DAMascus 1840

CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER BY THE JEWS

A correspondent has furnished the annexed very minute account of this ceremony, which will be exceedingly curious in itself to most of our readers, and has at the same time an evident bearing on the Damascus case. It repels strongly the barbarous notion that human blood, or blood of any kind, is essential to its celebration.

Yerushalmi in his Haggadah and History mentions this Haggadah translation three times (twice in the Introduction and as plate 95). Fred MacDowell describes it in his blogpost "A Civilized Response to the Damascus Blood Libel". Fred mentions the fact that this translation was masterfully doctored by the correspondent to prevent mentioning anything that might "distract from the thesis the paper was trying to present", i.e. that nothing said or done during the seder involves "human blood or blood of any kind". Examples given in MacDowell's blog are the omission of "Shfoch Chamatcha" (which poses a request to punish enemies who deny G-d's existence) and the messianic hope of the Jews to celebrate next year's Pesach in Jerusalem (Leshana Haba'a Be-Yerushalayim).

Who was this correspondent and where did this translation come from? Although we cannot answer the former, the latter is quite obvious. Until 1940, only three different English translations of the Haggadah had been published: The first in 1770 by Alexander (featured in a another MacDowell blog), the second in 1794 by David Levy whose translation was adapted in 1808 by Isaac Levi and the third in 1835 by H. Abrahams who reprinted Isaac Levi's translation almost verbatim. A comparison between the correspondent's "Haggadah" and its predecessors shows that Isaac Levi's Haggadah served as the base for the adapted London Times submission.

What neither Yerushalmi nor MacDowell mention is the fact that the edited version not only deletes problematic passages but makes sure to minimize the use of the WORD blood all together. The word דם , blood is mentioned in the original Hebrew text 6 times; Three times in reference to the plague of blood: Ubemoftim zeh Hadam, Dam VeEsh Vetimrot Ashan, Dam Tsfardeiya, twice in connection to the USE of blood: Asher Yagia Damam al kir Mizbachacha, Al ben bechor Pisachta Bedam Pesach Levilti tet Mashchit Lavo Befitchai Bepesach) and once in the expression Velo Lidei Basar Vadam in the Grace after the Meal translated by some as "flesh and blood" while others use the expression "mankind". (see comments below)

A word frequency count for the translations mentioned above shows that all use the word blood at least 6 time in their translation, some mentioning the word in the instructions to spill wine and others printing the Birkat Hamazon twice (for Ashkenaz and Sefardic Jews) thus getting to 7. In comparison, the only use of the word "blood" in the 1840 Times Haggadah translation is for the 10 plagues with an additional bracketed-in side note for the paragraph in which Rabban Gamliel tells us about the three essentials for the seder night:

“Rabbi Gamlieh saith, that whosoever doth not make mention of three things used in the Passover hath not done his duty (Christian’s blood is not mentioned): the paschal lamb, the unleavened cake, and bitter herbs."

Although this more than anything shows the intentions of the correspondent, it should be noted that the whole newspaper page is heavily balanced AGAINST the Jews.

On that same page we find the complete account of the accusations against the Damascus Jews as penned by the Pasha of Syria to the Viceroy of Egypt which is the malicious report of the preliminary investigation, a poisonous letter to the editor signed "Sigma" from a highly intellectual anti-Semite who sets out to prove (by quoting from scripture) that the accusations against the Damascus Jews are not that far-fetched and a list of questions posed to Her Majesty's Ministers concerning the possibility of "Planting the Jewish people in the land of their fathers" with, among others, questions like: "How soon would the Jews be inclined and ready to go back?" and "Would they go back entitrly at their own expense, requiring nothing further than the assurance of safety to person and estate?"

The 1840 blood libel had significant influence on world Jewry. Montefiore's intervention (together with the other members of his renowned delegation) "launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale" (Hasia R. Diner in The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000) and was the impetus for starting the modern Jewish press. But among the euphoria of its success we mustn't forget that the "happy end", as we know it, is only part of the story. From the beginning, an antisemitic version of the affair had circulated claiming the Jews were only released because of International (Jewish) banking pressure and that the Damascus affair effectively proved that the accusations against the Jews (or at least certain Jewish sects) were true. Accusations like these were published in Egyptian newspapers in 2000 and 2001 and in 1983 the Syrian Minister of Defense Mustafa Tlass published a book about the affair which is considered in antisemitic circles as a reliable source.

The affair may have ended today 176 years ago but it still haunts us and will probably always do. Maybe, if indeed the mashiach comes and Shana Haba'a BeYerushalayim but until then, we still life by the grace of G-d. May we not need the charity or assistance of Basar Vadam because thy are too aften Tsme'ei Dam, especially ours...