Talk:Ariel Toaff

message: how can we have a page about prof toaff that neglects to mention his many previous publications and long academic career?
also, how can we discuss the book if noone in america has it or has seen it?
someone wrote that toaff cites kabbalah in his book.  how is this possible?
:I agree that somebody should add to the article; I have just added a few bits. What has America got to do with all of this? --Goochelaar 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About Kabbalah - why not? Kabbalah was known in Italy in the middle ages. DGtal 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have written this for 'Hebrew imagery' in the original translation because, though 'imaginary'  as substantive looks awkward at first glance, it reflects standard recent usage, inspired as it is by the use of such phrases as l’imaginaire réel, and the medieval imaginary, in works that take inspiration from the great medievalist Jacques le Goff's pioneering studies. Toaff is working in that tradition, and 'immaginario' is distinct from 'immagine', referring as it does to a collective picturing mode, a visual representation of elements in a Weltanschauung, following the Annales school's interest in 'mentalité'. Nishidani 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Imaginary 

message: A new edition of "Pasque di Sangue" is out. Actually I saw it yesterday prominently displayed in a bookshop. L'omo del batocio (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks indeed for that notice. I have the original edition, so it will be of help to see the editorial changes Toaff has made by close comparison. But the joy this news brings is not so much that of a reader, but for its author. The book has its moments, but it was an impressively bold attempt to rethink the subject unfettered of constraints, and honours the noble plurimillenial tradition of Italy Jewry. Thanks. With this second ed. in hand, perhaps we can work to finish the article Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an interview with Toaff on Rai 2 (which has a quite distinctive political and cultural identity) a few months ago. While I admire his courage, some of the involved players' agendas have little to do with historical accuracy. This topic is a minefield and will stay such for a long time. Anyways, here is a good article (in Italian) about the new version. L'omo del batocio (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pasque di Sangue sighting 

message: I readded a paragraph, earlier created by somebody other and added sources. It seems that heavy pressure by peers and Israeli public opinion was a factor without which mr. Toaff would not have pulled the book. --Magabund (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No because in order for both arguments to be shown both must be supported by historical and factual evidence.  In this case, only the argument against blood libel is valid due to its history so balance is not needed. 129.219.159.248 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that blood libel accusations were endemically and almost universally fantasies by Christian anti-Semites. That is not Toaff's point. What he is arguing is that while the Jews as a people were victims of blood libel, this does not allow us to exclude the possibility that there might have been small groups of fanatic fundamentalist Ashkenazis in Germany who on occasion stooped to ritual murder to obtain blood. To taint Jews generically for some execrable behavior possibly undertaken by an extremely exiguous sect or rare tradition of desultory practitioners is typical of anti-Semites, of course, but Toaff, the son of one of the greatest of modern rabbis, and a fearless historian, makes the obvious distinction that anti-Semites ignore. There is no historical evidence for what he   suggests: there is only inference, inference based on evidence extracted under torture, combined with evidence for blood use in pharmaceutical texts. What is inference is not history, but speculation. The book has nothing to do with 'Jews'. Its reception tells you more about both anti-Semites who slavered over it uncomprehendingly and, unfortunately, the danger of suppressing open argument even on abstruse moments in history for fear of possible consequences. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure