Mendel Beilis -- One Charge Now, A Different One Later

This is the summary of the 30^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 24 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 6 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 58 through 111 of Volume III of the transcript.

It contains Zamyslovsky’s closing speech and part of Shmakov’s.

     See the translation of the transcript for day 30.

 

 

As you go along you will start wondering whether Zamyslovsky even listened to the testimony.  Zamyslovsky’s speech is about as full of errors, shall we say, as Vipper’s, although it has more energy.  But it reads almost as if he wrote it before the trial started, and didn’t change much after the evidence was presented.  Bonch-Bruevich wrote the same thing: all of this was contradicted, even the depositions said otherwise, and Zamyslovsky displayed no logic. 

Notice where Zamyslovsky is supposed to be drawing conclusions, he actually asks a lot of questions.  This is a parliamentary debate tactic.  This is a tactic of people who failed to provide factual support for what they want their audience to believe, and are trying to sway their opinions nevertheless.  He’s not trying to work the court of law, he’s trying to work the court of public opinion.

Zamyslovsky says over and over that when people give different versions of an event, it’s because they have forgotten what roles they were assigned to play in a put-up job.  By this, Zamyslovsky continues to illustrate his genius for saying things he shouldn’t because “mutato nomine de te fabula narratur,” a phrase he should have known from gymnasium, or maybe more accurately it was Freudian projection, which he may not have known about. 

Finally, toward the end of his speech there are problems.  Some of them can be assigned to the stenographer or publisher because they are clearly typos.  But other things are less likely to be typos – use of “documents” instead of “dogma” in one place – and some are simply unfortunate problems with how things are worded.  One example of the latter is Zamyslovsky saying “I am fully convinced of this” immediately after saying “is it impossible to say that Beilis is guilty of this crime,” when what he really means is that he is fully convinced that ritual murder exists – a clause preceding the one about Beilis.  It happens at right about 7 p.m. and he started talking before noon.  That’s an excuse, that’s not a justification.  Could this have been a Freudian slip?

First Vipper admits that the ritual murder charge is illegal because there’s no such crime in Russian law.

Today Shmakov says that the charges against an accused should not change between one day and the next, or between one moment and a time half an hour later.

Is the government sneaking up on changing the charge in the indictment because of the wording about ritual murder?

To "Not One Charge, Two!"

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev                                                                                   

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Mendel Beilis -- Ritual Murder Not a Crime

This is the summary of the 29^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 23 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 5 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 3 through 58 of Volume III of the transcript.

 See the translation of the transcript for day 29.
 
 

Today begin the closing arguments in the trial.  The page numbering for the transcript restarts because this is in Volume III of the transcript.  Today is all Vipper, all the time.

I only footnoted language issues.  Just take for granted that Vipper is still mis-stating the facts as he did a number of times during the testimony, and you won’t be surprised at the conclusions he draws.

Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich wrote, in his article at the time of the trial, about Vipper trying to make something out of nothing.  I don’t know if I would go that far but I will say that during the evening session, he begins to sound disjointed.  He’s probably tired because it’s late, and he’s had 29 of these late-night sessions in a row, without even a Sunday break.  But I don’t think he has thought this speech out very well, and if he made notes of what he could say to make the most of his facts, they aren’t helping him very much. 

The other possibility that occurs to me is suggested by Arnold Margolin’s book.  He wrote that the defense found out after the trial, that while the jury was supposedly sequestered, members of the Black Hundreds were allowed access to them.  It’s possible Vipper wasn’t willing to waste his best effort on muzhiks who wouldn’t appreciate his rhetoric, all the more so as the Black Hundreds were doing nothing if they were not cajoling or threatening the jury into giving the verdict that the government wanted.

See statement 211 where Vipper admits that there is no law on the books specifically associated with ritual murder.  This could be a result of a conference held during a late recess on day 28 and may be a signal of what happens on day 34.  In any case, if Vipper was told 24 hours before he made this statement, that the government was throwing in its hand and going to some expedient other than a trial on the indictment, he might not feel like making his best effort. 

To "One Charge Now, Another Charge Later"

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev

 

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Mendel Beilis -- The Baba Bathra Question?

This is the summary of the 28^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 22 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 4 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 388 through 440 of Volume II of the transcript and is the end of the testimony.  It is followed by closing arguments. 

See the translation of the transcript for day 28. 


This is the moment for me to come clean.  Some people, from my footnotes, may think I came into this project knowing a tremendous amount about Jewish classics.  That’s not so.  It took me at least a month, as far as I remember, to translate the 40 pages of Pranaitis’ testimony, because I had to look up pretty much every piece of information in the footnotes.  The rest of the translation took 10 months for similar reasons, especially days 27 and 28. 

I have to give credit and thanks to people who posted information free online: Mechon Mamre; Kollel Iyun ha-Daf; the Chabad website; Yerushalmi Online; and a host of others, even Wikipedia where the external links sometimes got me where I needed to go.  One of the reasons I did this translation was because I wanted to participate in the good work of providing free information that would establish accurate data and references, correct mistakes, and fight ill-intentioned lies.  I benefited from correcting my own hazy or mistaken notions. I also expanded my personal digital library by about 100x so that I can read all this information myself in my next three or four lifetimes.

See Crown Rabbi Mazeh’s impassioned declaration in statement 507 about question 16.

Go to statement 600 for the beginning of the “Katz questions,” the ones Benzion Katz talks about in his memoirs.  He gave the defense a list of 5 questions he knew Pranaitis would not be able to answer.  The other defense scriptural experts added 5 more.  A total of 4 were asked.  The Baba Bathra question is not in the transcript.  It was not in the indictment and remember, I said that the defense was prohibited by rules of procedure from bringing up anything that wasn’t in the indictment.  The name of that tractate was not mentioned by the prosecution, nor by Pranaitis in his day 26 and day 27 testimony.  That rules out the defense asking the question.  They have operated strictly by the rules of procedure for 28 days and they’re going to break the rules now?  

It’s a great story and it deserves to be true but I’ll give you another for-instance of missing information.  Mr. Eli Rubin has published on the Chabad website about a newly discovered document about the Kiev Jewish community, with Arnold Margolin, taking action on the Beilis case months earlier than anybody thought.  Margolin’s 1926 memoirs, are available on the Harvard website, and if he refers to it there, I didn’t see it in Part II which is about the Beilis trial; maybe it was such a passing reference that I didn’t pick up on it.

In looking for the Baba Bathra story, I have researched other contemporary sources: Beilis; Gruzenberg; Bonch-Bruevich; the American Jewish Yearbook for 1913 (published in 1914).  None of them refer to this exact incident.  Neither does Tager, who really hated Pranaitis, but Tager was not contemporary and concentrated on the archives, not the trial transcript.  I have not been able to find copies of the stenographic newspaper records Vipper complained about on day 3, which ought to settle the question.

Kokovtsov refuses to give an opinion on texts Vipper recites to him.  He knows they are probably mistranslated; in fact I identified 3 of them and that is true.  The prosecution doesn’t want to show him the actual material because they know he’ll tell them they had it wrong but their best excuse is that it will drag things out. 

But what bugs the prosecution the most is that their witness made a fool of himself and got laughed at.   Think about it.  Pranaitis is quoted in the indictment; he was Mashkevich’s assistant in formulating this part of the testimony.  If he didn’t actually know the wording of the questions, he knew the general subjects because he wrote about them in his thesis and some of the citations come from his thesis.  The problem is that he translated the thesis from work by Johann Eisenmenger; he never really knew what he was talking about.  For him to break down on the witness stand embarrasses not only him but the government who put him there.  The prosecution can’t afford to let the defense witnesses shine any more than they already have. 

Crown Rabbi Mazeh is mistreated on the stand.  The judge hypocritically says that Judaism is not on trial, interrupts the rabbi repeatedly, stops him from using Hebrew (something he didn’t do for any of the Christians), and so on.  The object is to keep R. Mazeh from telling the truth.  After Mazeh agreed substantially with the three Christians testifying before him, the judge doesn’t want proof that the trial is unjust in trying a whole nation in the person of one man, even though every last person in the court knows that this is exactly the purpose of the trial, and not finding out who murdered Andrey.  Everybody knows who murdered Andrey.  The government just wants to kill a Jew.

Prof. Tikhomirov unknowingly underlines one of the things non-Jews – and many Jews – don’t understand about Talmud.  He talks about it being contradictory.  But if you dumped all the British lawbooks from now back to William the Conqueror into one mass, a space alien reading it would think it was internally contradictory.  She/he/it/they would need an Earthling to separate it all out according to date and subject and show that some of it has only applied recently while some no longer applies. The other issue is that Talmud doesn’t bother to go back and recapitulate Torah law.  It recapitulates Mishnah, which also doesn’t recapitulate Torah law.  Without a thorough understanding of the law as stated in Torah, it’s impossible to understand Mishnah; I know that from experience. 

That doesn’t mean I’m going to apologize for calling out the errors in the opinions expressed.  It’s important for people to understand that without the comprehensive and careful study of primary sources, it is next to impossible to avoid developing a personal or organizational urban legend about what primary sources say.  It’s a consequence of the limitations of human memory, coupled with a reliance on authority which has always led to urban legends if not to deliberate lies.

One small detail.  If you search today’s testimony, you will not find any questions from Zamyslovsky.  You will find in statement 584 a remark by Boldyrev that one of the civil prosecutors has required medical aid, making a recess run longer than expected.  After Zamyslovsky’s somewhat hysterical behavior on day 27, I’m afraid he might have suffered an apoplectic fit due to stress.  He will give his closing argument on day 30, page 58 of the third volume of the transcript.

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

 To "Ritual Murder Not a Crime"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Pavel Konstantinovich Kokovtsov	Imperial Russian Orthodox Palestinian Society Defense witness	388	2358	1
Pavel Vasilevich Tikhomirov	chair of philosophy in the Historical-Philological Institute of Nezhin	398	2377	254
Yaaqov Isaievich Mazeh	Crown Rabbi of Moscow	405	2391	358
Pranaitis	Returns	433	2448	586
Where the Baba Bathra question ought to be		434-  435	2450-  2451	601-  631
Kokovtsov	Back to translate material that was subject of the debate between Rohling and Delitsch	435	2452	632

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Outdoors -- you know it's winter

When the dark-eyed juncos come back.

They're little puff-bally birds, charcoal gray on top, buff underneath.  Their beaks are very pale pink.  They have a sad sort of little cheep and they always come to winter in Maryland.

I saw my first one today, although they may have been around for a couple of days.

This is their third winter eating from my feeder.  Last year they finally seemed to get the hang of using the perches on the tube and eating that way; before that, they always wanted to eat on the ground.

Can the cowbirds be far behind them?  Or did I miss them on their way through to warmer grounds?

Mendel Beilis -- The Muzhik Revolt

This is the summary of the 27^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 21 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 3 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 343 through 388 of Volume II of the transcript.

See the translation of the transcript for day 27. 

Pranaitis continues testifying at the start of this day. 

The defense scriptural experts had no idea what they would be testifying about, unless they read the indictment; they basically had one day to prepare while Pranaitis was on the stand, and they were present in the courtroom the whole time he was talking.  The material they had to cover in their answers uses up well above 20,000 folio pages; the Chabad website posted a picture (#10) showing a pile of books higher than a man and twice as wide, that the defense witnesses cited from.  The only times they refuse to answer – well, that Kokovtsov refuses to answer – is when he refuses to comment on supposed quotes on day 28 that he rightly suspects are mistranslated.  Pranaitis had a year to prepare for his testimony and screwed the pooch. 

Professor Troitsky is much more knowledgeable than Pranaitis, of course.  He only has one problem: his entire view of Jewish scripture is in relation to Christian scripture.  That is where his mistaken notion comes from that there is some kind of trinity in Kabbala, and why he mistakenly connects this to the conversion of some Jews to Christianity.  There’s a difference between a text saying something, and somebody interpreting a text as saying something, the chronic problem with Pranaitis.  There is a difference between a text persuading somebody to convert, and somebody reading a text and then converting.  To decided that the text caused the conversion, in the case of the Zohar, is a case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 

The other problem with Troitsky is that he doesn’t really know how to answer questions.  He has excellent opportunities for accurate and honest answers that would stop the prosecution cold, but he doesn’t use them.  It could be age, it could be memory, but he doesn’t have all the answers he needs.

Kokovtsov does an excellent job with question 25, showing that the things Pranaitis said about it all, first, come from Rohling who was denounced as an ignorant perjurer by Josef Bloch (whom Rohling sued for slander and then withdrew the charge because he couldn’t win) and second, either pervert the meaning of words or add words that aren’t even there.  His real contribution, however, is to give citations of everything he uses, citations Pranaitis couldn’t come up with.

Zamyslovsky does not cover himself with glory.  He admits to Troitsky’s description of Frankist polemic as intellectually dishonest but continues trying to make Troitsky (who is Christian) responsible for the intellectual dishonesty of the Frankists.  What’s more, I find that his rhetoric sounds increasingly hysterical, similar to Kosorotov’s behavior on day 24 when he was contradicted by the psychiatrists as well as the surgeons.

The quotes that Shmakov throws to Troitsky are irrelevant.  They are either non-existent or mistranslated.  Shmakov got them from the anti-Semitic material in his library that supports his obsession with the blood libel. 

­

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev 

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

 
To "The Baba Bathra Question?"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Justinas B. Pranaitis	Finishes his testimony	343	2264	1
Ivan Gavrilovich Troitsky	St. Petersburg Religious Academy professor Defense witness	353	2287	224
Jury revolt against lengthy scriptural testimony		383	2348	715
Pavel Konstantinovich Kokovtsov	Imperial Russian Orthodox Palestinian Society Defense witness	383	2348	719

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Mendel Beilis -- Pranaitis Speaks!

This is the summary of the 26^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 20 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 2 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 317 through 342 of Volume II of the transcript.

See the translation of the transcript for day 26.

 

Justinas Pranaitis, today’s only witness, was a Catholic priest, not Russian Orthodox; he was selected by the government because of his anti-Semitic writings.  His infamous thesis of 1892 was rejected by the Catholic Academy in St. Petersburg for misusing Christian Scripture.  Pranaitis copied most of this work, such as the list of sources and Article I, from Johann Eisenmenger’s anti-Semitic Entdecktes Judentum, a work which Lutheran Gustav Dalman called a compendium of everything “repulsive” in Christianity and by no means an accurate representation of Talmud or Judaism.

In 1913 Pranaitis also published a pamphlet under the auspices of the Black Hundreds, called “The Jews’ Blood Dogma” in which he cited to an 1803 work by a probably fictitious monk named Neophyte.  See the information about Neophyte on day 25.

When Pranaitis says almost in his first statement that he is going to testify from memory, that is fallout from day 24.  Prof. Sikorsky read an anti-Semitic diatribe from notes he had in court.  These notes were never examined by a forensic investigator, so they were never passed as related to the case and attached to the case.  This means they were inadmissible evidence.  The defense made two petitions that the judge never even ruled on, he simply ignored them: either put Sikorsky’s remarks on the record exactly as he stated them; or get his notes and have them attached to the case.  Without the record or the attachment, the defense cannot use Sikorsky’s remarks in an appeal.  The transcript itself does not qualify as a record that can be used in an appeal. 

Apparently a conference was held between then and now and Pranaitis was instructed to speak from memory so there wouldn’t be another hassle about this.  The prosecution realizes as soon as cross-questioning starts, that Pranaitis doesn't know what he's talking about.

Pranaitis and Mashkevich worked together one-on-one to outline the material that would be used to write the May 23, 1913, indictment.  Pranaitis is quoted in it as providing certain information.  If he and Mashkevich didn’t create the exact wording of the 29 questions given to the scriptural experts, Pranaitis was there when the subject matter was decided on and the quotes chosen that the prosecution would use in this part of the trial.  Pranaitis had a year of lead time to prepare and he failed utterly.

I footnoted extensively while translating, to record information I needed to correctly translate or transliterate what all the parties said during this testimony.  The footnotes illustrate Pranaitis’ ignorance and falsehoods.  Whether he knew he was lying, I can’t tell.  His history of run-ins with Russian and Catholic law suggests he was pathologically incapable of understanding that what he wanted to do might be both wrong and stupid, so it’s easy to see that he might not be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, as long as the falsehood said something he wanted to believe. Despite the best efforts of the presiding judge and prosecution to support Pranaitis, they could neither keep out damaging evidence on cross-questioning nor make up for Pranaitis’ self-destruction as an expert.

The New York Times reported at the time that the judge stopped all testimony about the Talmud because Pranaitis failed to support the blood libel charge and the defense’s witnesses on the subject undercut it. 

“P” is always Pranaitis. 

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov 

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

To "The Muzhik Revolt"

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

 

Mendel Beilis -- What does Scripture Say?

This is the summary of the 25^th day of the Mendel Beilis trial, which occurred on 19 October, 1913 on the Julian calendar, 1 November, 1913 on the Gregorian calendar.

This day occupies pages 293 through 317 of Volume II of the transcript.

See the translation of the transcript for day 25.

 

Today the court gets set up to hear from the scriptural experts.  The court will rule the following.

First, materials will not be read out in court.  That’s understandable.  The scriptural experts are about to cite to works of Jewish classics that have not yet been translated into Russian.

Second, citations to materials will not be allowed. That is not understandable.  It does not permit either party to look up citations used by the other party and come up with questions to clarify what the expert meant by certain statements he made.

This second decision will allow rampant quoting out of context by Justinas Pranaitis, a fallacious proceeding consistently used to misrepresent oral and written material for nefarious purposes throughout history.  With the help of Benzion Katz, the defense will fight back on day 28.

Early in the day Karabchevsky gets up and shows that the court has charged Beilis with a crime that is not on the books in Tsarist Russia.  He invokes the great principle, Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, there is no crime and should be no punishment without a previously-adopted penal law.  This goes back to reform of the Bavarian legal code in 1813, and the principle was adopted by all legal systems operating after a Western model, including that of Japan at the end of the 19^th century.  It also appears in the Garden of Eden story in the Bible where Gd gives Adam and Chavvah the commandment not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “or you become liable to the death penalty.”  The judge brushes it aside but it will have fallout on day 28.

Zamyslovsky takes a tack today that he thinks will help him report information on the 1853 Saratov case which is his particular baby.  Boldyrev has refused his requests, even after some 10 minutes of whining by this powerful member of the national Duma.  So during a recess before the evening session, he and the others – and I am convinced that Boldyrev sat in on this – work out the following tactic.  Zamyslovsky takes the strawman position that the defense stood out against the reading because they thought witnesses ought to be called.  It’s a strawman argument because the defense proposed no such thing, they simply said that not only is it not relevant to the Yushchinsky case, the Saratov case operated under pre-reform rules of procedure.  Zamyslovsky admits that and then says that’s the beauty of it.  The Senate rules governing procedure now, he says, are different, but they never envisioned that their decisions would be retroactive, eliminating evidence obtained under pre-reform practices. 

This amounts to an American lawyer trying to use evidence in a 2013 case, when that evidence was collected in a 1950 case, and would have been excluded under the Miranda rule.  The American judge knows that some Supreme Court decisions HAVE been made retroactive, and some are only forward-looking.  An impact analysis has to be done for each SCOTUS decision to see what burden it puts on the legal system if made retroactive.  Miranda, for example, is only forward-looking, and if the judge determines that  the 1950 case is related and probative in the 2013 case, he can allow use of the evidence.

Boldyrev decides both that the Saratov case is unrelated and that the pre-reform evidence is inadmissible.  But on day 26 Pranaitis is allowed, not only to discuss the Saratov case in depth, but also to present information on the 1840 Damascus case which is not even a Russian case and also involved evidence obtained by torture.  The defense proves that Pranaitis lied when he said he looked over the Saratov case files, and that he includes the Damascus case as ritual murder when it doesn’t even fit his own definition of how to tell when a murder is also a ritual murder. 

The judge orders to read places from Neophyte’s 1803 book that were selected during Mashkevich’s investigation.  They were selected on purpose and put into his hands, otherwise he would have had to get Prof. Troitsky to translate the whole book from Greek for him.  There is a quote that seems to be from the commentary of Rabbi Shelomo ben Yitschaq, usually known as Rashi, but it is mistranslated, misattributed, and mis-cited.  No rabbi gets Rashi wrong.  Neophyte was a fraud.  Mashkevich’s attaching Neophyte to the case has nothing to do with the truth of the material.  It has to do with relevance to the case.  And since Pranaitis published a pamphlet using material from Neophyte, that makes Neophyte relevant to the case.  Clear?

Shmakov reveals another attitude common to bigots.  He believes that the Christian experts could never agree with R. Mazeh on any opinion because the Rabbi is one of those people teaching the Talmud, which Shmakov believes is anti-Christian.  It’s a clearly illogical position, because there are three Christians, of high position and great respect in the academic religious world, who were willing to represent the defense case in court.  Whether he knows it or not, the defense also lined up two other Christians on their side of the case, one of them Prince Obolensky who held the highest lay position in the Russian Orthodox hierarchy and was in practice the superior of the highest clergy position.  Shmakov fails to realize that three Christians are about to speak the truth, and that it is the opposite of what he believes, and also the obvious conclusion that among Christians there is no one position on this case, still less that it is the same position he takes.

Judge:  Fyodor Boldyrev

Prosecution:

            Criminal Prosecutor, Oscar Vipper

            Civil Prosecutor Georgy Zamyslovsky

            Private Civil Prosecutor Aleksey Shmakov

Defense:

            Oscar Gruzenberg

Nikolay Karabchevsky

Dmitry Grigorevich-Barsky

Alexandr Zarudny

Vasily Maklakov

 
To "Pranaitis Speaks!"

		Page
Witness	Notes	Transcript	Translation	Statement
Bekhterev	Returns to say there’s never been a case when psychologists dealt with ritual murder	293	2157	1
Witness release		294	2159	26
Whether to read scriptural material		295	2160	30
Whether to bring in translators		299	2168	68
Reading of Neophyte		303	2176	118
Reading of government report on Chassidim		308	2186	149
Scriptural questions		314	2198	212

 

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved