Rev. Pranaitis: Fraud Refutation
#1
Does anyone know of refutations of Rev. Pranaitis being a fraud, because of one blood libel trial, in which he did not even answer correctly what the Talmud contained? I read this on the very "erudite" William Cork's article Anti-Semitism and the Catholic Right.
Reply
#2
I don't know anything about the trial that Rev. Pranaitis allegedly testified at. It doesn't concern me so much as whether what is stated in his book regarding the Talmud is accurate or not.
 
About half of the Soncino translation of the Talmud is available online here:
 
http://www.comeandhear.com/talmud/index.html
 
You can use that link to cross reference the Talmud quotes from Rev. Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud Unmasked."
 
http://www.talmudunmasked.com/
 
Anyone who takes on the work of exposing the Talmud can expect to have their character assassinated.  
 
 
 
Reply
#3
Thanks. I just also remembered that Benjamin Freedman made use of Fr. Pranaitis' work in his letter to David Goldstein, "Facts are Facts." It doesn't make sense for Freedman to use this "fraud," unless he knew that his reputation was smeared.
Reply
#4
Btw, I would recommend this link over that which Maurice Pinay gave, to look at this book (it has quite a few pictures of the Talmud texts, in Hebrew and Latin, and it also has the two Appendices; the second one deals with the famous blood libel trial of Beilis in 1913):

The Talmud Unmasked

Here is an excerpt from Appendix II:
From the last page, 376, of Albert Monniot's "Le Crime Ritual chez les Juifs," 1914 edition, which book is in the Jewish section of the New York Public Library, we obtain a brief resume of this famous Beilis case: "By virtue of all that precedes, Menachile Mendel Teview Beylis, bourgeois of Kiev, 29 years of age, is accused of having killed, in company with other persons unknown to the law, Andre Ioutchinski, age 12 years, with fanatical religious intent. The foregoing boy was seized March 12, 1911, while he was playing in the brickyard at Zaitzew and dragged into the yard, where by the consent of Beylis, tied the hands of the boy, closed his mouth and killed him; the head, neck and trunk showing 48 wounds * * * causing the body to become bloodless."
In this Beilis case there were two points to be considered by the jury, first was a ritual murder committed; second, was Beilis guilty of the crime. On the first charge, the jury voted unanimously that Yuchinsky had been the victim of a ritual murder, but on the second, the jury voted six to six, which was a verdict for Beilis. Returning to the American Jewish Year Book, we find an interesting item: "Appeals on behalf of Professor Troitzky to permit him [Father Pranaitis] to return to his post at the Theological Academy, St. Petersburg, unavailing." Mr. [Ben Zion] Bokser did not tell his readers that Father Pranaitis after the trial continued to occupy his chair at said Academy. Again, Mr. Bokser, for obvious reasons, failed to mention that the government, in the Beilis case, put into the record the celebrated Saratov case. 
1853. Saratov. Two ritual murders are involved this time: one, a 10-year-old boy in Dec., 1852; the other an 11-year-old, in January, 1853. After a flood, both bodies were found on the bank of the Volga, pierced with many wounds. Eight years afterwards, two Jews, Schiffermann and Zourloff, were duly tried for these murders and convicted. They were sentenced to 28 years labour in the mines and they died during their imprisonment. This being a juridically decided case, the sentence [in] which [was] passed for "killing two Christian boys and having them endure martyrdom" by the Senate and submitted to the Russian Empire Council, is, of course, not mentioned in Strack's book. Authority: Monniot's Le Crime Ritual chez les Juifs, 1914, p. 157 [sic; p. 257] (From Mr. Leese's book: Jewish Ritual Murder, p. 28).
So Fr. Pranaitis exposed as a "fraud" is nothing but hot air.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)