Opis mordu paschalnego.
Polacy / Rodacy,
Zapewne wielu z Was zadaje sobie pytanie jak wygląda mord rytualny ? W rzeczywistości, wszyscy wiemy bardzo dobrze, że Żydzi zostali przyzwyczajeni przez długie lata do przestrzegania ich praw Paschy i że potrzebują krwi, aby umieścić ją w swoim pieczywie do spożycia. To jeden z opisów takiego mordu paschalnego opisanego w publikacji Kościoła Katolickiego
„Samuel związał chusteczkę na szyi chłopca , który tam był. Moses Elder , siedzi na ławce, trzyma dziecko na kolanach , podczas gdy Mojżesz i Samuel silnie zawiązali chustkę na szyi dziecka , aby uniemożliwić mu głośno krzyczeć. Mojżesz wyciągnął kawałki mięsa z jego prawej szczęki za pomocą kleszczy które miał w jego rękach . Samuel i Thobias uczynili podobnie . Thobias zebrał krew kapiącą do miski , który wtrysnęła ze szczęki dziecka . Czasami Mohar trzymał miskę , jak również inne wyżej wymienione osoby które miały igły w ich rękach i przebijały nimi dziecko, podczas wymawiania niektórych słów w języku hebrajskim. Następnie tymi samymi kleszczami , wyciągnęli jakieś ciało na zewnątrz z prawej nogi dziecka. Powiedział, żebym nie zwracał uwagi , abym zrobił to samo od początku, a następnie wyciągnął ciało z prawej nogi dziecka. Powiedział, krew co kapie z nogi zbierz w miskę. Następnie , Samuel i Moses , siedząc na ławce , wzięli dziecko i postawił je między nimi. Kazali mu wstać , trzymając go w pozycji pionowej z rękami rozprostowanymi Mojżesz siedział obok dziecka z prawej stronie , trzymając go pionowo i trzymając prawą rękę. Samuel robił to samo, siedząc z lewej strony dziecka . Thobias trzymał nogi . W ten sposób , będąc w pozycji wyprostowanej z ramionami rozłożonymi ,dziecko wyglądało jak ukrzyżowane.”
La Civilta Cattolica
Florencja, 10 listopada 1881
Two Articles from Civilta Cattolica on Jewish Ritual Murder
Pope Pius IX ordered the Jesuits to publish the journal Civilta Cattolica (Catholic Civilisation) in Rome as the informal organ of the Vatican. The papal secretariat of state cleared every article before publication. It is still published. We present here two articles from the journal which concern Jewish Ritual Murder: one from the June 23 1881 edition and one from the November 10 1881 edition.
La Civilta Cattolica
Florence, the 23rd of June, 1881
Rome (Our Correspondence). On jews’ murderous reaction, that is on evil jewish action referred to crimes and murders against things and lives of non-jews, especially if Christians; on talmudical command and spirit of jewish piety and devotion.
The REACTION, as Mr. Chiarini defines it, or the jewish race’s evil action against all peoples, especially Christian ones, among whom such race is forced to live scattered, is not only a religious and political reaction in the sense explained in our previous correspondence.
It is an especially criminal one that exercises itself by means of prescribed murders which are considered by jews as religious duties, precepts of the law and externalizations of piety and devotion. By declaring this, we are not saying those other evil actions deriving from their religious and political reaction do not belong to the category of murders, more or less strictly. We refer, for instance, to the corruption and the mutilation of books, the invention of their absurd and immoral precepts, hurling daily imprecations and curses, and particularly their deceits, their frauds, and their most merciless usury. These are guilty actions, and notwithstanding this they are not only allowed to them, but are also prescribed by jewish law, religion and conscience regarding non-jews. We mean to go into minute details on those which are defined by law crimes and murders against property and people. The more pious, devout and observant jews are of their law, the more they are driven by their laws, piety and devotion. Let’s imagine that many or even the most part or all of jews (as we’d like to believe) refrain from observing their law, especially in the countries which are more subject to police controls. If this really happens (we are not preventing it, for what’s on trial here is judaism, not jews), this means that, thanks to God, there are no good jews observing their law in its most mystical, ascetical and perfect side anymore. In fact, since they were children, jews are formally trained to hate mankind, especially Christians, as their conscience and devotion prescribe to them.
Christians are the ones who, among all of their disfavours, are already damned, whether for being non-jews or for unfairly having all those possessions which have been stolen by jews who are the only masters of the world and God’s chosen people for getting and ruling the whole world.
If nobody among such a race so impiously bred wants to take advantage from that kind of breeding in order to put into practice the talmudical precept of universal misanthropy, then such jews are now bad jews, and therefore are now good people in general, or they are at least not different from other races. They are even better than non-jews since they represent those who heroically hold out against all precepts of their law, against dogmas of their religion, against all dictates of their conscience, against all teachings of their priests, and against the whole tendency of their familiar civil, social, and religious upbringing. As for this, in fact, current jewish religion is different from the others, including the false ones: no religion on earth imposes to hate mankind as the jewish one does. Therefore, whereas the other men sin when they infringe this aspect of charity towards their fellowmen, jews sin when they observe their law and religion, instead.
We can extrapolate current jewish dogmas and precepts, dealing with the respect that jews owe to non-jewish properties and people from considering first what the Talmud expressly allows to jews, as far as regarding as properties of theirs, with full certainty and conscience, all unguarded things they can find inside houses belonging to non-jews. In fact, the Talmud (Bava Kamma 113, 2nd edition of Venice): “Wherefrom do we know that objects lost by Goyim are allowed things (that is to say, it is allowed to possess them). For (it replies) it is written (Deuteronomy, 22, 3): de omni omissione fratris tui: that means you have to give back to your brother what he has lost, not to the Goy, who is not your brother.”
This legal leave [i.e., permission, authorization – Ed.] that all jews have to keep as theirs what non-jews lose, must be extended against apostate jews, that is converted jews, in the Aveda Sara Treaty (26, 2) by the same authors of the Tosefot. This leave becomes precept in the Sanhedrin (76, 2). In fact, it states: “He who gives back to a non-jew what he has lost by chance, won’t be forgiven by God.” For, according to Raschi’s explanation, “if a jew gave back to his owner what a non-jew has lost, the jew would acquaint him with the jewish law, which is exclusively a jews’ affair,” whence we can see how rabbis are capable of even making the Talmud worse by means of their commentaries. The Talmud only offers a leave, where the rabbi imposes the precept, as we can see in Yoma 88, 1, and in Pische Tosephot, too.
The Bible commands (Deuteronomy, 24, 14) that oprimes mercenarium afflictum et egenum de fratribus tuis. Well, this merciful precept is enough for the Talmud (Bavia Metzia, III, 2) to build upon the leave for doing the opposite with the others. Who are these others, in the end? Raschi responds: “The others are the peoples of the world who are not jews’ brothers.” Jews do have the leave to oppress the broken-hearted, poor, mercenary non-jew, just as the Bible calls him brother, by stating not to oppress him. This is the only reason alleged by Raschi and by the Talmud. It is an essentially talmudical and rabbinical reason, for, according to the Talmud and rabbis, a jew is nobody’s brother, except for his fellow-countrymen. The others are enemies and they are not men, either, properly speaking.
But how far can this oppression allowed to jews by law against non-brothers be extended? It can achieve theft (Bava Metzia, III, 2; and 61, in the Tosephot.) For in Leviticus it is written non opprimes socium tuum neque rapies (Leviticus 19, 13). Then, a jew is allowed to rob a non-jew, as he cannot be a socius of the jew.
Chiarini says people have been looking in vain for this text in recent printings of the Talmud, whence it was taken away by censorship. Anyway, traces of its mutilations are evident. Everybody knows erased or rectified texts are those which can be better learnt by heart and which are orally handed down from teachers to pupils, in the synagogues. Jews do believe their law forbids helping non-jews in any serious and dangerous occurrence, even when they run the risk of losing their lives. We are sure that many jews would be ready to face danger to save a Christian from death. But, by doing this, they would sin against their law and their conscience. For in Avada Zara 26, 1 and elsewhere it is written: “it is forbidden to save an Accum’s life,” that is to say, a non-jew, as the book we’re referring to explains in Thosephot 20, 1. It also motivates it: “for rescuing idolaters or non-jews from death is meant to increase their number. Moreover, the Writ forbids being moved to pity in front of their doom in any case.”
According to jewish logic it is evident that to allow the creation of an idolater or a non-jew is considered a sin as much as it is considered a sin to rescue his life from death. And if it is forbidden to be moved to pity upon non-jews’ fate, it is far less allowed to cooperate in changing it from bad to good.
Moses Maimonides is also the author of the Turims which get from all of this jewish casuistry the various rules to be followed in regards to this subject. According to jews the first rule says that: “it is forbidden to jews to kill a non-jew or to push him on the verge of ruin, for jews are not at war with non-jews, at the moment (Yad Chasaka P. 1, C. 10, N. I and elsewhere). We are going to deal with this rule in a while.” The II rule says (ibidem) that if a jew gets in touch with betrayers, apostates, and Epicurean Israelites, “he must kill them all, as they afflict jews and get them out of the Lord’s way.”
The Talmud (Berachot, 18), then, confirms the above-mentioned rule by means of Rabbi Schila’s example, who killed a jew because he had threatened the rabbi of informing against him since the rabbi had talked behind some non-jews’ backs. So, it is far too normal that only a few jews dare say the whole truth about their own fellow-countrymen and their current law, which is concealed and almost unapproachable inside their rabbinical books.
The third Rule (Characka P. 4, C. 8, N. 10) says that when jews have the power in their hands, at the level they already had in Palestine, after the coming of the Messiah, “Jews will force all non-jews by every means in order to make them practice at least those precepts named Noachites (therefore, non-jews will also be forced to undergo circumcision) and kill the unwilling ones.” Maimonides says this law was given to Moses by God himself. Whence we can suppose how happy Christian peoples’ fate would be, if they were ruled by jews.
These are the three rules to which rabbis reduce jewish morals, as far as jews’ right to kill non-jews is concerned. But Chiarini says (page 350 of the 1st volume of his Theory of Judaism) that those Christians who really believe in the First Rule, forbidding to jews to kill non-jews – even now and before the Messiah’s coming – are really simpleminded. “Misanthropy of diaspora jews goes far beyond, and our opinion is not different from the one of those who believe that jewish law forces his followers to kill non-jews, even before the Messiah’s coming.”
Chiarini produces for it the following arguments. First of all, in the Bible (Lev. 19, 16) it is written: non stabis super sanguinem socii tui. Now, it is known that non-jews are not included among jews’ fellows, according to the Talmud. Therefore, we have already observed the Talmud expressly allows jews to put into practice with non-jews the opposite of what they have to do with their fellows. From such general talmudical rule, we necessarily deduce jews do not have to make scruples about spilling non-jews’ blood. Moreover, the Bible states (Deut. 20, 16) nullum omnino permittes vivere. To tell the truth, here it only refers to the seven peoples of Canaan. But, for the same reason for which all those peoples were then exiled, that precept is still observed by current jews as obligatory in the regards of current non-jews. All non-jews are idolaters as the Canaanites were. And Maimonides says (Sepher Mitzvot fol. 85, C. 2, 3 under the title Mitzvot Lo Taaseh): “whoever does not kill a non-jew, when he can, he infringes a negative precept,” formally contradicting in this way the above-mentioned First Rule, obviously created for Christians more than for jews. Eisenmenger, in his Disclosed Judaism, Raimondo Martino, in his Pugio Fidei, Bustorfio and Bartolucci and those who probe the study of the Talmud share this opinion. And Chiarini comes to the conclusion that, though the duty to kill non-jews doesn’t appear to be that universally admitted in the books which are obligatory to jews, as for the other duty saying not to save non-jews from death, nevertheless there is no doubt at all jews believe – or they can be authorized to believe – they are allowed to kill non-jews. Therefore, after all, the matter reduces itself to this: perhaps jews are not obliged to kill Christians by their Talmud, at the moment, though they are, maybe. But, as for the leave of killing them with no scruples of conscience, it is sure they have it all, according to the texts and the above-mentioned authors. When the Messiah comes – that is to say, whenever and wherever (which is the same) – jews will be able to rule Christians, then they will not have just the leave, but they will have the strict duty to kill all those who do not want to undergo circumcision or convert to judaism, according to the law and current jewish theory, leaving practice out of consideration. In fact, as there are thieves and murderers among Christians who, by robbing and killing, impiously infringe their own law, so nihil obstat – nothing prevents – jews from being honest and not murderers. Those jews, as they do not rob nor murder Christians, devoutly infringe their own law, or they at least refrain from an impious action which is considered as an innocent act by jewish law.
If it is true that there are not pious and devout jews observing their law at their best, even in the most ascetical and mystical aspects of rabbinical talmudism, this is a historical matter concerning criminal trials. As it is well-known, many of those trials took place in different cities and centuries. They are not trials brought about for ordinary crimes, which nowadays are common more and more, and they get atrocious more and more as the lights of civilization increase. We are referring to murders which are properly and strictly talmudic and which are executed for devotion and in homage to jewish law and spirit. One of these trials, among the last ones, is most notorious: the murder of Father Thomas of Calangianus, Apostolical Missionary Capuchin from Sardinia and his Christian servant Ibrahim Amarah. Such murders were made for the purpose of rabbinical devotion and piety by the most pious and devout jews of Damascus who had been friends of the above-mentioned Father for many years. The authentic trial transcription still exists, with questionings, replies and confessions, all very evident, along with other official documents pertinent to that trial, enclosed in the Historical Report by the Father G.B. of Mondovì, Apostolical Missionary Capuchin, printed several times, and printed in Marseille in 1852 as a third edition, as well.
But, as this Report is not to be found in any present edition, and one hardly hints at it but very concisely in Rhorbacher’s recent eclesiastical stories or other’s (being also impossible to find those French newspapers of 1840-41 that dealt with that tragic occurrence for a long time), we have to draw from it what strictly suits our purpose: that is to say, to demonstrate that Christians’ murderers are not all jews, but only the jews who want to strictly obey their current law, considering it a pious deed. As the executioner who believes he is doing his duty before God and society by killing the wicked taken to him, the most mystical, most ascetical, most observant jews of all their law’s devotions are sure to fulfil their state’s duty and to do meritorious deeds before God and their rabbinical society by murdering as many Christians as possible, not only damaging their things, but damaging their very lives.
Let us listen to what Chiarini says on this matter: he is a very moderate and staid person in his opinions, and nevertheless he lived for a long time beside Polish jews, and couldn’t refrain from stating that “jews’ bloody prejudice to lay a snare for Christians’ children for sacrificing them at Passover, perhaps lies solely in the fanaticism of a small quantity of low jews who do it in order to renew the killings [in the name] of God committed by their ancestors and to abuse Christians’ blood.” Then, Chiarini supposes as notorious and certain, at least among Polish jews, this bloody prejudice, perpetrated by the dregs of jewish society, only. In fact, as everybody knows, the mob always complies with the laws and rabbinical teachings anywhere. Chiarini thinks that their custom of laying snares to Christian children is founded on a very dreadful text taken from the Avadazara (26, 2 and elsewhere) saying: “Goyim, marauders, and shepherds of small herds mustn’t be saved from a well, as they mustn’t be hurled into it. Minim (that is to say, Christians), betrayers and apostates must be hurled into a well and must not be saved from it.” Rabbi Scheschet said: If there is a ladder in the den, the jew who takes it away (so who has fallen into the den can’t use it) has to pronounce positive words by saying: I am taking it away, so that a bad beast can’t use it to get into the den. Rabbis Rabba and Joseph say: if there is a stone on the mouth of the well, the jew must close it by means of that stone in order not to make it open again, pronouncing these words: I am doing this so that my beasts go by over it.
Rabbi Nackman said: If there is a ladder in the well, while taking it away, he must say: I need to do it to make my son get down from the roof. As far as this text is concerned, Raimondo Martino and Bustorfio say the the term Minim here refers to Christians in particular. Raschi has also said that Minim are idolater priests, whether they are non-jews or converted jews… And so, in Raschi’s opinion, that jewish piety applies to Christian priests only. This would already mean a lot. But it is certain that the text refers to all Christians, as we can see from its prayer or curse against the Minim, in which it is said that: informers must drop any hope: may all heretics perish at once; may all of them be exterminated all of a sudden. As for the arrogant ones, do uproot them, God, do destroy them, do extirpate them at once. Humble them now. May the Lord be blessed, He who humbles the enemy and the arrogant. Here, informer and heretic stand for Apostates and Epicurean Israelites, while arrogant and enemy stand for non-jews in general. This concept was better explained in the ancient text of the prayer before being altered as it is nowadays, in the above-mentioned text, for fear of Christians. Other very curious texts exist. Chiarini says we could deduce from them such law, or at least this leave or devotion, adopted by jews against Christian children. Those texts are the ones which command to create problems, as much as one is able to, for Christians during their holy feasts. Therefore, in the talmudical treaty Taanith i.e. on fastings (27, 2) a question is asked: Why do most pious in Israel never fast during the first day of the week? The main reason is not said, that is, it has been taken away by censorship. But the Aruk’s author suggests us to suspect it, by mentioning this point and replying: because it is their holy day: that is to say, because it is Sunday. Consulting the most ancient edition of Cracowia, we clearly read: During the first day of the week, Christians do not have to fast. And in that one of the Talmud of Venice, as well as in the old editions of the Ayn Yacob or Ayn Israel, the whole text says: Fasting during the first day of the week because of the Goyim is not allowed. In another talmudical text, it is ordered to behave like Christians during the days of their religious feasts in order to perturb them. Rabbi Judah asks: Is it allowed to require a debt from non-jews before feasts start, for this can afflict them? No, the wise men reply: This affliction is not enough, since non-jews can be happy again after paying it. Then, it is necessary to cause a positive and permanent affliction to non-jews during their holy feasts, in order to drive them away from the exercise of their idolatrous cult, as Rabbi Bartenora says. This precept shows in a rather evident way, says Chiarini, where men can be driven to by the fanaticism and ignorance of the jewish mob. As for the right texts, on which most devout and observant jews found this law of their own, or at least, according to Mr. Chiarini, this leave or bloody devotion of theirs, it is sure, he adds, that whenever a non-jew offends a jew, he commits a crime of high treason and deserves to be killed as it is said in the Sanhedrin (58, 2): “Whenever a non-jew ill-treats a jew, he ill-treats God Himself, and since he commits a crime of high treason this way, he then deserves death.” So, even for this reason, according to Chiarini, there is nothing weird in supposing that most pious, most zealous, and most observant jews – who are among the poorest mob in the ghettos, that is in places where there is little surveillance – feel free by spirit of talmudic judaism to pursue their bloody and cruel retaliations and devotions on young and non-young Christians, in the many ways told by law reports which took place in many cities. Chiarini says on this regard (page 355) that “to deny that jews from different places in Europe have committed such cruel crimes is to erase from history at least 30 or 40 evident and detailed occurrences of this kind. This would mean to destroy all the momuments kept in several cities with all their stories related to these dreadful attempts. It would mean, in the end, to refuse the testimonies of people who are still alive and testified to such crimes, which were at least attempted, when not committed. In this year 1827 (what would Chiarini have said, if he wrote in 1841, after the Damascus case?), some jews had fun in putting a Christian child into a drawer. If we consider they did this a couple of days before their Passover and they did it by means of all precautionary measures usually recommended in such cases by Talmudists, we will not be able to consider this event as a simple joke. I could be charged with having the intention to renew the libel carried on during the Middle-Ages when jews were accused of poisoning fountains and rivers. I reply that to perpetrate such a poisoning is impossible, but that evil acts could be attempted by a people who profess such a religious and moral doctrine as depraved as the talmudic one is. We do not think that this is a good reason enough to reject all jews, even though those crimes are really allowed to them and commanded by their laws as well. We believe we have to find a way to destroy this spirit of intolerance of theirs before granting them civil rights. According to us, a good means to destroy their intolerance is to reveal the true spirit of judaism. We do think that the worst jews’ enemies are those ill-informed authors who consider this matter wrongly, distorting everything and even destroying the chance to improve that race, instead of making it happier and more helpful for the nation.”
We have reported this text in order to spread the authoritative opinion of such a qualified author, not only in the regards of theory, but also in the regards of the bloody and criminal past and current jewish practice carried on by the most pious, devout and observant jews. Nevertheless, we willingly acknowledge that in the so-called civil countries, that is to say those more watched by police, and by jews who are more civilized and therefore less observant, this special bloody talmudic observance, as the other jewish observances, is little perpetrated or isn’t at all. We are going to discuss this topic presently.
La Civilta Cattolica
Florence, the 10th of November, 1881
Rome (Our Correspondence) – The Jew Vitale confirms what the Jew Israel revealed about the bloody Passover rite. He reveals the bloody Passover rites celebrated by him and his uncle Solomon that took place in Monza and Milan. He describes St. Little Simon’s dreadful martyrdom and talks about his purpose and motivations.
By means of the interrogations reported in previous correspondence, the Jew Israel revealed all he knew about St. Little Simon’s murder and the reasons for it. Thus, they started questioning the man who knew and revealed far more about it, according to the information that follows. This man is Vitale, factor, as it is written in the acts of the trial, or on the agent of Brunetta, Israel’s mother. Israel is the man who was already questioned (as we have previously noted). We have already reported elsewhere that the name Vitale is nothing but a mere anagram for the word levita (levite). Likewise, the name Arbid is nothing but a mere anagram for rabbi. Jews often change their names when this suits them. Vitale had shown an extraordinary persistency in addition to a very peculiar cunning in feigning ignorance, during his first interview. Therefore, on the 13th of April, Sir Podestà of Trent set a trap into which Vitale was lured. He was put (Folio XXXIX verso) inside a wardrobe below the stairs (in armario quod est sub scala). The wardrobe was then locked (quod armarium postea fuit clausum). Afterward, Samuel’s son, Israel, who had already been questioned and had pleaded guilty, was taken before the Court. Israel was standing beside the above-mentioned locked wardrobe with the unseen Vitale inside, as previously mentioned. Then Israel was asked « that he name those who were present when the child was murdered » (qui Israel, stans apud dictum armarium clausum, in quo erat Vitalis ut supra, fuit interrogatus: quod nominet qui fuerunt praesentes infrascripti, Samuel, Thobias, Vitalis et ipse Israel, una cum ceteris aliis).
Israel answered that both he and those whose names were written were present (qui Israel respondit quod fuerunt presentes infrascripti, Samuel, Thobias, Vitalis et ipse Israel, una cum ceteris aliis).
After he had said these things, they didn’t make him speak further. He was led to prison. (quibus sic dictis, dictis Israel non passus est ultra loqui: sed reductus fuit ad carceres). Then, they had Vitale come out of the wardrobe. He was questioned in order to make him tell the truth. He answered that Sir Podestà had to be satisfied already with what Israel had confessed (respondit quod Dominus Potestas debet remanere contentus de eo quod confessus est dictus Israel).
Then, questioned about what Israel had said, he answered that Sir Podestà himself had heard very well what Israel had declared (respondit quod bene audivit ipse dominus potestas quod dixit).
They were not able to make him speak further at that time, except for when he was questioned on where the child had been murdered: he answered he had been killed in the kitchen (respondit quod fuit interfectus in coquina). When they asked him how he knew the child had been killed in the kitchen, he said nothing (interrogatus quid scit quod fuerit interfectus in coquina? Et tunc nihil respondit). Nevertheless, he promised he would tell the truth if they did not put him to death. So he was left alone and taken to prison (deponatis me: ego dicam veritatem: et tunc fuit depositus).
He had clearly understood there was no use in persisting in holding his tongue, after Israel had pleaded guilty, as Vitale heard, while standing inside the ward-robe. In part, Vitale himself had inadvertently confirmed Israel’s confession. Therefore, on the 14th of April (Folio XL recto) as on the following 17th of the same month (Folio XLI verso), he finally began to speak the truth about the murder down to the smallest detail, as previous and following witnesses had done . As far as its cause was concerned – in which we are particularly interested here – he added further unknown, unheard-of details to those referred by Israel.
Those details are the subject of the current correspondence.
On the 18th of April, when he was questioned why he needed to obtain the above- mentioned child’s blood (Folio XLI verso: ad quem finem cupiebat habere de sanguine dicti pueri), he answered that he needed his blood to put it into their unleavened pastries to be eaten at Passover (respondit: ut de illo sanguine haberet; et poneret in pasta de qua faciunt suas azimas: quas azimas postea comedunt in die pasce eorum). We cannot avoid stressing that Vitale, like Israel as well, when questioned on the cause of the murder, he did not say he had the aim of insulting the Christian Easter; for his aim was to only celebrate their [own feast] (ut de illo sangune haberet et poneret in pasta de qua faciunt suas azimas). This is better explained as follows; for when he was asked about the reason why they punctured the child and tore his flesh in such a way (ad quem finem ita pupugit puerum et ita dilaceraverunt carnes eius?) — as it was natural to insist upon knowing if there were any other reasons for this behavior – and why it was their custom to consume the blood of Christian children (et ad quem finem comedunt sanguinem pueri cristiani), he answered he had already spoken of it (respondit se dixisse) by saying only: « There is no other reason, as far as I know, except for the need we Jews have to get Christian blood in order to properly celebrate our Passover. » In order to point this out, he soon added: « It is necessary for Jews to get Christian boys’ blood every year in order to put it into their unleavened pastries » (salvo quod est necesse ipsis iudeis habere de sanguine pueri cristiani, singulo anno, est de illo ponere in fugatiis azimorum), repeating what he had already declared, without even mentioning that the reason for it was to insult Christ and Christians. That impious rabbinical rite surely involves that second reason. But it is a subordinate reason, for the main one is to comply with a necessary, lawful rite of celebrating Passover. Since est necesse iudeis habere de sangune pueri cristiani, singulo anno: et de illo poneret in fugatiis azimorum, as we already knew from John of Feltre, Jew Sacchetto’s son Israel, Samuel’s son Vitale, and from Lady Brunetta’s agent, almost in the very same words.
But we did not know yet what Vitale was to reveal as he continued speaking: he had learned what he said above from his elders — that is to say, Samuel and Moses the Elder, both living in Trent, and from Solomon, Vitale’s uncle, who was living in Monza, under the territorial jurisdiction of Milan (Prout dicit audivit a maioribus suis: videlicet a Samuele et a Moise antiquo habitatoribus Tridenti: et a Salomone patruo eius Vitalis, qui habitat Monzie territorii mediolanensis).
Vitale had lived with his uncle for almost three years. During this period, at Passovers, he used to eat some unleavened pastries with blood in them, as said before, according to what his uncle had told him (apud quem patruum ipse Vitalis stetit circas tres annos. Quo tempore, in die pasce sui, comedit de azimis cum sanguine, ut sopra: prout sibi dixit dictus eius patruus).
It would not be difficult for learned people of Monza to ascertain whether, in their history or archives, there are traces of these Jewish Passovers celebrated within their walls in the XVth century (and probably before and after that century), involving the consumption of their children’s blood, by pious Solomon and Vitale, both living in the ghetto of Monza. It is unquestionable that judges from Trent may have in some way told the authorities of Monza about pious Passover customs of their Solomon. However, the fact is that it is unquestionable, since no kind of torture but the strength of truth could ever have extorted such a verisimilar confession from Vitale. In fact, nobody would have been able to figure out or suggest this: Vitale had spent three years of his life in Monza, together with his uncle Solomon, and each of those three years he and his uncle had eaten unleavened pastries flavoured with the blood of Monza at Passovers. Thus we can understand how authoritative and worthy of respect many local customs which deal with such Jewish murders are, especially going back to the Middle-Ages. In fact, we all know very well that Jews had been accustomed for long years to complying with their Passover laws by means of Christian blood in three towns: Tungros in Germany, Trent in the Tyrol, and Monza in Italy, which were considered very far apart from one other, especially in that period. What about elsewhere? And what about the period before and after this? And when could they have done it? In fact, theirs was a law, a universal and common one. This is to be revealed in detail during the trial we are examining.
Now, going on with Vitale’s interrogation, he was asked once again (Folio XLI verso) if he had eaten unleavened buns flavoured with Christian boy’s blood (An, hoc anno, ipse Vitalis comederit de azimis, in quibus esset de sanguine pueri cristiani).
He replied they had made some unleavened buns on Friday. Samuel and Moses told him they had put in those buns some Christian boy’s blood, killed by them on Thursday. He said he otherwise did not know who put the blood in the buns. Bonaventura, Samuel’s cook and baker, at any rate, did not (Respondit: in die Veneris Sancti fecerunt de azimis: sive fugatiis. Et Samuel et Moises dixerunt sibi quod n civ azimis, sive fugatiis, posuerunt de sanguine pueri cristiani, quem in die Iovis interfecerant. Et dicitse aliter nescirequis posuerit dictum sanguinem in azimis, sive fugatiis: nisi fuerit Bonaventura cocus, qui facit panem).
The interrogation of that day came to an end, as for the cause and purpose of the murder. On the 9th of June (Folio XLII recto and following) Vitale started talking about the occurrence and its rite (since he was the only one who had been present from beginning to end). He was then required to say the truth. He replied he was at Samuel’s house during Jewish Easter [i.e., Passover], which fell on Thursday, the Christians’ Holy Day. At the beginning of the night, unaware of the exact time, he went into the room before the Synagogue. The following people were inside: Moses the Elder, Samuel, his son Israel, Mohar, son of Moses the Elder, Mohar’s son Bonaventura, the cook Bonaventura and Thobias. Samuel tied a handkerchief (unum faziolum) around the neck of a baby boy who was there. Moses the Elder, sitting on a bench (Banco Scampno), was holding the baby on his knee, while Moses and Samuel were tightening the handkerchief around baby’s neck to prevent him from screaming aloud. Moses pulled out bits of flesh from his right jaw by means of some pincers he held in his hands. Samuel and Thobias did likewise. Thobias gathered in a bowl blood that was dripping at times from baby’s jaw. Sometimes, Mohar held the bowl, as well. All the aforementioned persons had needles in their hands and they punctured the baby with them, while pronouncing some words in Hebrew that Vitale did not know. Then, with the same pincers, they pulled out some flesh from the outer right leg of the baby. He said he did not pay attention to who did it initially and who went on pulling out flesh from the baby’s right leg. He said the blood dripping from the leg was gathered in a bowl. He ignored who was holding it. Then, Samuel and Moses, sitting on a bench, took the baby and put him between them. They made him stand, holding him upright with his hands like that. Moses was sitting by the baby’s right side, holding him upright and holding his right arm extended. Samuel was doing the same thing, while sitting by the baby’s left side. Thobias was holding his feet. In this way, being held upright and with his arms extended, the baby looked crucified. While he was held in this position, the aforementioned Jews gathered around the baby and punctured him with needles they had in their hands. Vitale punctured the baby, as well, as he said above. While they were doing such things, the baby died (Interrogatus quod melius dicat veritatem: respondit quod in die pasce ipsorum iudeorum, quod fuit in die Iovis, quem cristiani dicunt Sanctum diem, circam principium noctis, et aliter precise nescit dicere horam, ipse Vitalis existens in domo Samuelis, ivit in cameram, quae est ante Sinagogam; ubi etiam erant infrascripti: Moises Antiquus, Samuel Israel eius filius, Mohar filius Moisi Antiqui, Bonaventura filius Mohar, Bonaventura coquus, Thobias. Et ubi dictu Samuel ligavit unum faziolum (handkerchief) circa collum cuiusdam pueri ibi existentis; quem puerum Moises Antiquus, sedens super quodam bancho scampno, habebat super genibus: et quem faziolum dicti Moises et Samuel stringebant circa collum pueri, ne audiretur dum clamaret. Et Moises, cum tenalea quadam, quam habebat in manibus, extirpavit modicum de carne pueri maxille dextre. Et similiter fecerunt Samuel et Thobias. Qui Thobias, cum scutella quadam, aliquando colligebant (sic) sanguinem defluentem a maxilla pueri; et aliquando etiam Mohar tenebat scutellam. Et omnes suprascripti, et ipse Vitalis, habebant acus in manibus, cum cuibus pungebant dictum puerum; dicendo certa verba in hebraico, quae ipse nescit, et deinde, cum eadem tenalea, extirpaverunt de carne pueri in tibia dextra, ad latus exterius. Et nescit quis fuerit primus, nec secundus qui extirpaverunt carnes de tibia dextra. Et dicit quod sanguis, qui defluebat ex dicto vulnere tibie, colligebatur in una scutella. Et nescit quis teneret dictam scutellam. Et postmodum Samuel et Moises, sedentes super quadam bancho ibi posito, receperunt dictum puerum, et illum, inter se sedentes, erexerunt in pede. Et illum tenebant erectum in pedibus, manibus, hoc modo: quia Moises, sedens ad latus dextrum pueri, tenebat rectum puerum in pede, et tenebat brachium dextrum extensum. Similiter faciebat Samuel, qui erat ad latus sinistrum pueri, et Thobias (ut credit de Thobia) tenebat pedes pueri; ita quod puer, sic stans erectus et extensus cum brachiis, videretur crucifixus. Et puero sic stante, omnes suprascripti iudei circumstantes cum acubus, quas in manibus habebant, pungebant dictum puerum, et ipse etiam (Vitalis) pupugit, ut sopra dixit: et dum haed fierent, puer mortuus est).
Those readers who believe those have been the most atrocious details of the murder, are totally wrong. This will be clear soon. Let’s go on, for the moment, with the Levite Vitale’s revelations.
From his revelations, we know that the Jews in Trent drew out (extirpaverunt) Blessed Little Simon’s blood together with his flesh by the use of pincers (tenalea quadam), not by means of a small knife, which would have been easier and thus more natural. Now, why did they do this with pincers instead of a small knife? This is because, in the past, they had already used small knives to get the Christian baby’s blood, as was the testimony during the course of the trial. The bodies cut by knives, instead of nippers, were found in their houses. So they were charged with having opened their veins to get the blood from bodies. Therefore, in order to deter people from thinking that Jews had committed those crimes, and to make people believe those wounds were not made by hand, they stopped cutting the flesh with a knife and started using nippers to draw out blood and tear the flesh of the babies who were kidnapped to honor their Passover by the use of the blood from those babies. We are going to hear Moses the Elder and Samuel about this, who are well-experienced Jews as far as Rabbinism’s holy rites are concerned.
Then, Vitale (Folio XLIII recto) was questioned about what needles were used by them to puncture (quae acus erant ille cum quibus pungebant). He answered they were some copper needles (quod erant certe acus de rame). When they showed him some various needles… he chose a certain needle with a ball-grip (Elegit quandam acum a pomedello), saying that this needle with a ball-grip was similar to the needles they had used, as above (Dicens quod illa acus a pomedello est similis acubus, quibus usi fuerunt ut sopra). They were those kind of needles that in Italian are called spilletti or spillettoni, which have a round head, like a ball-grip. In Venetian they are called aghi col pomelo: acus a pomedello.
When he was questioned why they had hurt the baby in such a way and why they punctured him like that (Quare ita vulneraverunt dictum puerum et quarem illum ita pupugerunt), he replied they hurt him to have his blood, as he said above, and therefore they punctured him and stretched his arms in Jesus’ memory (Respondit quod ideo vulneraverunt ut haberent sanguinem, ut sopra dixit: et quod ideo pupugerunt et extenderunt manus, in memoriam Iesu). As far as Vitale knew, it seems clear from his reply that the very first intention for that crime was ut haberent sanguinem (that they might have the blood), then availing themselves of the opportunity, to Hebraically renew the memory of Passion in memoriam Iesu.
Asked if this renewing Jesus’ memory was for good or for bad purpose, he replied (interrogatus: in memoriam bonam, vel in memoriam malam) that they did it to show that they despised Jesus, the God of the Christians, and said that every year they renew His passion (Respondit quod fecerunt in contemptum et vilipendium Iesu Dei cristianorum: dicens quod omni anno faciunt memoriam dictae passionis).
When they asked him in what manner they renewed this memory (Quomodo faciunt illam memoriam), he answered that the Jews renewed this memory every year by putting some Christian boy’s blood in their unleavened bread (Respondit quod ipsi iudei facunt memoriam dicte Passionis omni anno, quia ponunt de sanguine pueri cristiani omni anno in eorum azimis, sive fugatiis).
Vitale did not answer in this last reply of his (it was to be his last reply of his last interrogation) that the Jews renewed Jesus’ Passion by despising Him, by positioning the boy as if he were crucified, or by means of those barbarous acts done in order to martyr him. He answered that they used to do this by flavouring their buns with Christian blood. However they were guilty of despising Jesus’ memory and His Passion all the same, without expressly thinking about it. Their very purpose was to murder Christian children and take their blood to use in their pastries in honour of their Passover. This had always been their first answer to those who asked them their motivatations and the purpose for those murders. They would not mention the second answer, about insulting the memory of Jesus’ Passion, if they were not asked to talk about it by the persistence of the inquiring judges’ questions. Only then, when they were expressly questioned, did they seem to reflect upon that and remember they had committed such crimes not only to get blood for their unleavened cakes, but that they also used to practice those impious Passover rites of theirs in order to insult Christ and Christians. This was clear enough in the interrogation we have been discusssing up to now. It will be clearer in the following interrogation which we will report. Jews wouldn’t have had any difficulties in admitting that secondary cause for the murder, if it were instead the primary one, for everyone knows of their hatred and contempt for Christ and Christians. That other Jewish rite of complying with their Passover by means of Christian blood, was most secret and arcane. They first were supposed to have confessed the well-known cause, reserving the occult one for further persistence and tortures, if they did not need further insistencies and tortures in order to remind the well-known cause. This is a clear evidence of the fact that the main cause, if it is not the only reason for their crime which first came to their minds and tongues, was not the well-known cause, but the occult one. The Christian court was very interested in the well-known cause as well, even if it was secondary. This had to be ascertained in order to point out the evidence for the reason of Blessed Little Simon’s martyrdom, who was killed because of the hatred for the memory of Christ. It had to be determined even because those crimes against Jesus Christ and Christianity in Christian countries, where Jews were hardly tolerated, were expressly considered in the civil and ecclesiastical Laws under which which judges had to investigate, prosecute and punish.
That is enough as for the present correspondence.