The Toaff Affair: Why One Should Not Publish That Jews Used Christian Blood to Knead Matzot

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

The Toaff Affair: Why One Should Not Publish That Jews Used Christian Blood to Knead Matzot

Posted on 28/2/2007

| |

The Toaff Affair: Why One Should Not Publish That Jews Used Christian Blood to Knead Matzot

Following Kelemer’s link at the end of the thread on the blogs of the Rebel Hasid, I read one writer’s reflections on the difference between what Toaff did and what he himself does when he ‘washes the ultra-Orthodox community’s dirty laundry’ in public. There are several clear distinctions, and that is not what I came to discuss.

This raised several thoughts in me about the Toaff affair itself, which for some reason has still not been discussed on our forum. What, in fact, was wrong with what he did?

This of course depends on the factual-evidentiary question (how much evidence he has for his claims), and I have not read what is said in his book. I heard a radio interview with a colleague of his from the Hebrew University who said that he reads Italian and has read the book, and in his opinion there is no evidence whatsoever for these claims, and they certainly constitute dangerous incitement and crude populism. Toaff did not invent this trend, particularly in historical research.

Assuming that Toaff himself knows that there is no real substance to his evidence, what he did is grave in two respects: 1. scholarly dishonesty. 2. the danger to Jews and Judaism that such a book may create.

But if he himself thinks that these proofs do have substance, should he have kept it to himself and refrained from publishing? On the one hand, the risks certainly exist. On the other hand, seemingly his duty as an academic is to pursue the truth, even if it is unpleasant (and perhaps in a case of immediate danger one should forgo that, but I do not know whether that is the case here).

Therefore it would seem that the harsh claims against him must be based on both planes together: the scholarly negligence and the danger created by these conclusions. Only this combination, and not either of the two components on its own, can provide a basis for the scathing criticism to which he is being subjected.

So why is everyone criticizing him even without reading the book? Seemingly, the criticism of those who have not read the book assumes that risk alone is enough to prevent publication, regardless of the strength and validity of his evidence. Or perhaps the critics assume that such a thing is simply impossible a priori, and therefore even without reading it they know that there is no evidence for it. That seems to me somewhat hasty, in light of the fact that throughout Jewish history there have been many strange customs and puzzling things.

Of course, it need hardly be said that to regard such a practice as part of the mainstream of Jewish law, or to present it as such, is patent ignorance and folly. But as for pointing to such a local historical phenomenon, I would wait to hear his evidence.

What do you think?

_________________

Source (the forum "Stop Here, Think"): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2158253&forum_id=1364