Did a sect in Narbonne do the medieval ritual murders?

The Polish premier seems to have created a new wave of tension by using the word perpetrator. Earlier he said that there were Nazi collaborators and informers during the holocaust from many nationalities: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews, which also caused objections from the Jewish side. Well, as for collaboration, the Zionists made the Haavara agreement with Nazi’s, while as for an informer, how about Ans van Dijk, a Dutch-Jewish woman who collaborated with the SD and turned in at least 145 people with estimates as high as 700.

But there were no Jewish perpetrators of the holocaust. This, at least, we can be sure of. Fine, let us accept that were no Polish perpetrators of the holocaust, whether Polish Jewish or Polish non-Jewish, but how about American Jewish? Jews are one nation. One can show quite easily that there were American Jewish perpetrators. It follows from the known fact that American Jews supported the change of immigration regulations so that the USA did not take Jews, who tried to escape Hitler. American Jews had ever since the First World War, and even before, many times informed the public and especially the Jewish public that 6 million were going to be exterminated. As Hitler seemed to wish ill to Jews and American Jews very well knew that 6 million would die, their decision not to take the Jews to the USA can only be understood by the desire to create Israel. Before the creation of Israel there would be the great persecution. It is prophesized in the Old Testament: Even if Israelites are as great multitude as grains of sand in the beach, only a handful will return. This is the only conceivable reason for the American Jews to do as they did. It was all for the creation of Israel. I call them perpetrators, would you not?

In this post I go to another topic that causes even more objections, but I can guarantee that I am never anti-Semitic. Studying what actually happened is not anti-anything.

From AD 1144 to AD 1900 there were 122 cases of Jews being accused of ritual murder. There were later cases, such as the Beilis case in 1913, Massena in 1928 and the Kielce in 1946. There is too little information on most of the old cases to conclude anything either way. Even assuming that we could in some way show that the 57 or so cases in the twentieth, eighteenth and nineteenth century were wrong accusations, there remain 68 cases in so old times that what actually happened cannot any more be found out. The best that can be done is to focus on a few historical cases where there is enough information and based on those make some kind of a general guess on the others. This means that if we find even one real ritual murder, it is very likely that several of the about 125 known cases were real ritual murders. The other question is who did them. It need not be the Jews, though they were accused, it could have been a sect or a cult.

The claim that Jews were murdering Christian children, usually boys, for religious purposes is nowadays called the blood libel. This means that Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) will consider the claim a libel against Jews and will take some action. The least punishment to be expected is that the author of such claims will be defamed in the media. B’nai B’rith, a Jewish Zionistic fraternity, which belongs to Freemasonry in the wider sense or the word, founded ADL with the aim of defending Jews who were wrongly accused of murder or other crimes. The incident leading to the establishment of ADL was not a ritual murder case but a murder charge of a member of B’nai B’rith. Leo Frank, elected as the president of Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, was sentenced in 1913 on the murder of a girl, Mary Phagan. Later he was kidnapped from a prison and lynched. In 1980ies supporters of Frank tried two times to clear him of charges, but failed. Frank was finally posthumously pardoned, but not proclaimed innocent. The reason for pardoning him were that the State did not protect him of being lynched and did not find those who lynched him. Apparently, the State still considered him guilty of the murder based on the evidence presented in the court case, though he is presented as innocent in the main media.

The fact that Frank was Jewish is not the issue. He may have been a pedophile and a murdered. There are Jewish murderers as there are murderers of any ethnic origins. There was even a Jewish mafia organization of Meyer Lansky colloquially called Murder Inc. which specialized in hired murders. The issue was the anti-Semitism resulting from this case and leading to the lynching of Frank. A claim of Jews having committed ritual murders is a blood libel only as far as it can foment violent anti-Semitism. Some Jews may have done murders, even ritual murders, but accusing all Jews, or established Judaism, or it, is anti-Semitism.

Such a claim would be not only anti-Semitic but also false. All Jews cannot have committed any single crime and modern Judaism, as it is known, does not demand ritual murders. Ritual murders are mostly done by religious sects and cults. Some ritual murders of children are done by criminals or mentally disturbed people, but in such cases the murders are confined to the lifetime of the murderer and to the places where he traveled. The Jewish ritual murder cases are spread over a too large time spell and too wide area to be explained in this way. They either are false accusations or work of a sect or cult. If it was a sect or cult, it most probably was inside the Jewish community, since ritual murder cases in England stopped when Jews were expelled and similar observations can be done elsewhere.

What could be the sect or cult?

You probably already guessed that I will propose practical cabbalists. Practical cabbalists commanded spirits, both evil and good spirits. It is the same practice as in the Gospels where Jesus commanded evil spirits. In order to command a spirit, cabbalists tied a spirit to an amulet with a rite. A few very advanced practical cabbalists, called Ba’al Shems, commanded God himself by pronouncing God’s forbidden name. Some miracles could only be done by calling God’s name, such as bringing a dead back to life or creating a golem. Golem was a man made out of clay. The cabbalist gave it life and this required calling God’s forbidden name.

Naturally, approaching God was very dangerous, as God is a fearful spirit. Torah, the Books of Moses, tell not to approach God empty handed. This means that in order to make any magic with God’s forbidden name, a sacrifice is required. The type of a sacrifice depends on the request. A sacrifice of the heart as in a normal prayer is enough for normal life but a prayer is not an effective way to work miracles. Jesus needed to sacrifice himself in order to bring redemption. The required sacrifice was God’s own son. This was so because redemption is in blood, so it is said in the Torah in the place where Noah is forbidden of drinking blood. There cannot be redemption without a blood sacrifice.

Redemption by blood and drinking blood are connected. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus tells a parable, which is not in the New Testament. He tells of a man, who carries a sheep and asks what the man will do with the sheep. The disciples answer that he will eat the sheep, but Jesus opposes that the man kills the sheep and then eats the dead body. But what would happen if he ate alive? Blood is alive and the soul is in blood, according to Torah. This is why Jesus told to eat his flesh and drink his blood for everlasting life. In Christianity this is symbolic and the bread and water of life Jesus gave was teaching.

In practical cabbalism blood is not symbolic. Cabbalists purified themselves before a magical rite and they made sacrifices. The Jewish magical book Sefer HaRazim from the second century tells to bake cakes of flour and blood. These cakes are not eaten: they are broken and magic and prophecy are performed. The blood in this case is blood of a lion cub. In the extended Zohar, in the end of Idra Zuta all present are told to drink blood. It is not surprising that a Jewish professor of medieval history, Ariel Toaff, in [1] found that some Ashkenazi communities in the Middle Ages used a Passover ritual (Hagganah) where blood was added to wine of the head of the household. This wine was not drunken, but poured to ground to accompany each of the ten curses of Moses before the Exodus. The rite is called the rite of ten curses. According to [1] the blood was obtained from a Christian child.

Ariel Toaff studied in [1] the case of Simon of Trent, who was murdered in March 21, 1475. This murder is the best documented of medieval ritual murder cases and Toaff could go through the documents of the trial. The boy was murdered and the case had the characteristics of a ritual murder. Toaff concludes that the accused Jews were guilty of the charges.

As this book confirmed the existence of the Jewish ritual murder in the Middle Ages, the Jewish community was not especially charmed by it. Toaff was forced to make a revision, which did not change the claims much: in the revised version it is accepted that there is no proof that Jews murdered Christian children and the blood could have been obtained by voluntary donors, but the suggested method of donating blood did not seem so voluntary. The revised book implies that Jews bought children from their parents, took blood from the neck veins of the child, and unintentionally it caused the death of the child. This revision was not enough for the community. Finally the book was withdrawn from sales. The original version and its translation can be found from the web, as well as extracts of the revised version.

There is no need to repeat the findings of [1] here. It is sufficient to say that the case of Simon of Trent was a real ritual murder committed by a sect. It is very likely that among the 125 blood libel cases there are several real ritual murders committed by the same sect, as murderous sects seldom are satisfied with only one crime.

The focus of Toaff was on blood and he ignored the pertinent aspect of ritual murders, that is, the victim is crucified and is given the wounds of Christ. My focus is also not on ritual murders as such, but on the sect. Toaff only concludes that the sect was Ashkenazi. That of course does not mean that all Ashkenazi Jews killed Christian children in the Middle Ages and even less that Ashkenazi Jews kill children today. There is the understanding that these deeds were made by a sect, which was inside the Ashkenazi community.

Toaff does not list the reasons for this conclusion in book, but it can be reconstructed. There were three Jewish communities in the medieval Western Europe, which can be called Italian, Sephardim and Ashkenazi. Toaff’s claim is that ritual murders occurred in Ashkenazi communities. I prefer to call these communities Italian, meaning communities of Jews who had moved there in Antique times; Sephardim, meaning Jews in Islamic Hispanian peninsula; and Central-European, meaning Jews of France, Germany and England before they were expulsed. The map in [2] demonstrates the distribution of blood libel cases.

The Sephardim community, the Spanish Jews, was once the largest community. It seems to have developed under Muslim rule and become part of the European world only after the Reconquista pushed Islam to the south. Muslim Moors conquered the Kingdom of the Visigoths starting from 711. The conquest of Septimania (southern France) started from Narbonne (719) and ended 725. Charles Martel defeated Moors in the Battle of Tours in 732 and after that followed the reconquest. Moors were expelled from Narbonne 759 and from Northern Spain in the ninth and tenth century. Southern Spain remained under Islam up to 1200. In Portugal the Moors were expulsed 1139. From these dates it follows that Jews in the Northern Spain belonged to the same Jewish population as Jews of France, while Sephardim Jews were the Jews of Southern Spain and Portugal.

This map does not show any blood libel cases in Portugal, where the Jews were Sephardim. Portuguese Jews had to either convert or leave in 1497. Many moved to Holland and become Dutch Jews. Thus, Dutch Jews were Sephardim. Cromwell allowed Jews to return to England in 1655. These Jews came from Holland and were thus Sephardim. There were no ritual murder cases in Holland and England after Sephardim Jews moved there.

Spanish Jews were from two communities: northern and southern. The northern community belonged to the Central-European Jews, while the southern were Sephardim. The map in [2] shows three ritual murder cases in northern Spain and none in the south. A notable blood libel case, the Holy Child of La Guardia in 1490, occurred in the former Kingdom of Toledo, which had belonged to Christian Spain since 1065. It is correct to classify these Jews as Central-European Jews, which were mostly expulsed from Europe by the beginning of the 14^th century.

Spanish Jews were expulsed in 1492 as a result of the case of the Holy Child of La Guardia. Many converted but many fled, ultimately to the Osman Empire. The map in [2] shows some ritual murder cases in the area that belonged to the Osman Empire. All Spanish Jews were not Sephardim, thus it is not possible to know if Sephardim Jews were involved in the blood libel cases.

The map in [2] shows some blood libel cases in Italy. Spanish Jews escaped first to Italy. It is again not possible to know if the communities involved in the blood libel cases were Sephardim or Ashkenazi.

The map in [2] shows blood libels from England, but they were before 1290 when the Jews were expulsed from England. These expulsed Jews belonged to the same population as the French Jews, i.e., Central European Jews. Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe moved to England much later and at that time blood libel accusations in England were not accepted to legal courts even if such would have happened.

In general terms, the map in [2] supports Toaff’s claim. The vast majority of blood libel cases are in the area of Ashkenazi, or Central European, Jews and the few cases which are outside may still be connected with Central European Jews.

We can also pinpoint the Ashkenazi sect with some high probability. The rite of ten curses is clearly practical cabbalism. The most likely sect to be involved in it is Chasidei Ashkenazi. This sect developed a secret society of Ba’al Shem’s, magicians who called the forbidden name of God. The secret society was known as Tadzikim Nistarim or Lamed Vav or the 36 righteous people. Their belief included that each one of them could become the Messiah if the time was correct. This implies that they had to belong to certain families, which were believed to be descendants of Kind David.

The present day Hasidim Jews have a connection to Nistarim: the founder of Hasidism, Israel ben Eliezer Baal Shem Tov, was a Ba’al Shem, member of Nistarim and a practical cabbalist, but he resigned from practical cabalism and Hasidism does not contain the reproachable features of earlier practical cabbalism. The followers of Shabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank were the last known Jewish sects practicing old time cabbalistic magic. These sects were excommunicated from Judaism soon after 1759. The sec of Baal Shem Tov was initially suspected of Sabbateanism, but cleared of these doubts. This history contracts rather strangely to the numbers of blood libels. If ritual murders were made by a sect of practical cabbalists and Jews managed to excommunicate all such sects by the end of the eighteenth century, then why there were 39 blood libel cases in the nineteenth century, more than in any other century? We will leave this question to a later time since it may connect to the Palestine plan, and we return to the first ritual murder case.

The first ritual murder case occurred in the year 415 in Inmestar in Syria. Church historian Socrates of Constantinople (born in the end of the fourth century) tells how during the celebration of Purim drunken Jews tied a Christian child on a cross in a mockery of Christ’s Passion. The child died of torture. The work of Socrates has been preserved in “Historia Tripartita” by Theodorus Lector, an early 6^th century lector of Hagia Sofia.

The case that is usually mentioned as the first blood libel is the murder of William of Norwich in 1144. William, a twelve year old boy, was seen to go to the house of a local Jew in Holy Thursday and found dead in Holy Sunday. He had died violently and wounds implicated Jews, who were suspected of the murder but not charged since they were protected by the sheriff. When the body was exhumed and washed one month later for a propped funeral, traces of wounds were found indicating that his head was lacerated with thorns, hands and feet were pierced and there was a would in his side. Clearly, he had been crucified in the manner of Christ in the Passion.

Is this reliable? The only source to this case is “The Life and Passion of St. William of Norwich” by Thomas of Monmouth. The first volume of this work is from 1149/50 and the second probably from 1155. The last volume is from 1173. The first two volumes are the best sources to the case, later volumes focus on miracles that the Saint was said to have done.

In the first two volumes Thomas tells the story as he had heard it in the monastery of Norwich, so it is not an eyewitness report, still these two volumes were written only 11 years after the event. The story of William being crucified reminds the story told by Socrates and it is natural to ask if the whole event is invented by literary borrowing. It is unlikely. There were copies of “Historia Tripartita” in the Middle Ages, but the only two known copies from England are from slightly later times. No medieval author, who used “Historia Tripartita” as a source, refers to the event in Inmester.

Could it be that Christians had seen Jews hang or crucify dolls in Purim celebration and concocted from this a story of William having been crucified? The enemy of Jews in Purim, Haman, was hanged according to Scriptures. Jews did indeed in some occasion crucify a doll which was said to be Haman but looked very much like Christ. They were forbidden from doing so as it was understood as mockery, which it undoubtedly was. This is a very unlikely explanation. William was most probably killed and last seen going to a house of a Jew. Those alone should have been sufficient to an investigation of the crime, which was not done by the sheriff. In the later volumes of Thomas there is a woman, who sees the boy hanging on a cross. Let us say that this was a later addition. Still, there probably were wounds suggesting crucifixion. As Ariel Toaff already has studied the much better documented case of Simon of Trent and concluded that it was a ritual murder, there is no compelling reason to claim that the case of William was certainly not a ritual murder. Based on the normal practice of historians, there is no reason to doubt Thomas in this case any more than historical documents can be trusted in any other case.

Other ritual murder cases are quite similar. Consider the case of Saint Gabriel of Białystok from 1690. He is a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church and the murder took place in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so this is very far away in time, place and even a different church tradition. The six-year-old boy was kidnapped from his home during the Jewish Passover, taken to Białystok by a Jew with the name Shutko. Then boy was tortured with sharp objects, his blood was drained and then his body was dumped in a local field.

The similarities are that the body is thrown, not buried or hidden, the victim is a young Christian boy, the victim is tortured, a Jew is associated with the case and this happens close to the Jewish Passover. The draining of blood is not mentioned by Thomas of Monmouth in the first two books, but it is told in later volumes.

We can compare these two with yet another boy saint, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln. Hugh disappeared on July 31, 1255, and the body was found in a well in August 29. Here is one difference to the other two: this did not happen in the time of Passover, but in other respect the case is similar. The body had been tortured and crucified. The case is told in Matthew Paris: “Chronica Majora”, published in 1259, which is the year of Paris’ death. According to Paris the boy was scourged, crowned him with thorn, pierced with a knife, crucified, pierced to the heart with a spear and finally disemboweled. Hug’s friends claimed that a Jew Copin had kidnapped Hugh.

The similarities are that again the body is thrown, the victim is a young Christian boy, he is tortured like Hugh and William, and crucified as William was. There is the Jew as always in these cases and Copin even confessed the murder, albeit under torture, and said that it was a Jewish custom to crucify a Christian boy once a year. There is no mention of draining the blood from the boy. In the case of Simon of Trent (1475) the blood motive appears.

According to Toaff, Simon of Trent was a real ritual murder. I will assume that also the case of William of Norwich was a real ritual murder since it may lead a bit further in the track of the sect. The relevant part is what Thomas tells of Theobald of Cambridge. There apparently was no Jewish community in Cambridge at that time, but of course Theobald could have been visiting Cambridge, so this fact does not prove that he did not exist. The book of Thomas is in [3] and here is what Theobald is claimed to have said:

“As a proof of the truth and credibility of the matter we now adduce something which we have heard from the lips of Theobald, who was once a Jew, and afterwards a monk. He verily told us that in the ancient writings of his fathers it was written that the Jews, without the shedding of human blood, could neither obtain their freedom, nor could they ever return to their fatherland. Hence it was laid down by them in ancient times that every year they must sacrifice a Christian in some part of the world to the Most High GOD in scorn and contempt of Christ, that so they might avenge their sufferings on Him ; inasmuch as it was because of Christ’s death that they had been shut out from their own country, and were in exile as slaves in a foreign land. Wherefore the chief men and Rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain assemble together at Narbonne, where the Royal seed [resides], and where they are held in the highest estimation, and they cast lots for all the countries which the Jews inhabit ; and whatever country the lot falls upon, its metropolis has to carry out the same method with the other towns and cities, and the place whose lot is drawn has to fulfill the duty imposed by authority. Now in that year in which we know that William, God’s glorious martyr, was slain, it happened that the lot fell upon the Norwich Jews, and all the synagogues in England signified, by letter or by message, their consent that the wickedness should be carried out at Norwich. “I was,” said he, “at that time at Cambridge, a Jew among Jews, and the commission of the crime was no secret to me. But in process of time, as I became acquainted with the glorious display of miracles which the divine power carried out through the merits of the blessed martyr William, I became much afraid, and following the dictates of my conscience, I forsook Judaism, and turned to the Christian faith.        These words, observe, the words of a converted Jew we reckon to be all the truer, in that we received them as uttered by one who was a converted enemy, and also had been privy to the secrets of our enemies.”

This testimony has very many times been declared an obvious falsification by Thomas. Is it that? Let us read it without such prejudge since the mention of Narbonne is of interest.

The part “in the ancient writings of his fathers it was written that the Jews, without the shedding of human blood, could neither obtain their freedom, nor could they ever return to their fatherland” is quite according to Torah.

Torah tells that redemption is in blood: a sacrifice is necessary for redemption. Redemption is necessary for the return to the homeland and for obtaining freedom from an enemy, which God has sent to punish the Israelites of their sins. The correct sacrifice in Torah is the firstborn son, but the prophets forbid Israelites from murdering their own children. Sons of Israelites must be redeemed and they cannot be redeemed by sacrificing Israelite daughters.

In the Exodus story God’s angels kill the firstborn of Egyptians, while Israelites are protected by the blood of the lamb. Let us just note that in no place does the Old Testament forbid murdering the enemy. God tells to kill enemy men, women, children and their animals. If there is to be a new Exodus, there has to be redemption of sins of Jews. That requires a blood sacrifice and the only acceptable sacrifice for this deed is a human sacrifice. This is why Jesus, a Jew, was sacrificed for redemption of the people.

The second part is: “Hence it was laid down by them in ancient times that every year they must sacrifice a Christian in some part of the world to the Most High GOD in scorn and contempt of Christ, that so they might avenge their sufferings on Him ; inasmuch as it was because of Christ’s death that they had been shut out from their own country, and were in exile as slaves in a foreign land.”

How ancient times this can talk of? It must be after Christ. Let us hear what Talmud has to say of the five disciples of Christ in Bab. Sanhedrin 43a:

“There is a tradition: Jeschu had five disciples —Mathai, Nakkai, Netzer, Bunni, Todah.

Mathai was brought before the judgment seat. He said to the judges: Is Mathai to be put to death? Yet it is written: Mathai ( = when) shall I come and appear before God ? [Ps. xlii. 3], They answered him: Nay, but Mathai is to be executed; for it is said: Mathai (when) shall (he) die and his name perish? [Ps. xli. 6]. Nakkai was brought. He said to them: Is Nakkai to be put to death? Yet it is written: Naki (=the innocent) and righteous slay thou not [Ex. xxiii.] They replied to him: Nay, but Nakki is to be put to death; for it is written: In covert places doth he put to death the Naki [Ps. x. 8]. Netzer was brought. He said to them: Is Netzer to be put to death? Yet it is written: A Netzer (branch) shall spring up out of his roots [Is. xi. 1]. They answered him: Netzer is to be put to death; for it is said: Thou art east forth from thy sepulchre, like an abominable Netzer [Is. xiv. 19]. Bunni was brought. He said: Is Bunni to be put to death? Yet it is written: Israel is Beni (my son), my first born [Ex. iv. 22]. They answered him: Nay, but Bunni is to be put to death; for it is written: Behold, I will slay Binkha (thy son), thy first born [Ex. iv. 23]. Todah was brought. He said to them: Is Todah to be put to death? Yet it is written: A psalm for Todah (thanksgiving) [Ps. c. 1, heading]. They answered him: Nay, but Todah is to be put to death; for it is written: Whoso offereth Todah honoureth me [Ps. i.23].”

This section of the Babylonian Talmud tells that the disciples of Jesus are to be killed when (Mathai) the time comes as a innocent (Naki) sacrifice (Todah) of the firstborn (Beni) and be thrown away as an abominable (Netzer) branch.

When (Mathai) may mean the end of the times and coming of the messiah, but Theobald understands when as once a year. It actually means both. This ritual is to be done to make the coming of the messiah possible. Throwing the abominable (Netzer) branch (Yeshu ha-Notzra) away means that the body of the ritual murder is not to be buried, it must be thrown to a forest or to water. The text confirms that this is the sacrifice of the firstborn son, the sacrifice needed for redemption of sins. The one to be sacrificed must be innocent, as the goat to be sacrificed for redeeming sins must be perfect. This part of the testimony of Theobald is quite according to Talmud, which is the interpretation of the Holy Script. Theobald’s explanation that the death of Jesus is the reason why Jews lost the war against Romans. This is a Christian explanation, but it is a natural one also for a Jew assuming that Jesus was accepted as the prophet messiah by most of the Jewish people. I think it had to be so because Josephus explains the signs of the end of the times as a cross in the sky in AD 66.

Let us continue: “Wherefore the chief men and Rabbis of the Jews who dwell in Spain assemble together at Narbonne, where the Royal seed [resides], and where they are held in the highest estimation”. Theobald talks of the Exilarch, Nasi, in Narbonne. It is verified by other sources that in Narbonne was the Prince, the king of Jews.

Theobald mentions of drawing of lots: “they cast lots for all the countries which the Jews inhabit”. The name of the Jewish festival Purim comes from a Persian word for casting lots. We see that this rite is connected with Purim, but also with Passover, since Passover memorizes the Exodus. The date of Purim is 14. Adar, which is in February or March. Passover is in 15. Nisan.  Adar has 30 days, so Passover is 29 days after Purim. According to one source, William of Norwich was murdered in March 20, 1144, and Tuesday March 21, 1144, was Passover for Jews. In any case, the day was not close to Purim and was very close to Jewish Passover. Theobald’s testimony fits well, since if the lots were drawn on Purim, then there was enough time for all preparations until Passover.

The rest of Theobald’s testimony is quite possible. If the place was determined by casting lots, which suits to Purim, some town got the lot. There was lots of talk of miracles among Christians after the murder. Theobald as a Jew of that time believed in miracles. He could have decided to convert. Maybe the only question is: if every year one child was murdered, why there are so few known cases? If I interpreted the Talmud story correctly, the body had to be thrown away and not buried. Could it not be found more often? It is not necessarily so, since the body could be thrown to water and it might sink or float far.

Be this ritual murder case true or not, and be Theobald a converted Jew or in imaginary person, his testimony is interesting: he mentions the Nasi of Narbonne. The existence of this Nasi is not in doubt. William of Malmesby made reference to Nasi of Narbonne around 1130 calling him the Pope of the Jews. Also Peter the Venerable 1148 testifies that there was Nasi in Narbonne, and finally, Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Narbonne in 1165, mentions Nasi of Nabonne and that his descendants were of the seed of David. Abraham ibn Daud tells in Sefer ha-Qabbalah (written 1161) that Makhir of Narbonne was of the House of David, that means from the Exilarch family, and got the heritable title of Nasi from Charlemagne in 791. There are also official mentions of Nasi in Narbonne in 1364.

We can be certain that there was an exilarch family living in Narbonne.

So far following Ariel Toaff I have only considered a practical cabbalistic sect of Ashkenazi Jews, but the Chronicles of Ahameez also point out to ha-Nasi, the Prince. Let us assume it was as Theobald told. Thus, Nasi was leading the Central European Jewish population, not Chasidei Ashkenazi. Nasi was the origin of practical cabbalism. Then comes the question: why, if Nasi was in Narbonne already quite long, did the ritual murder cases start only at 1144? The reason I propose is that the starting depended on the timing. In the passage from Talmud there is when (Mathai). If the planning was similar as in the 19^th century, when Rabbi Hirsch Kalischer announced that the time of redemption started 1840 and would last for 100 years, we should assume that the end of the times was calculated as 1244. This is not so incorrect. According to the rabbinical calculation, the year 1240 was 5000 years after the creation. Rabbinic Jews waited for the Messiah to come in 240 or after, last time for that era was 1240. Let us mention that Cabbalist Abraham Abulafia was born 1240 and claimed to be Messiah in 1280. He started a new calculation.

Then we go to the other question, already mentioned before. If frankists and sabbateans were smoked out of Judaism soon after 1759, why were there more ritual murder cases in the 19^th century than in any previous century? There were 39. Of course, it is not 100, which would be expected if there was one sacrifice every year. Maybe they only were discovered more frequently. But there is another tentative reason. The time of redemption started in 1840. After that time observing sacrifices was more important. Maybe any group leaving for the homeland had to do the sacrifice and very possibly these sacrifices were symbolic: no child was killed, there was only much noise of the murder. Christ’s sacrifice was real, but drinking blood was symbolic. Always in Judaism things can be done in many ways: real, as a play, as symbolic, in the spirit. Symbolic or faked blood libels made Jews more willing to move by fomenting anti-Semitism and maybe pogroms. A good case is Kielce. There is evidence that the communists faked it. There were many Jews within communists. The reason for creating a pogrom could easily have been to get Polish Jews to move to Palestine, where they were needed for increasing the Jewish population for the division of the country.

This post was rather speculative. I hope I did not offend anybody’s feelings. Let me finish in a more optimistic way. In 1989 in the Oprah show appeared a Jewish woman, who told that her family, and some other Jewish families, were doing ritual murders of babies. The case is told in [4] and the video of the Oprah show is easily found from youtube. She had been diagnosed as suffering from multiple personality disorder and the shrink was also in the show, assuring that there are several similar cases and these victims have similar memories of ritual murders. So fine, memory works in a mysterious way and trying to remember things that happened in early childhood forces the brain to fabricate memories. Today many psychologists doubt if such a disorder like multiple personalities at all exists. We can safely forget this strange case of Vicky Polin. Jews do not kill babies, at least not in modern times. There additionally would be no reason to perform the rite of ten curses, since Israel already exists. So to make everybody feel good, let me put a small piece of an interview connected with the Polin case. I found it from one of those so reliable web sources. The woman is supposed to be a person, who was at that day in the Oprah show, maybe in the audience, and Luke is a journalist. So, here it is, the woman is telling what her daughter was doing in a Jewish preschool:

Luke: “You have no doubts there was definitely this type of ritual abuse at the school?”

Woman: “There was definitely sexual abuse and physical abuse of the children. As far as the ritual abuse, it’s hard to say. Did they really kill babies? I don’t know. I do know that the children were convinced that they were killing babies. It may be that they were acting something out with dolls or maybe the children were drugged and led to believe things were happening. There was costuming and special effects involved. I can’t say for a fact that they killed a baby. I can say for a fact that my daughter believed that they did.”

How nice, and even I agree that it must be false, the world cannot be that bad. Just to remind us that there are also real cases of ritual murders, not Jewish, see [5]. The world is a nice place where everybody wishes all the best. Only conspiracy theory nuts think that anybody would harm little children.

References:

[1] Ariel Toaff, Passovers of Blood, 2007,

https://archive.org/details/BloodPassoverarielToaff2007Original

[2] Map of blood libels in Encyclopedia Judaica. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-libel

[3] Thomas of Monmouth, “The Life and Passion of St. William of Norwich”, 1150-73, http://www.archive.org/stream/lifemiraclesofst00thomuoft/lifemiraclesofst00thomuoft_djvu.txt

[4] The case of Vicki Polin, http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm

[5] A real case of ritual murderer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo