are allowed, if properly done. IOW, the חתן gives the ring after שבע ברכות and it's made clear that this gift has no halakhic significance.) 3) It's not חוקות עכו"ם because it's a) not irrational b) not arrogant c) not done in order to assimilate. Ayyy, yeshivish people don't do it. Zollen mir zayn gezunt un shtark. That's irrelevant.
2) Pasque di Sangue Redux- For those of you who think that the book has no defenders. Think again. The noted post-Jew, Yehiam Shorek, has stood up for the exposing of nefarious Jewish practices. Ben Dror Yemini responds to him here. As for the Muslims, they're eating this up. Note this exchange on Egyptian TV (courtesy of MemriTV.)
3) Amalek Redux- The commandment to wipe out Amalek certainly poses moral questions. It is especially challenging in light of the famous comment by Reb Hayyim Brisker זצ"ל that nations who try to destroy the Jews attain the sttus of Amalek. Some of the issues are noted by Gil, here. So let's ask ourselves the following question: The Iranians (i.e. Persians) are planning to nuke the Jews of Israel and murder 6,000,000 Jews. That's a fact. The world will do absolutely nothing to prevent. That too is a fact. (See Caroline Glick's latest column.) So, do we hit first and kill untold numbers of Iranians, or do we do what the Leftists and the rest of the World would prefer, 'Go gently into that (not so) good night'? The trouble is that while the idea of dying for the salvation of mankind may have emerged from Judaism, we do not believe in it.
I promised hilarity. No go. I'll go open the bottle of Chivas I bought in the JFK duty free. Then we'll see what develops.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Italian Jewry in Shock
This appeared in today's Haaretx:
So unwelcome in his home
By Adi Schwartz
The Italian community in Israel is a small and intimate group. There are no more than 3,000 people who were born in Italy, and altogether the community numbers about 10,000 - counting spouses and children. Somehow everyone knows just about everyone, whether as family or as friends. This one is that one's cousin, she is the rabbi's sister-in-law, and someone was in the Bnei Akiva youth movement with that one. This is an esteemed and educated community, but also discreet and respectable, which does not tend to wash its dirty laundry in public, certainly not "on the record."
During the past two weeks they have had quite a lot of dirty laundry. For this community, the events surrounding the publication of the book by Prof. Ariel Toaff, "Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders," were almost like a suicide bombing. Perhaps even worse, as Toaff comes from the community's innermost family circle, a famous rabbinical family, and is the son of the man who has been representing Italian Jewry for more than half a century. It was as though one of the body's essential organs had decided one morning to turn against the body itself - to consume and gnaw away at it in the most painful place. They know Ariel Toaff; there is simply no other possibility. They have seen him on all kinds of occasions. Or because he is The Rabbi's son, with a capital "T" and a capital "R." Or because they studied with him at the university, or were neighbors back in Italy.
But all of this knowledge of theirs, which is so familial, did not prepare the members of the local Italian community for the book that he wrote. A few hundred of them met this week in Jerusalem, at a family celebration: the wedding of Prof. Toaff's niece, granddaughter of the 92-year-old Rabbi Elio Toaff and the daughter of Miriam Toaff and Prof. Sergio DellaPergola. Last week they discussed among themselves whether Ariel would come to the wedding, whether he would dare show his face in a place that up until three weeks ago had been his natural environment, the warm bosom of the community, or would prefer to avoid the embarrassment.
In the end, he didn't go. Anyone who asked him just a few days ago heard from him that it was his intention to attend the celebration. But the prevailing assessment was that he would prefer to stay home. Guests at the wedding related that this was a tacit agreement, between him and the family, because his presence was simply not desired. Some of the guests related that the atmosphere was happy and cheerful. The parents looked pleased and one of Ariel's brothers even came from Italy to participate in the traditional Seven Blessings ritual. No one mentioned the matter of the book aloud in the presence of Miriam, Ariel's sister; after all, it was her special day. But around the tables this was the sole topic of conversation.
'We're going to suffer'
The general agreement was: "We're going to suffer from this." Someone mentioned Sheikh Ra'ad Salah's speech during demonstrations in Jerusalem's Old City, in which - a few days after the book was published - he was already speaking about bloodsucking Jews. Another said that relatives in Italy had heard that people are already saying that "Hitler was right to kill them." One woman talked about Jewish self-hatred and wondered why it is that the Jews excel at this.
Many members of the community are Holocaust survivors, as is Ariel Toaff himself. They cannot understand how he of all people, who deals with history, decided to play in this dangerous field with such a lack of responsibility. How can it be that he was not aware of the great delicacy of the topic with which he is dealing? It was as though he had ignored everything this community had absorbed during the past 100 years alone. As though he did not know what efforts Jewish and non-Jewish historians had made during the past decades to eradicate accusations associated with the blood libel from the pages of history. As though it had not been his own father who put so much effort into improving relations between the Jews of Italy, and Jews in general, and the establishment that had spearheaded the decrees against them for centuries.
Some of them could relate that senior figures in the Catholic Church, who are identified with its liberal and progressive side, almost fell off their chairs. After people had already admitted that the Trento affair was one big invention, along comes a historian and revives it? And an Israeli, to boot? Toaff's son?
Initially there was a great deal of curiosity about what exactly he had written. Quickly enough this was satisfied. The press in Italy, and after it in Israel and the United States, was inundated with a long series of articles by the best historians, who expressed astonishment at the flaws in the book. The conclusion that they came to was that apparently this wasn't a matter of history, but rather something else. Then came the turn of the rumors. Gradually, with the utmost delicacy, people began to wonder about Prof. Toaff's motives. Perhaps he did what he did for money? Perhaps for fame? Or perhaps, just perhaps, because of something unresolved with his father?
'Nice' books
One member of the community, who has known Ariel since childhood, says that he has always loved to be exceptional. A polemicist, a brilliant man, someone who was always attracted to the extraordinary and the unexpected. He belonged to Bnei Akiva in Italy, and studied at the tory books that he wrote, they say in the community, are "nice." One was about food in the Jewish community and the other, about monsters.
But there is no greater insult to a historian than to say that his books are "nice." He was always in the wings, looking for the moment to burst onto the stage. A colorful figure, they relate in the community, "a mischievous historian." Nevertheless, he lived the first half of his life in the shadow of a man who was always in the spotlight and conducted his community's external relations vis-a-vis the Vatican and other institutions. Who knows how much time he had left to devote to the children?
Nearly everyone is wondering about the possibility that the real reasons are personal, a kind of revenge or hatred directed by Toaff at his father - but immediately the speakers hedge their speculation and say that they aren't psychoanalysts. In any case, this possibility also poses a problem for them. If this really is the story, then what does it say about the father, the person of whom they are so proud?
One person who has actually expressed this feeling is Prof. Reuven Bonfil, who is considered one of the leading historians of Italian Jewry. In an article he published last week in The Jewish Chronicle, he wrote: "Toaff's book is an insult to the intelligence ... The question of why he proceeded with this project will remain a mystery for all who do not dare enter the minefield of Freudian speculation."
Now people are curious, waiting for the next issue of Kol Ha'italkim, the magazine of the Italian community in Israel, which is edited by none other than Miriam Toaff, a well-known figure in her own right. The elders of the community have it delivered to their homes, to their mailboxes. And what will Miriam decide to write about the affair? And how will she relate to it as an editor, as Ariel's sister, as Elio's daughter?
Some of the community's members want to drop the whole miserable affair. To stop dealing with it and to hope that in this way, perhaps, it will be erased from the pages of history. In any case there has already been too much talk about it. One of the wedding guests, who is friendly with the Toaff family, said that as far as he was concerned, Ariel has finished his career. He was not referring only to Toaff's academic career, but also to his whole personal career.
Some of the people still love and admire him, but even they can't understand this. The damage is simply too great. If only he hadn't given that horrible title to the book. If only he hadn't written it at all. And even the new revelations that were published this week in Haaretz, to the effect that Prof. Toaff did not think that the Jews of Trento murdered Simonino, are of no comfort.
You know what they say in Italian, the man says: Sometimes the patch is worse than the hole. What good does it do now, that Toaff is apologizing and explaining? He can say whatever he wants to now. He has already done his damage. The simple people don't read professors' articles. The simple people will only remember that Toaff's son said that Jews murdered Simonino. And we are going to suffer from this.
So unwelcome in his home
By Adi Schwartz
The Italian community in Israel is a small and intimate group. There are no more than 3,000 people who were born in Italy, and altogether the community numbers about 10,000 - counting spouses and children. Somehow everyone knows just about everyone, whether as family or as friends. This one is that one's cousin, she is the rabbi's sister-in-law, and someone was in the Bnei Akiva youth movement with that one. This is an esteemed and educated community, but also discreet and respectable, which does not tend to wash its dirty laundry in public, certainly not "on the record."
During the past two weeks they have had quite a lot of dirty laundry. For this community, the events surrounding the publication of the book by Prof. Ariel Toaff, "Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders," were almost like a suicide bombing. Perhaps even worse, as Toaff comes from the community's innermost family circle, a famous rabbinical family, and is the son of the man who has been representing Italian Jewry for more than half a century. It was as though one of the body's essential organs had decided one morning to turn against the body itself - to consume and gnaw away at it in the most painful place. They know Ariel Toaff; there is simply no other possibility. They have seen him on all kinds of occasions. Or because he is The Rabbi's son, with a capital "T" and a capital "R." Or because they studied with him at the university, or were neighbors back in Italy.
But all of this knowledge of theirs, which is so familial, did not prepare the members of the local Italian community for the book that he wrote. A few hundred of them met this week in Jerusalem, at a family celebration: the wedding of Prof. Toaff's niece, granddaughter of the 92-year-old Rabbi Elio Toaff and the daughter of Miriam Toaff and Prof. Sergio DellaPergola. Last week they discussed among themselves whether Ariel would come to the wedding, whether he would dare show his face in a place that up until three weeks ago had been his natural environment, the warm bosom of the community, or would prefer to avoid the embarrassment.
In the end, he didn't go. Anyone who asked him just a few days ago heard from him that it was his intention to attend the celebration. But the prevailing assessment was that he would prefer to stay home. Guests at the wedding related that this was a tacit agreement, between him and the family, because his presence was simply not desired. Some of the guests related that the atmosphere was happy and cheerful. The parents looked pleased and one of Ariel's brothers even came from Italy to participate in the traditional Seven Blessings ritual. No one mentioned the matter of the book aloud in the presence of Miriam, Ariel's sister; after all, it was her special day. But around the tables this was the sole topic of conversation.
'We're going to suffer'
The general agreement was: "We're going to suffer from this." Someone mentioned Sheikh Ra'ad Salah's speech during demonstrations in Jerusalem's Old City, in which - a few days after the book was published - he was already speaking about bloodsucking Jews. Another said that relatives in Italy had heard that people are already saying that "Hitler was right to kill them." One woman talked about Jewish self-hatred and wondered why it is that the Jews excel at this.
Many members of the community are Holocaust survivors, as is Ariel Toaff himself. They cannot understand how he of all people, who deals with history, decided to play in this dangerous field with such a lack of responsibility. How can it be that he was not aware of the great delicacy of the topic with which he is dealing? It was as though he had ignored everything this community had absorbed during the past 100 years alone. As though he did not know what efforts Jewish and non-Jewish historians had made during the past decades to eradicate accusations associated with the blood libel from the pages of history. As though it had not been his own father who put so much effort into improving relations between the Jews of Italy, and Jews in general, and the establishment that had spearheaded the decrees against them for centuries.
Some of them could relate that senior figures in the Catholic Church, who are identified with its liberal and progressive side, almost fell off their chairs. After people had already admitted that the Trento affair was one big invention, along comes a historian and revives it? And an Israeli, to boot? Toaff's son?
Initially there was a great deal of curiosity about what exactly he had written. Quickly enough this was satisfied. The press in Italy, and after it in Israel and the United States, was inundated with a long series of articles by the best historians, who expressed astonishment at the flaws in the book. The conclusion that they came to was that apparently this wasn't a matter of history, but rather something else. Then came the turn of the rumors. Gradually, with the utmost delicacy, people began to wonder about Prof. Toaff's motives. Perhaps he did what he did for money? Perhaps for fame? Or perhaps, just perhaps, because of something unresolved with his father?
'Nice' books
One member of the community, who has known Ariel since childhood, says that he has always loved to be exceptional. A polemicist, a brilliant man, someone who was always attracted to the extraordinary and the unexpected. He belonged to Bnei Akiva in Italy, and studied at the tory books that he wrote, they say in the community, are "nice." One was about food in the Jewish community and the other, about monsters.
But there is no greater insult to a historian than to say that his books are "nice." He was always in the wings, looking for the moment to burst onto the stage. A colorful figure, they relate in the community, "a mischievous historian." Nevertheless, he lived the first half of his life in the shadow of a man who was always in the spotlight and conducted his community's external relations vis-a-vis the Vatican and other institutions. Who knows how much time he had left to devote to the children?
Nearly everyone is wondering about the possibility that the real reasons are personal, a kind of revenge or hatred directed by Toaff at his father - but immediately the speakers hedge their speculation and say that they aren't psychoanalysts. In any case, this possibility also poses a problem for them. If this really is the story, then what does it say about the father, the person of whom they are so proud?
One person who has actually expressed this feeling is Prof. Reuven Bonfil, who is considered one of the leading historians of Italian Jewry. In an article he published last week in The Jewish Chronicle, he wrote: "Toaff's book is an insult to the intelligence ... The question of why he proceeded with this project will remain a mystery for all who do not dare enter the minefield of Freudian speculation."
Now people are curious, waiting for the next issue of Kol Ha'italkim, the magazine of the Italian community in Israel, which is edited by none other than Miriam Toaff, a well-known figure in her own right. The elders of the community have it delivered to their homes, to their mailboxes. And what will Miriam decide to write about the affair? And how will she relate to it as an editor, as Ariel's sister, as Elio's daughter?
Some of the community's members want to drop the whole miserable affair. To stop dealing with it and to hope that in this way, perhaps, it will be erased from the pages of history. In any case there has already been too much talk about it. One of the wedding guests, who is friendly with the Toaff family, said that as far as he was concerned, Ariel has finished his career. He was not referring only to Toaff's academic career, but also to his whole personal career.
Some of the people still love and admire him, but even they can't understand this. The damage is simply too great. If only he hadn't given that horrible title to the book. If only he hadn't written it at all. And even the new revelations that were published this week in Haaretz, to the effect that Prof. Toaff did not think that the Jews of Trento murdered Simonino, are of no comfort.
You know what they say in Italian, the man says: Sometimes the patch is worse than the hole. What good does it do now, that Toaff is apologizing and explaining? He can say whatever he wants to now. He has already done his damage. The simple people don't read professors' articles. The simple people will only remember that Toaff's son said that Jews murdered Simonino. And we are going to suffer from this.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Book of Love: Yoma Tava le-Rabbanan
Yesterday, the owner of our local Seforim Store informed me that Sefer Ahavah, the final volume of the magnificent Frankel edition of the Rambam, has been published and should hit the stores before Shabbos.
Now there's a wonderful idea for Shaloch Manos!
Now there's a wonderful idea for Shaloch Manos!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
For Those of You Who Don't Read Italian...
...here is a review by Roni Weinstein, a member of the History Department at the University of Pisa (Italy). He is the author of a pathbreaking study entitled: Marriage Rituals Italian Style A Historical Anthropological Perspective on Early Modern Italian Jews . (English version is here.)
היסטוריה מוכתמת בדם
רגע לפני שהמהדורה הראשונה שלו אזלה מהחנויות ולפני שמחברו, ההיסטוריון הישראלי אריאל טואף, החליט לגנוז אותו, השיג רוני ויינשטיין עותק של החיבור ההיסטורי שמסעיר את אירופה. כיצד הגיע טואף למסקנה שיהודים בימי הביניים אכן עשו שימוש טקסי בדם נוצרי? ומה באירופה של ימינו איפשר לו להעלות את הטענה הזאת? קריאה ראשונה בספר "פסח של דם"
מאת רוני ויינשטיין
איור השער של "פסח של דם", מאת אריאל טואף, מציג דמות רבנית מבוגרת ומזוקנת המחזיקה בידה מאכלת, רגע לפני
שחיטה של ילד קטן. לצדה ניצב עמוד אש ומעליה דמות מלאך, המביט בדאגה על המתרחש על פני האדמה. על הכריכה אין הפניה למקור האיור או הסבר באשר למה שמתואר בו, ולכן קורא שאינו מצוי באמנות ימי-הביניים עשוי לטעות ולראות בו תיאור חזותי של רצח ילד נוצרי בידי רב יהודי. רק עיון ארוך בספר עצמו מלמד כי מדובר באיור שמקורו בספר "יהודי" של שאלות ותשובות (שו"ת), וכי האיור מתאר בעצם את עקידת יצחק...
האיור המקורי, שנכלל בספר, כולל גם את הכבש שאמור לשמש תחליף ליצחק העקוד, והופך אותו לסצינה תנ"כית מוכרת; אלא שמשער הספר הוא נמחק. זה אולי פרט שולי, אבל הכריכה היא בכל זאת המגע הראשון עם הספר ואמורה למסור את רוח דבריו. וזו אכן רוח הדברים בספרו החדש של טואף, שכבר עורר סערה ונגנז על ידי מחברו: רמיזות, חצאי אמיתות, שימוש לא אמין במקורות מרתקים ובעדויות חשובות ביותר.
*
פרק הפתיחה כולל את ההצהרות והכוונות המחקריות העיקריות של הספר; טואף טוען כי עד עתה נמנעו כל ההיסטוריונים משימוש כן ועמוק במקורות האינקוויזיטוריים והמשפטיים במקרים שבהם הואשמו יהודים ברצח ריטואלי של ילדים או נערים נוצרים. הרציחות נעשו לכאורה מתוך רצון לבזות את הדת הנוצרית, ובשלב מאוחר יותר נטען כי יהודים השתמשו בדם לצורכי חג הפסח ולצרכים רפואיים-מאגיים במהלך ריפוי דימומים בכלל, ודימומים של תינוקות לאחר ברית-מילה בפרט. לטענת טואף לא מדובר בהתעלמות אלא בעיוורון מכוון, שמקורו במניעים אפולוגטיים וברפיסות אינטלקטואלית לנוכח אמת קשה. גם בעדויות של יהודים מומרים מוצא טואף אישוש מפורט ואמין לטענה זו.
טואף ער לכך שבשני המקרים מדובר בעדויות מוטות: בעיקר העדויות המשפטיות שנכתבו לאחר עינויים קשים של הנחקרים, עד שאלה התוודו ומסרו את "האמת" הנוחה לאינקוויזיטורים. כדי לעקוף את הקושי הזה מציע טואף פתרון מתודולוגי כפול. הראשון נוגע לצד הנוצרי: בעקבות ההיסטוריון קרלו גינצבורג, שאותו הוא מצטט בקצרה (עמ' 14), קובע טואף כי בכל מקרה משפטי שבו העדויות לא שייכות לעולמו התרבותי של החוקר, ובוודאי כשהן זרות ומשונות בעיניו, ניתן לראות בהן עדויות אמינות על עמדותיו ותפיסותיו הדתיות והתרבותיות של הנחקר. הפתרון השני והמשלים הוא לנסות לראות אילו יסודות שמקורם במעגל הנחקרים, כלומר היהודים, הופכים האשמות מעין אלה לאמינות או לראויות לחקירה רצינית בידי אינקוויזיטורים. וכך עומדים החוקר והנחקר באותו מישור, והמענה והמעונה מספקים להיסטוריון עדויות שאמינותן זהה.
בקביעה שדווקא המעגל היהודי הוא שעודד את הופעתן של האשמות ברצח ריטואלי של ילדים נוצריים, נסמך טואף על מחקריו של ישראל יובל, "אשר הולך בעקבות מחקר מעורר-מחשבה וחלוצי של ססיל רות, ומדגיש את הקשר בין ההאשמה בשימוש בדם ותופעת ההתאבדות ורציחת הילדים בקהילות היהודיות בגרמניה במהלך מסע הצלב הראשון" (עמ' 12). כלומר, לפי תפיסה זו, מקורן של עלילות הדם בהתנהגות חריגה של יהודים ובפרשנות מוטעית של נוצרים למעשים אלה: תושבי ערים גרמניות שבהן אירעו מעשי טבח ביהודים, ובעקבותיהם מעשי התאבדות קולקטיביים של יהודים והרג ילדים בידי הוריהם, הסיקו שאם היהודים מסוגלים לעשות מעשים כאלה לצאצאיהם, בוודאי יוכלו לרצוח גם ילדים נוצרים חפים מפשע (זוהי קביעה נסיבתית שאינה מתועדת במפורש במקורות הכתובים מהתקופה).
אבל חשוב להדגיש את ההבדל: יובל לא טען מעולם כי יהודים אכן השתתפו ברצח ריטואלי של ילדים נוצרים, כפי שטוען טואף, אלא כי הרקע להאשמות בעולם הגרמני, וכי עקב מגעיו עם העולם הקתולי, מתפשטים גם בו הסטריאוטיפים האנטי-יהודיים.
*
מהן העדויות הקונקרטיות שעליהן מתבסס טואף? בספר לא מוצגות תעודות חדשות או חומר ארכיוני שלא היה מוכר לחוקרים
עד כה; מדובר בחומר ידוע ש"זוכה" לפירוש חדש. במרכז הדיון של טואף, הן מבחינת הטיעון והן מבחינת מספר העמודים, נמצא משפטן של המשפחות היהודיות שחיו בצפון-איטליה בעיר טרנט (Trento), והואשמו בשנת 1475 ברצח הנער הצעיר סימונינו, שנהפך במהרה לקדוש מקומי ובהמשך לקדוש כלל-איטלקי.
החומר המשפטי העשיר של חקירתן ומשפטן של המשפחות היהודיות נשמר ואף הוצא לאור בגרסה מדעית, ובליווי מבוא ארוך וחשוב בידי שני היסטוריונים איטלקים, דייגו קוואליוני ואנה אספוסיטו. תעודות אלה שימשו מקור לכמה מחקרים מרתקים על הדיאלקטים האיטלקיים והיהודיים-איטלקיים של אותה תקופה, על פולקלור ומנהגי יומיום, על האיורים החזותיים העשירים המלווים את הפרשה ועל תהליך היווצרותו של קדוש עממי. אלא שבעיני טואף העדויות במשפט, גם אם הושגו בעינויים
ובאלימות, מספקים עדות אותנטית על חיי היהודים. בשום מקום בספר הוא אינו מעמיד את הקביעה הזאת למבחן היסטורי.
כתוצאה מכך, הפרקים הראשונים בספר מלאים בקביעות חד-משמעיות על השתתפות יהודים בחטיפת נערים, בכליאתם,
בהעברתם למקומות מסתור ולבסוף ברציחתם לשם איסוף דמם. עיון בהערות השוליים מראה כי טואף נסמך באופן עקבי על תרגום מילולי, מלטינית לאיטלקית, של טענות הנחקרים, כאילו התיעוד המשפטי משקף במישרין את התנהגות הנאשמים. ההיסטוריון מנוע לפי דרך עבודה זו מלהוסיף את פרשנותו או את היסוסיו לגבי העדויות. קוואליוני ואספוסיטו כבר כתבו בעיתונות האיטלקית כי הם קוראים "בפליאה ובתדהמה" את הפרשנות של טואף למשפט טרנט, והדגישו למשל את העובדה - שטואף אינו מתייחס אליה ברצינות - כי האפיפיור סיסטוס ה-4 שלח נציג (ליגאט) מיוחד כדי לגעור בבישוף העיר על השימוש המופרז באלימות נגד הנחקרים ועל סטיות קשות מהליכים משפטיים סדירים.
האם היו השופטים במשפט טרנט חפים מדעות קדומות? אפשר לבחון את השאלה, בראש ובראשונה, בנוגע ליוזם המשפט, הבישוף והנסיך העירוני הינדרבאך. את הסטריאוטיפים האנטי-יהודיים נשא עמו הינדרבאך מאזורים דוברי-גרמנית, שמהם הגיע לטרנט, ובכללם כאלה העוסקים ברצח נוצרים ובשימוש בדמם. הינדרבאך מתאר כיצד במהלך מלחמה בווינה נאלצו חיילים גרמנים לאכול בעלי-חיים כמו כלבים ועכברושים, ומציין בחיוב כי הם לא נמנעו גם מאכילת בשר יהודים בסיטואציה זו. כלומר, כבר לפני משפט טרנט היה הקשר בין אלימות, קנאות דתית וקניבליזם קיים בתודעתם של תושבי צפון-אירופה, ובוודאי בתודעת השופטים והחוקרים במשפט טרנט.
אבל לא רק תפיסת עולמו האישית של הינדרבאך משמעותית כאן, אלא העובדה שהמיתוס האנטי-יהודי כבר היה מבוסס ברגע ההיסטורי הזה: שורת מקרים ארוכה, שראשיתה בפרשת ויליאם מנוריץ' (1144) ובפרסום החיבור ההגיוגרפי הראשון העוסק בתינוק נוצרי שנהפך לקדוש ורציחתו מיוחסת ליהודים, והמשכה בשורת מקרים נוספים באנגליה, בצרפת ובגרמניה, מלמדת כי במחצית השנייה של המאה ה-15, בעת התנהלות המשפט בטרנט, המיתוס האנטי-יהודי כבר היה מבוסס היטב באירופה. השופטים, אם כך, ידעו היטב כיצד לבנות את הסיפור השלם של רצח ריטואלי ומהו תפקידם של הנאשמים בסיפור הזה.
*
תוקף נוסף לטענתו מוצא טואף בעדויות ממשפט טרנט, ומהקשרים אחרים, שמסרו יהודים מומרים. עדויות אלה צבעוניות
במיוחד ומלאות בפרטים ובהפניות לתאריכים ולדמויות מוכרות בקהילות האשכנזיות בצפון איטליה ובגרמניה.
אלא שעניין היחסים בין הקהילות היהודיות לבין מומרים לקתוליות הוא מהעדינים בתולדות ההיסטוריה היהודית בימי-הביניים ובראשית העת החדשה; לא כל המומרים שייכים לאותה קטגוריה ולא כולם פעלו מתוך שנאה ועוינות לבני דתם הקודמת. ואולם ברור כי המומרים, שעל עדותם נסמך טואף, הם מן הזן העוין ביותר. שניים מהם היו מעורבים מאוד בתעמולה אנטי-יהודית, והיו מהגורמים המובילים לשריפת התלמוד במאות ה-13 (בפרובנס) וה-16 (באיטליה). חלק אחר מעדויות המומרים בספר נסמך על מומרים שחיבוריהם ופעילותם המיסיונרית שייכים לתקופה מאוחרת מאוד ביחס למשפט טרנט.
על המגמות האנטי-יהודיות של דמויות כמו בנדטו בונלי (שספרו מתואר בפי טואף כ"מחקר מתועד שנערך מתוך רצינות מדעית"), פאולו סבסטיאנו מדיצ'י וג'וליו מורוסיני, כתבה באחרונה מארינה קפיירו מחקר מרתק, העוקב אחר לחצי ההמרה של הכנסייה במאות ה-17 וה-18 על יהודי רומא. מסע הלחצים כלל הפרדה בין בני משפחה, חטיפת נערים צעירים לשם הטבלה ולקיחת ילדים קטנים שהלכו לאיבוד ברחוב אל אגן הטבילה.
בתוך האווירה העוינת והאלימה כלפי יהודים מילאו מומרים אלה, שחלקם זכו גם להשכלה תיאולוגית קתולית, מקום מרכזי. אחרים, פחות מפורסמים, היו אחראים למסירת מידע "מבפנים" לתיאולוג הספרדי אלונסו ד'אספינה, שעשה בהם שימוש מפורט וארוך בספרו "מבצר האמונה" - ספר שתרם ליצירת במה כלל-אירופית להאשמות של יהודים ברצח ריטואלי. אי אפשר להפריז בחשיבותם של המומרים בהליך המשפטי, משום שהם אלה שסיפקו את המידע העסיסי ביותר, המפורט ביותר, ובעיקר הקונקרטי ביותר. היו אלה אנשים שחיו "בין העולמות" וניחנו ברגישות רבה למה שביקשה סביבתם החדשה לשמוע, אבל כל הבעייתיות הזאת לא עולה לדיון בספר כלל וכלל.
*
הציר השני של הספר הוא הפן הפנים-יהודי. ה"תרומה" היהודית להאשמות ברצח ריטואלי אינה נסמכת במהלך הספר על שום מקרה קונקרטי ומתועד שלא במעגלים המשפטיים החוץ-יהודיים. אלא שלטענת טואף, ההאשמה ברצח נוצרים מתאימה לתרבות של שלהי ימי-הביניים ב"מעגלים פונדמנטליסטיים של האורתודוקסיה האשכנזית" (עמ' 186).
קשה שלא לתמוה על שימוש במונחים כמו "פונדמנטליזם" או "אורתודוקסיה" בהקשר לא-מודרני. התמיהה נפתרת בקלות אם מביאים בחשבון פחדים של קוראים בני-זמננו באירופה מ"השד הדתי", ומהאיומים על אורח החיים הליברלי מצד זרמים פונדמנטליסטיים. הסבר מדעי אין כאן, ובוודאי שלא התמודדות עם התופעה הקשה והבעייתית של התאבדות קולקטיבית ורצח ילדים בקהילות הריינוס במהלך מסע הצלב הראשון (1096), או ליתר דיוק במפגש עם תנועות שביטאו מרי חברתי ודתי והפנו את האלימות שלהן נגד המיעוט היהודי. אלא שאצל טואף, ההסבר ההיסטורי מתחלף בשיפוט מוסרי של החברה האשכנזית-יהודית, שהיתה ספוגה באווירת נקם נגד הנוצרים שפגעו בה.
מחקרים קודמים כבר הראו כי בעקבות מעשי הטבח שחוו, היה אמנם בתרבות היהודית-אשכנזית בימי הביניים עיסוק טקסי רב בדם, במוות, בייסורים ובנקם, שהגיע לשיא בחג הפסח ובטקס הסדר. באירוע זה נקשר דם הברית (ברית המילה) בין ישראל לאלוהיו, דם קורבן הפסח, ודמם של מקדשי השם האשכנזים, ליחידה המבטאת עוינות כלפי העולם הסובב. חג הפסח האשכנזי היה טקס שכלל מרכיבים מרכזיים המחקים ולועגים לטקסים הנוצריים ולתיאולוגיה הנוצרית, בעיקר לצליבתו של ישו כמרכיב מרכזי בתהליך הגאולה. לכל אלה נוספו דפוסים של קללות נגד נוצרים, וטקסי-היפוך השמים ללעג ולקלס את הריטואלים הנוצריים.
אלא שלדעת טואף, כל אלה מעידים על האופי האקטיבי של העוינות במעגל היהודי-האשכנזי לסביבה הנוצרית, ומכאן נדרש רק צעד פסיכולוגי קטן כדי להבין את "ההיתכנות" של שימוש בדם נוצרי בטקסים יהודיים; היתכנות, אפשרות, סבירות, אבל איפה העובדות? ההיסטוריון מבטל כל אפשרות של דיון מקצועי ורציני אם הוא עוסק במה שהיה סביר או אפשרי שיתרחש, במקום לבחון את מה שהתרחש ממש.
על זאת יש להוסיף, כי הדם אינו משמש מרכיב רק בתרבות-הנגדית של יהודי-אשכנז, כמחאה וכמרי נגד העולם הנוצרי; הדם הוא מרכיב מרכזי בפרקטיקות מאגיות יהודיות ולא-יהודיות כאחת. העדויות מהתחום המאגי נסמכות על מקורות מסוגים שונים ומתקופות ואזורים גיאוגרפיים מגוונים מאוד. טואף אינו מבהיר כיצד משתמשים בספרי סגולות או בספרי מנהגים כמקור להכרת הריאליה המאגית; הוא מציג ומצטט מקורות אלה כמוסרי-אמיתות על פרקטיקות רווחות בקרב יהודים. אבל העניין סבוך הרבה יותר מכפי שהוא מוצג בספר.
התפיסה שלפיה דם עשוי לשמש מרכיב בתהליך הריפוי ושמירת הנעורים והוויטאליות של הגוף לא נדונה רק ברבדים "חשוכים" של החברה באיטליה או בקרב מכשפות ומרפאות עממיות. דיונים מעניינים בתחום זה ניתן למצוא גם בחיבורים של מרסיליו פיצ'ינו (1433-1499), מחשובי ההומניסטים בפירנצה, למשל בחיבורו "ספר החיים". האם נסיק מכך שההומניסטים עסקו ברצח ריטואלי, בלי שנספק תיעוד וגיבוי נוספים לטענה שכזאת?
בחלק השני של הספר מצויה התרומה האפשרית שלו: אפשרית מפני שטואף עסוק רק בקביעת האמת בעניין הרצח הריטואלי, ולא דן בתפקידיה ובחשיבותה של המאגיה בתרבות האשכנזית. הספר מביא כמה עדויות מרתקות וחשובות, שלא ניתן להתעלם מהן, בעניין ההיקסמות מכוחו של הדם (תוך הפניה מוצדקת אל הספר המטריד והמרתק של פיירו קמפורסי "תמצית החיים: סימבוליזם ומאגיה של הדם").
"ספר חסידים" למשל (שכתבו כמה מחברים מהמאות ה-11 וה-12), אחד התוצרים המרכזיים של התרבות היהודית-אשכנזית בימי הביניים, גדוש אמונות מאגיות השאובות בבירור ממערכת האמונות של התרבות הגרמאנית, שהיא בחלקה קדם-נוצרית. באופן מתמיה ביותר נמנעים חוקרי התרבות האשכנזית מלהיכנס לשדה מוקשים זה, ולהציב את המאגיה והעולם הדמוני הסבוך בתוך עולמה של יהדות אשכנז. הספר שלפנינו עושה זאת.
ומלה אחרונה על תגובתם של היסטוריונים באיטליה לספרו של טואף: כל חשובי ההיסטוריונים העוסקים במקורות אינקוויזיציה, ביהודים, בתופעת ההמרה או ביחסי יהודים ונוצרים באיטליה יצאו בביקורת חריפה ונוקבת נגד הספר. החלטת המחבר לעצור את הפצתו (אחרי שכל המהדורה הראשונה כבר נמכרה) עוררה ביקורת מסוג אחר, כך שבמקום לעסוק בטיעונים לגופם צריכים עתה היסטוריונים לדון בשאלה האם הקהילה האקדמית ערכה בטואף לינץ', או מה הם גבולות הדיון האקדמי וחירות המחקר.
ד"ר רוני ויינשטיין הוא עמית-מחקר באוניברסיטת פיזה (איטליה) וחוקר את ההיסטוריה של יהודי איטליה בראשית העת החדשה
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)