The Jewish reaction to Toaff's claim that possibly one ritual murder charge may have had some truth, is based on the fact that all other scholars who have studied the evidence concluded that nothing can be proved. What purpose could Toaff have served other than to reignite latent Jew hatred? If all agree we must dismiss evidence given under mediaeval torture, why would Toaff now decide to accept it? No one -- least of all the Jewish Prophets -- denies that there have always been good and bad Jews, but why reopen a closed case and generate hatred?
- 11:46 AM
from the article: And supposing they did drink blood?