Is Ohr Somayach’s blood libel story itself a blood libel forgery?
Has Ohr Somayach falsely accused a town in Galicia of burning a Jewish woman to death? A reader claims this story never could have happened. History buff writes,
The story is entirely phony.
There is no recorded blood libel in 1310.
Drohovitch is in Galicia was not settled by anyone until the 14th century and certainly lacked Jews until much later.
Blood libels did not occur in Ukraine, rather Central European lands.
Kiknish (”don’t look”) is a fake name- check genealogy sites for the name.
If convicted of blood libel- conversion would not have helped.How about challenging them to come up with a source?
Or how about writing a version in the style of the author Saki, where she is punished for lighting shabbos candles.On top of it, using one of the calender calculators on line.
The date was a Wed, not Friday.
Rabbi Weinbach, the head Ohr Somayach, indeed did not provide any source.
We must all demand that Ohr Somayach explain this situation, and if this blood libel story is indeed false, Ohr Somayach must retract this story, and apologize for inventing it.
Ohr Somayach must answer this charge.
24 comments
There was an Adel killed in that town in 1718 (not 1310)
See
http://books.google.com/books?.....;ct=result
I will see if I can track down the real story
Okay, thanks!
Try emailing Prof Hundret - it might be the quickest way to get to the original.
Historical Version Story from Web
Still need to check the original source in Anshei Shem
1718 The body of a murdered Gentile child is discovered. The Jews are blamed in a blood libel trial. The suspects are finally narrowed down from the entire community to one Jewish woman, Adela. Church officials who are anxious to protect their own position keep her Gentile maidservant’s eventual confession of guilt secret. The maid’s Jewish mistress, Adela, is secretly admitted to be innocent but remains publicly accused. She is offered her freedom if she converts but refuses and is executed.
http://www.shtetlinks.jewishge.....Drohob.asp
good call.
From the town pinkas
http://www.jewishgen.org/yizko.....00160.html
Note the changes to the story.
In 1718, a well-known woman in Drohobycz was accused of blood libel. Madame Adele, who was head of a large business enterprise in the town, was accused of killing a Gentile child in her house on the eve of Passover. In reality, one of her maids had brought the child to the house and killed him. Using torture, the investigators extracted a confession from Adele that she had killed the child, even though it was untrue. She confessed to prevent the entire Jewish community from being victimized. Adele herself was sentenced to death. However, when the servant heard the decree she regretted the decision and admitted publicly that she had killed the child. She even identified the Gentile person who had planned the deed. The priests were so angry with this that they did not want to reveal or admit the truth and carried out Adele’s death sentence.
Interesting side note: the author of that source in the footnote, S. Buber, is Salomon Buber, grandfather of Martin Buber.
so u can’t prove ur story about the resturant and the OU and that’s ok? oh its a first hand story u claim? isn’t that great for you? talk about double standards…dont u have to answer to us?
ps I’m sure the records from the 1300’s are complete and accurate. there is NO WAY one second of the era went unrecorded…moron.
“so u can’t prove ur story about the resturant and the OU and that’s ok?”
danny, the restaurant is a story I heard first hand. Is the blood libel from the 13th century witnessed first hand by R. Weinbach? If not, source it properly. Call me or anyone else a name again, you go on moderation. Then you get to whine about how we don’t respect free speech because we don’t give you a platform to insult people. Then we all laugh at you, when and if I let your comments through.
if u want to make it that people cannot call each other names that’s fine but at least done have a double standard.
On Jan. 20 u called “the heimeshe velt” “ignoramuses.
on Feb. 22 u called Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky a “haredi dipshit”
on march 4 u said about people on another blog “idiots did not approve my comments…jerks”.
(just to name 3 out of many).
So u get to call people names but not us? double standard much? I’m not saying freedom of speach I’m saying equal rights to all
danny,
If you want to talk double standard, consider that here, and on other secular/skeptic blogs, the frum are absolutely allowed to state their positions, and we link to them as well, so people can see for themselves the texts and documents we are referencing.
Now, the Modern Orthodox will link to the secular and very modern texts and blogs they are battling, but the haredim will not. And the haredim will edit out comments for content, not just name-calling.
So I think your complaint should first be with those frum blogs that do not cite the people they are disagreeing with, and do not allow their side to be presented, even politely.
Since you are so concerned about fairness, that is.
Rabbi Orlovsky crossed a line by attacking Rabbi Slifkin. Anyone and everyone who joined in that gang-bang is fair game. The gloves come off, and we pound them over and over again. On the other hand, those Orthodox Jews who stood up for Rabbi Slifkin, such as Rabbi Student and Rabbi Weinreb, are heroes well beyond their MO communities.
so u r saying u r willing to stoop to their level? that u r no better than the people u attack? be better then that man! have a higher standard so u can say u accept all views as opposed to them. I read ur blog and not theirs for a reason. idk or care what they do.
but u still never answered the charge…u have a double standard. I say u r fair game bc u have a blog that attacks poeple on a daily basis. either no attacks across the board or attacks for all fair game.
or will u keep setting the line to where u want it to be so u don’t have to be held to ur own rules?
danny, my name-calling attack on R. Orlovsky was a mistake. I will delete the word “dipshit” over the weekend, and note it was deleted.
Attacking a group generally is a different issue. That isn’t a personal attack.
Sometimes we all fail to live up to our own goals. It is human nature. And I certainly don’t want The Kvetcher to become a bastion of pc-ness. That’s for more Liberal blogs. Not mine.
And I will certainly continue to attack Big Kiruv.
Those bastards have it coming!
now THAT is a fair policy.
I knew you could do it, hence the reason I and will continue to read you insightful remarks.
all personal attacks forbidden, group attacks ok. got it.
Just looked into my reference works on blood libel accusations and trials (scientific ones as well as popular histories / folklore ones), and there’s no Drohovits[c]h to be found. The suffix “-its[c]h” of the place name is Yugoslavian. I’ll see if I can find something about that Adel case.
Lest somebody starts complaining, these are my reference works:
Bätz, Kurt. Judentum. Wege und Stationen seiner Geschichte. Stuttgart 1984
Beinart, Haim. Geschichte der Juden. Atlas der Verfolgung und Vertreibung im Mittelalter. Augsburg 1998
von Braun, Christina. Viertes Bild: »Blut und Blutschande«. Zur Bedeutung des Blutes in der antisemitischen Denkwelt, in: Schoeps, Julius H. & Schlör, Joachim (Eds). Bilder der Judenfeindschaft. Antisemitismus Vorurteile und Mythen. Augsburg 1999
Buttaroni, Susanna & Stanislaw Musial (eds.). Ritualmord. Legenden in der europäischen Geschichte. Köln 2003
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. A Selection. London 1969
Eckert, Wilehad Paul. Das Verhältnis von Christen und Juden im Mittelalter und Humanismus. Ein Beitrag zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte, in: Schilling, Konrad (Ed.). Monumenta Judaica. 2000 Jahre Geschichte und Kultur der Juden am Rhein. Cologne 1963
Erb, Rainer. Drittes Bild: Der »Ritualmord«, in: Schoeps, Julius H. & Schlör, Joachim (Eds). Bilder der Judenfeindschaft. Antisemitismus Vorurteile und Mythen. Augsburg 1999
Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden. Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin N.N.
Graetz, Heinrich. Volkstümliche Geschichte der Juden in zwei Bänden. Von der jüdisch-spanischen Zeitepoche bis zur Epoche der Wiedergeburt. Volume II. Cologne 2000
Grossmann, A. Die Juden in Byzanz und im mittelalterlichen Europa, in: Kedourie, Elie (Ed.) . Die Jüdische Welt. Offenbarung, Prophetie und Geschichte. Munich 2002
Haverkamp, Alfred. „Concivilitas“ von Christen und Juden in Ashkenas im Mittelalter, in: Jütte, Robert & Kustermann, Abraham, P. (Ed.) Jüdische Gemeinden und Organisationsformen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Wiesbaden 1998
Heine, Heinrich. Der Rabbi von Bacharach, in: Prinzessin Sabbat. Über Juden und Judentum. Bodenheim 1997
Hsia, R. Po-Chia. Trient 1475. Geschichte eines Ritualmordprozesses. Frankfurt 1997
de Lange, Nicholas. Atlas of the Jewish World. Oxford 1992
Limor, Ora. Das verworfene Volk, in: Nicholas de Lange (Ed.). Illustrierte Geschichte des Judentums. Frankfurt 2000
Lotter, Friedrich. Bildfrevellegende, in: Schoeps, Julius H. (Ed.). Neues Lexikon des Judentums. Gütersloh 2000
Lotter, Friedrich. Brunnenvergiftungslegende, in: Schoeps, Julius H. (Ed.). Neues Lexikon des Judentums. Gütersloh 2000
Lotter, Friedrich. Hostienfrevellegende, in: Schoeps, Julius H. (Ed.). Neues Lexikon des Judentums. Gütersloh 2000
Lotter, Friedrich: Hostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfälschung bei den Judenverfolgungen von 1298 („Rintfleisch“) und 1336-1338 („Armleder“), in: Monumenta Germania Historica (Ed.). Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Teil V. Fingierte Briefe Frömmigkeit und Fälschung Realienfälschungen. Hannover 1988
Lotter, Friedrich. Ritualmordvorwurf, in: Schoeps, Julius H. (Ed.). Neues Lexikon des Judentums. Gütersloh 2000
Wurmbrand, Max & Roth, Cecil. Das Volk der Juden. Eine Universalgeschichte. Frechen N.N.
Oh, and Danny, the perfidity of blood libel trials is that the “court” documents were very well preserved - as the prosecutors fullheartedly believed to be doing the right thing.
Thanks for looking into this. I would have thought that the fact that there were enough true incidents such as the one described here, but evidently inaccurately, would have made it rather beside the point as to whether this one really happened as stated. Now we know the truth: Some time in the last 800 years, someone really screwed up. It may or may not be OS, but damn it, we are honor bound now to find out who it was.
I’m prepared, therefore, to step up and represent, pro bono, any resident of Drohovitch who was alive in 1310 — or, yes, even in 1718! I’m serious now! — and believes he has been defamed by this outrageous accusation.
Naturally, just like a real blood libel, I am sure the result of this defamation by OS will be widespread Jewish violence, murder and rape on Ukranians everywhere. Their guilt is heavy, and profound.
Again, DK, tremendous display of proportionality and perspective here.
Blood libel, right.
Unbelievable.
As soon as the ends start justifying the means, we can “justify” about anything “in the big picture”. Justice this is not.
Ron is right. It’s the emotional truth that counts, even if said blood libel did not happen in said century.
And ladies, remember….women still died in the 14th century erev shabbos, so light those shabbos candles! Don’t let the 14th century anti-Semites win!!!
Thinking about it… Ron, next time you feel like paying a parking ticket because othrs have parked their cars incorrectly before so you might as well, please let me know. I’ll start a candle-lighting foundation with DK.
Uh, no. I’m not justifying anything. I’m asking how the hell DK justifies calling this a blood libel. Not an embarrassing screwup, sloppy history, a disregard for details. A blood libel!
The story may or may not be true. Certain details of it could very well be off base. Could be the wrong century, the wrong city. Maybe it never happened at all. Maybe nothing like it ever happened.
That does not make it a blood libel. A blood libel is a very specific claim:
ANd now, thanks to David Kelsey, orthodox Jews. Nice.
This is not a minor point, because David saw fit, in his rigorous academic fashion so superior from the way higher education is presented at third-tier colleges such as Touro, to accuse Ohr Somayach of a blood libel. He chose the term to generate traffic, impress his antireligious friends and his girl fan club (why of course I’m jealous!), and burnish his anti-religious credentials. Which is cool if you want to run a kn0w-nothing, anonymous anti-religious website. But if you want to pretend you’re taking the high road and that you are the champion of transparency, intellectual honesty and academic rigor — bad, bad idea.
That is because, as is evident from the definition of “blood libel” quoted above, the charge is more than baseless. It is about as culturally and emotionally appropriate as calling Israelis “Nazis” because you disagree with an aspect of their policy. Jews have been “Nazis” for a couple of decades. Well, now Jews are blood-libelers, too. It’s okay to use the most extreme rhetoric available when you’re talking Israelis or haredim, right? It’s the emotional truth that counts, I guess.
And the other side of that coin, as I pointed out, is not only is it pornographic to accuse Jews of making blood libels (unless, of course, they God forbid would make one) because they are history’s primary victims of blood libels. The point of a blood libel is to incite hatred and “revenge” against its victims. So it is also preposterous to feign outrage on behalf of 14th-century Galicians, who are — unlike the Jews who lost their lives as a result of real blood libels — not the object of anyone’s ire, nor, significantly, at any risk as a result of the accusations against them. This, of course, would even be true if the tale were about 21st century Galicians, but it is even more true against long-dead ones.
And now, let’s talk about your equally rigorous use of analogy, DK, and Sarah, DK’s increasingly bizarre echo chamber. DK, you seem to be analogizing my previous comment to the preposterous left-wing argument that journalistic truth does not matter when the “emotional truth” or the “composite truth” are essentially “right.”
That’s stupid. First of all, this is not journalism. This is not in the slightest bit a contemporaneous report of recent events. It is an historical claim which may very well be legitimately controverted right now. It may turn out that the event did not happen at all, or happened in some other place, or some other time. I have never heard anyone refer to “emotional truth” in defending false historiography.
Why don’t you blood-libel accusers demonstrate the following affirmative facts in order to back up you accusations? These are facts that it would seem someone has to know, positively, before accusing someone else of making a blood libel, in order for the analogy to be appropriate:
1. The claim made was false
2. The person making the claim knew it was false
3. The person knowingly making the false claim made it in order to incite hatred against the group wrongly accused
All I have here is that someone from Ohr Somayach may have picked up on a story from any number of sources which is incorrect as to certain, perhaps critical — or perhaps not — details. A perusal of certain sources suggests that an error is almost certainly present. So, what is the source of the story quoted? No one has asked Ohr Somayach. It couldn’t be, of course, that the story is found in a book whose letters are written right-to-left, could it? If it were it would be false, because Sarah read through all the German-language books she listed and they certainly can be trusted about German murder of Jews more than one written by Jews. So let’s just skip all these. Besides, the day of the week is wrong.
That’s not a blood libel. That’s a legitimate question about the accuracy of a story.
And… “emotional truth”? You really don’t know the difference between accusing Jews of human sacrifice and the use of blood in their matzos — something that never happened, ever and which caused the horrible deaths of countless of thousands of innocent people — and accusing 14th-century Galicians of something that actually did happen, repeatedly and cruelly, but perhaps not in Galicia during the 14th century, merely later; or perhaps in the 14th century, but really in Latvia?
You don’t see the difference? Really?
Sarah, your parking ticket analogy — well, I have to admit that I have never seen a better example of how a person can evidently stack up what seems to be an amazing amount of schooling and, really, end up utterly lacking in any brains, judgment or taste whatsoever.
DK, your level of self-hatred — and yes, that is what it must be in order for you to call this a “blood libel” by Ohr Somayach; it far exceeds any rational anger at whatever it is that happened to you there that resulted in your failure to stick with the program — is positively pathological at this point. You should start linking to Norman Finkelstein at this point. That’s the direction you’re going in. That’s the rhetorical company you’re keeping.
Ron, it wasn’t a blood libel. That was hyperbole, Ron, and everyone understood that including you, despite your histrionics to the contrary.
Ron, Ohr Somayach never answers questions to the veracity of their claims or on anything else. I know this from a reader who has sent them letters. They promise to look into things, and nothing happens. Why should it, Ron? The ends justifies the means anyway for these people.
You don’t want to employ the term “emotional truth” because of time passage? That makes little sense, Ron. The far-Left has no problem lying about the distant past for the same reason they don’t have a problem lying about the recent past.
Why didn’t Rabbi Weinbach see a need to source his letter/safer/whatever, Ron? He is acting like a stupid chassid at a youth group Havdallah chat, Ron. How is that normal? How is that acceptable? HE DOESN”T CARE if it happened in the 14th century, just as he doesn’t care if this woman actually died erev shabbat, or gave a rat’s ass about lighting candles.
Weinbach is willing to forge a past in order to promote his own haredi-kiruv agenda. And unlike me, who is willing to strike a hyperbolic term because someone is PRETENDING to take it seriously, Weinbach will never correct his error.
And he is the leader of Dark Light.
Why don’t you admit his process was wrong? That he should have sourced, and that this itself is problematic, along with his ascribing a motive of shabbat candle martyrdom?
This happens over and over and over with Dark Light. Stop protecting these guys. Stop pretending this is okay with you. They have a problem.
Remember this mayseh? http://kvetcher.net/2007/05/30.....-blessing/
If it were it would be false, because Sarah read through all the German-language books she listed and they certainly can be trusted about German murder of Jews more than one written by Jews.
Ron, has it ever appeared to you that there are German-speaking Jews? Has it even occurred to you that they may have used sources that are written from the right to the left? Just as serious Jewish historians would use any source at hand, no matter what characters it was written in. Have you ever come to realize that some of the most outstanding Jewish historians happen to be and to have been German-speaking? Do you even recognize their names on the list I provided above? Has it escaped your attention that there are many reference works that get translated into other languages?
I’d understood DK’s headline to be a figure of speech, not the most tasteful one, mind you, but in light of the tasteless context of employing such a story to make people light Shabbat candles (!), tastelessness was to be expected as a reflection of what was going on.
Sarah, DK’s increasingly bizarre echo chamber
Ah, I see. If I appear to disagree with you, I qualify as DK’s increasingly bizarre echo chamber. How nice. How constructively critical. How profound. How academic.
Sarah, your parking ticket analogy — well, I have to admit that I have never seen a better example of how a person can evidently stack up what seems to be an amazing amount of schooling and, really, end up utterly lacking in any brains, judgment or taste whatsoever.
You accredited validity to an event that likely has not taken place in the way reported just because it may have taken place in a similar fashion.
I can’t help but wonder why my low-key students would get the anology and someone who’s received top notch private education doesn’t.
I may suffer from dumbness, tastelessness and poor judgement, but at least I don’t think that any medieval non-Jew may as well have been involved in blood libel cases. But maybe that’s only just because I’ve read a lot about those cases.
Oh well, beati pauperes spiritu.
analogy*
Leave a Comment