[Page 5 - English] [Page 19 - Hebrew]

A. Excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopaedia, a collection of information about Judaism and Jewish culture in the past and present, under the general editorship of S.A. Harkawi and Dr. L. Katzenlson. Part 13 with photos and maps. Publishers: The Jewish Sciences Publication Society and the Publishers Brokhauz-Efron, St. Petersburg.

Pruzany – during Polish rule belonged to the district (Wojevovsxcwo) of Brisk, as a part of the “Lithuanian State Committee” in 1623 in the Brisk region. At the end of the 16^th century, Rabbi Yoel Sirkis served it on the Rabbinate. Jewish merchants from Pruzana are mentioned in the Brisk registers of 1583. At the meeting of the Lithuanian State Committee which was held in Pruzana in 1628, it was decided to go on holding committee sessions there, but no more meetings were held in Pruzana. In 1644, the Jews of Pruzana received from King Wadyslaw, in addition to the rights approved in Lithuania, the following privileges: to buy houses and plots in the market square and town streets; sell wine, ale and mead; deal in workshops and trade and construct synagogues provided they were not like Christian churches. The Jews were also exempt from paying taxes for the land for synagogues and cemeteries. They also received extra privileges. King Jan Kazimierz reaffirmed the main privileges in 1650, but banned the purchase of new land for building a synagogue. These rights were again reaffirmed by King Jan Sobieski in 1677 and Augustus II in 1698. The lists of head tax paid by Jews in the Brisk district in 1705, including the leases in the villages, totalled 485 zlotys. In 1766, there were 641 Jews in the town, (according to lists I and II of the Lithuanian State Register, Vilna, Central Archive N°3633 Berrzadsky papers).

At that time, Purzana served as a regional centre (Ujezd) of the Grodno Gubernia. According to the 1797 lists, there was no mention of Jewish or Christian merchants, but there were 2,213 Christian inhabitants and 1,285 Jews and Karaites. According to the count (Revizia) of 1847, there were in the Pruzana district: 2,583 Jews. In Bereza 515; in Malch 521; in Seltz 680; in Scherschew 3,773.

The 1897 register showed there were 139,000 inhabitants in the Pruzana area including 17,826 Jews. At that time, there were 7,633 residents in Pruzana

[Page 6]

town, including 5,080 Jews. In settlements of under 500 inhabitants, the Jews formed the largest percentage of the population. In Bereza, the population was 6,226 including 2,623 Jews; in Bluden 780 inhabitants of whom 210 were Jews; in Malch 2,159 including 1,201 Jews; in Narewka 1,004 pit pf 1,268 were Jews; in Seltz 866 out of 2,642. At Sosnovka 99 out of 627; in Scherschev Jews were 2553 out of 5079.

In 1910, there was a Talmud Torah in Pruzana and there were famous rabbis serving on its rabbinate more than once. In the middle of the 19^th century, Rabbi Yeruham Yehuda Leib Perelman, Rabbi Eliahu Haim Maisels and Rabbi Eliahu Feinstein served in Pruzana.

B. Excerpt from “Encyclopaedia Judaica”, volume 13 P-Rec, issued b Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem. The Macmillan Company, page 1294:

Pruzhany (Pol. Pruzana), city in Brest oblast, Belorussian S.S.R. Situated on the road which leads from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, it was under Polish rule until 1795. In the third partition of Poland, it was incorporated into Russia and in 1919 regained Poland until 1939. Jews lived in Pruzhany during the middle of the 15^th century and around 1450, there was a hevra kaddisha which noted is activities in a register. In 1463 the first synagogue (destroyed by fire in 1863) was erected near the centre of the Jewish quarter. In 1495, the Jews of Pruzhany were included in the general expulsion of Jews from Lithuania, but they returned after a few years. In 1563 there were 11 Jewish families and 276 Christian families. Both Christians and Jews earned their livelihood primarily from agriculture and livestock, although there were some engaged in commerce and crafts. In 1588 the town was granted autonomous rights according to the Magdeburg Law. The rights of the Jews were formally drawn u and ratified by Ladislaus IV in 1644 and subsequently, on several occasions, by his successors. According to these rights, Jews were authorized to reside in Pruzhany to practice their religion and engage freely in their occupations.

At the close of the 17^th century, there were 571 Jews (42% of the population); in 1868 during the period of Russian rule, there were 2,575 Jews (61% of the total). By the close of the 19^th century, the Jewish community enjoyed a vigorous social and cultural life in which all trends and parties were active. In 1921 the Jewish population was 4,152 (about 57% of the total). With the establishment of independent Poland, Jews also participated in the municipal government. In 1927, 16 of the 24 delegated elected to the administration were Jews. In the elections of the Jewish

[Page 7]

community in 1928, M. Goldfein, a delegate of the merchants, was elected president.

Distinguished rabbis served in the town. At the close of the 16^th century, R. Joel Sirkes, the renowned author of Bah (Bayit Hadash), officiated as rabbi and rosh yeshivah for some time. R. David b. Samuel ha-Levi, author of the Turei Zahav (taz) also held the rabbinical office for a brief period. Among the last rabbis of the town, one of the most prominent was R. Elijah Feinstein (1842-1929) who was appointed in 1884. Active in the affairs of Polish Jewry, he wrote Sefer Halikhot Eliyahu (“Book of the Demeanours of Elijah”, 1932) and a novella on Maimonides which was published in 1929. He was succeeded by his son-in-law R. David Feigenbaum, who perished in the Holocaust. (Sh.L.K.)

Holocaust Period and After. Under Soviet rule (1934-41) the Jewish communal bodies were disbanded. Private enterprise was gradually liquidated as merchandise was sold and no new stock made available. Cooperatives were set up for the skilled craftsmen. Educational institutions were reorganized, and a Yiddish-language school set up. The Jewish orphanage was combined with its Christian-run counterpart and placed under the municipality. On June 27, 1941, after war broke out between Germany and the U.S.S.R., the Germans entered Pruzhany. They immediately exacted a fine from the Jewish community of 500,000 rubbles, 2kg gold and 10kg silver, to be paid within 24 hours. A Judenrat was set up, first chaired by Welwel Schreibman and later by Yizhak Janowicz, which tried to cope with the emergency. The Germans set up a ghetto on Sept. 22, 1941. Workshops were created in the hope that the economic utility of the Jews to the Germans would forestall deportations. The Judenrat combated the decrees against the Jewish inhabitants, gaining the confidence of members of the community. The ghetto swelled when 4,000 Jews were brought in (2,000 from Bialystok and 2,000 from towns in the vicinity.

In the latter half of 1942, an underground resistance organization was formed in the ghetto. Cells were established, arms acquired and contacts sought with the partisans on the outside. On Jan. 27, 1943, two Jewish partisans approached the Judenrat to strengthen contact with the underground. Germans caught them by surprise, but with the help of some of the Judenrat members, the partisans escaped. The Judenrat was then charged with collaborating with the partisans. The following day, the Germans began the deportation of 10,000 inmates of the ghetto, 2,500 being

[Page 8]

dispatched daily to Auschwitz. Within four days, the community was destroyed. Some groups of Jews fled to the forests and joined the Jewish Partisans who operated in the vicinity. In the late 1960's, there was a Jewish population of about 60 (12 families). The former Great Synagogue was turned into an electric power plant. A mass grave of Jewish victims massacred by the Nazi was repeatedly desecrated and a road was built through its site. (Ar. W.)

Bibliography: Pinkes fun Funf Fartilikte Kehiles: Pruzhana, Bereza … (1958), 3-323, 599-690).

C. Extract from Encyclopaedia Hebraica, Supplementary Volume 2, Encyclopaedia Publishing Co., Jerusalem 1982 – pp.961-2.

Pruzana, a town in the Brisk district of the Soviet Union. Until 1795, Pruzana was under Polish rule and since then (apart from the period 1919-39) it has been under Russian control. Jews have lived in Pruzana since the 15^th century. The first synagogue in Pruzana was built in 1463 and destroyed in 1863. In 1568, the right of Jews to live in Pruzana in accordance with their religious tenets was confirmed. Since that time, their numbers increased continually and in 1921, there were 4,152 Jews or 57% of the population.

Rabbi Joel Sirkis (see Habah – according to the initials of his book Bait Hadash (New Home) and Rabbi David Ben-Shmuel Halevi (see Hataz – according to the initials of his book Turei Zahav (Golden Columns) were active in Pruzana and so was Rabbi Eliyahu Feinstein (1842-1929), one of the last rabbis and the author of Halichot Eliyahu. There was widespread Jewish-Zionist cultural activity in the town. There was an elementary school, Tarbut institutions, the Y.L. Peretz Yiddish school and two Yiddish weeklies.

In 1941, the Germans entered Pruzana and imposed a high ransom on the Jews. In September, the ghetto was established and about 3,000 Jews from Bialystok and 2,000 more from nearby settlements were brought into the ghetto. In the second half of 1942, an anti-Nazi underground was formed and when it was detected, all 10,000 Jews in the ghetto were sent to the death camps within four days; only a few were saved. In the 1960's, there were about 12 Jewish families in Pruzana.

Bibliography: Pruzana Town Pinkas – 1930. M.W. Bernstein (Editor) A Chronicle of the destroyed Jewish Communities of the towns P' …1958. D. Kirshner: The Destruction of Pruzana 1974.

[Page 9 - English] [Page 11 - Hebrew]

If Pruzana had been a town with a larger number of inhabitants and a bigger Jewish population, then it may have deserved to be known by the respected appellation of “a mother town in Israel” like many other centres. This is in view of its Jewish vitality, which continued for about 500 years. There are two proofs for this assumption: one in the past and the other in the present.

In the distant past, when the “Lithuanian State Committee” (1623-1761) held its first meeting in Pruzana in Av 5388 (1628), its key figures and leaders decided to go on holding their meetings at Pruzana biennially, as Regulation 192 put it. It should not be forgotten that the main speakers at the “Lithuanian State Committee” were the leaders of the main kehilot Brisk and Pinsk (the Vilna Kehila joined later), Pruzana belonging to the area of Brisk (Regulation 88). We do not know what made our town so attractive to the leaders of the “Lithuanian State Committee) and why it was chosen as the site for the meetings of the committee. The reasons were not specified, but the decision itself made it clear that the committee leaders regarded Pruzana as the most appropriate place for its sessions on the grounds of safety and other reasons.

Incidentally, the conference of the Lithuanian State Committee was one of the most important from the viewpoint of the number and content of the resolutions passed. There were 93 regulations dealing with political, legal, economic, religious and cultural problems of Lithuanian Jews.

We do not know why the decision was not put into practice, but no more conferences were held in our city. In fact, it was the small townlet of Seltz in the Pruzana district which hosted more conferences of the Lithuanian State Committee than any other Jewish Kehila in Lithuania.

The other proof lies in the period of destruction and the Holocaust, during the most terrible days of trial of East European Jewry in the ghettos, in particular, for the members of the Judenrat. There are still diametrically opposed evaluations of the conduct of Judenrat members from the Jewish, not the German, viewpoint. Some members were totally innocent and some were guilty; there were those who were partially innocent and guilty; at the

[Page 10]

same time this is not the place to discuss it. (The excellent book of Isaiah Trunk “Judenrat, the Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe during the Nazi conquest”, Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 5739, properly analyses this complicated and tragic problem). However, as regards the Judenrat in Pruzana, there are no differences of opinion at all about the devotion its members showed to all ghetto inhabitants and their considerable concern to supply bread and shelter to all the Jewish inhabitants and the Jews of Bialystok and other towns who arrived in Pruzana.

The members of the Judenrat in Pruzana also courageously resisted German demands, and in light of the terrible conditions and circumstances of that time, did their duty by their brethren out of a sense of Jewish solidarity and a consciousness of the joint Jewish fate in the “Planet of Auschwitz”. Apart from one exceptional incident in which 18 Jews were killed at the beginning of the German occupation, Jews were not killed by the Germans as in other near and far-off Kehillat. It is indeed possible that the strange fact that Pruzana was attached to East Prussia instead of becoming part of the general government in Poland contributed to the relatively lighter treatment of Jews by the Germans as compared with other Jewish settlements. But whatever the motives, it is a fact that in the terrible days of the German conquest, a loyal team of officials acted in the best Jewish tradition to deal with public needs. Evidence of this can be found in the testimony of Holocaust survivors from Pruzana, Bialystok and other towns for whom the Pruzana ghetto served as a temporary refuge from certain death, until the issue of the edict of destruction and the expulsion to Auschwitz in January 1943 which covered all the Jews in the ghetto in the framework of the “Final Solution” the Germans determined for East European Jewry.

The two proofs are enough to show that Jewish life in Pruzana was in the best tradition of the old Jewish centres in Russia, Poland and Lithuania, which developed deep roots in the soil of Europe and maintained Jewish life for hundreds of years, struggling against the hostile forces of the regime and overcoming them.

Further evidence is found in the personality of the Rabbis who sat on the Pruzana rabbinate. At the end of the 16^th and the beginning of the 17^th centuries, Rabbi Yoel, son of Rabbi Shmuel Sirkiss, served in our city. He was famous in the Jewish world for his book: “Haba”ch – Bayit Chadash” and for his son-in-law Rabbi David, the son of Rabbi Shmuel Segal, the author of the “Turei Zahav”. Unfortunately, we have not been able to trace other

[Page 11]

rabbis who served in Pruzana in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. The details in the register about rabbis mainly refer to the end of the 18^th, 19^th and the first half of the 20^th centuries. However, this list, which includes the names of outstanding leaders, is enough to indicate that the Pruzana rabbinical seat was a worthy one for scholars of the Law, Gaonim and other learned rabbis.

Among those who served on the Pruzana Rabbinate were : “Hagadol meminsk”, the Rabbi of Minsk; Rabbi Yeruham Yehuda-Leib Perelman and Rabbi Eliyahu Haim Meisels, who became famous as the rabbi of the Lodz Kehilla. Rabbi Eliyahu Feinstein (Rabbi Elinka) was among the luminaries of his age and served for 45 years on the Pruzana rabbinate. The fact that he was twice asked to serve as the Rabbi of Jerusalem speaks for itself.

The struggle of Pruzana Jews to get privileges from the kings of Poland should also be mentioned. As the pinkas shows, the privileges were first confirmed by Queen Anna Jagellonka (1586) and the kings: Jan Kazimierz (1649), Michael (1669), Jan the Third (1683), August the Third (1748) and Stanislaw August (1776). The Jews strove to extend their rights and sometimes they succeeded.

The editors of the first Pinkas, which appeared in Pruzana in 1930, examined important certificates and documents that were preserved in Pruzana and other places, which provided evidence of the kehila's important past. This fact highlights the awareness of the community leaders who took care to record the history of the kehila for posterity. Not all the kehilot had this sense of history. In Pruzana were preserved the pinkas of Hevra Kadisha the “Sefer hachaim” (“Book of Life”), “Pinkas hakahal” (the Community pinkas) and a small pinkas of the 1831 cholera plague.

The cover of the Hevra Kadisha pinkas records 1785 as the start of entries, but the same pinkas recalls a former one going back to 1450. The cover of the “Book of Life” notes 1808 as its beginning, but has records from 1721. The community pinkas covers the years 1801-1850. The first historic document mentioning Pruzana refers to 1433, when it is to be supposed that Jews were already living there. In 1473, there is mention of the Pruzana synagogue “Boznica Zydowska”).

All this evidence proves a long Jewish history in Pruzana from the middle of the 15^th century to the middle of the 20^th century; a period of about 500 years.

The memoires of the Pruzana survivors – not merely those who lived through the Holocaust, but all the townspeople who immigrated to Israel or went to

[Page 12]

Western Europe, North or South America prior to World War II and are thus looked on as Holocaust survivors – cover the periods of the two World Wars. Everyone of them bears the imprint of Pruzana's heritage, which was impregnated with a full and effervescent Jewish life. Activities included not only the various economic occupations, but the ideological, national and social struggle as well, just like Russian and Polish Jewry at that time. The socialist movements: the Bund, the S.S., Poalei Zion and the Communists on the one hand and the various Zionist parties on the other; the General Zionists, the left-wing parties: Hitachdut and the youth movements: Hashomer Hazair, Gorodonia, Hechalutz Hazair, Freiheit; and the right-wing blocks: the Revisionists and Betar, fought for hegemony among the Jewish public. The work for the Zionist Funds, the Jewish National Fund and Keren Hayesod became an educational instrument of the first order, in addition to the cultural and educational work of militant Yiddishism. Both camps saw their main task in the educational field. The Zionists in the Hebrew education system; the Yavneh school, the Hebrew gymnasium and the Tarbut library; Yiddishism in the Y.L. Peretz school and in extensive cultural work that included a library, a drama group and other cultural and social institutions.

The vitality of these groups received expression in two weekly papers: “Pruzener Lebn” and “Pruzaner Sztyme”, each of which served its camp and struggled for its ideals. There were few such communities blessed with such ideological battles.

One should also not forget the part played by the Heder, the Yeshiva and the government schools, the elementary school, the gymnasium and the teachers' seminary. Reference must be made to the religious, social and professional institutions which also embraced the public work of many officials who were concerned in improving the lot of their brethren and help them in the increasingly difficult, material struggle for existence which became harder during the years.

A wonderful structure of organised Jewish community life was constructed out of all these “bricks” and in addition to the struggles of “this world”, it was also concerned about the “future world” in view of the trends towards the Zionist solution in Eretz Yisrael and the Socialist solution of struggle for “Doism” and the national and civil rights of the Jewish national minority in the state of Poland.

Most of the survivors belonged to one of the rival camps and the zeal which

[Page 13]

they invested in fighting each other is well remembered. Today, after the tragedy that engulfed all the Jews of Pruzana, things are regarded in a different light in retrospect. Everyone knows how to value and respect the views of opponents, because all worked for the public good.

Our Pruzana pinkas, a book of testimony and reminiscence to a kehila that existed for 500 years, was written in Hebrew, in addition to the two Yiddish pinkasim that appeared in 1930 while Pruzana still existed and in 1958 in Buenos Aires. What purpose did the third Pruzana register serve? As already mentioned, there were two old community registers of the kehila and Hevra Kadisha. Both were written in Hebrew, even though they contained many Yiddish words. It was the custom of many Jewish kehilot to write their pinkas in Hebrew from the start of the Exile to the present day. It is, therefore, the duty of the survivors to endow their town with a pinkas in the Holy tongue for future generations and not merely be satisfied with the pinkasim in Yiddish without, in any way, wishing to denigrate, G-d forbid, from their value of their linguistic importance.

Another reason is that the editors of the two pinkasim belonged to the Yiddish camp and did not always take pains, perhaps they were unable, to throw light on the Jewish life of the other camps. They were naturally close to their own. The same thing might have happened had the Zionist and Hebrew camp published the two pinkasim. However, this should not in any way be regarded as an attempt to detract from the value of the work of the editors of the two Yiddish pinkasim, which has existed for generations. They supplied most of the material for the Hebrew pinkas and constitute not only its foundation but much of its body and mould as well.

First and foremost, it is hard to exaggerate the historical value of the work of Gershon Urinsky, Meir Wolanski and Noah Zuckerman, the editors of the first pinkas. Without them, there would have been no Pruzana pinkas. They created something out of nothing and turned a small experiment by the 7th grade pupils of the Y.L. Peretz school under the guidance of Noah Zuckerman to gather material about the town's past into a mighty enterprise of the publication of the Pruzana Town Pinkas, 1930. The three editors invested a lot of toil in finding historic material, determining facts and dates and investigating the old people of the town. In their introduction to the

[Page 14]

pinkas, the editors said they were sure that many historic documents that had once existed had been lost.

Perhaps Pruzana's good fortune lay in the fact that the editors felt time was running out and that tragedy was impending, as the flood of bloodshed could already be seen on the horizon; a flood that would encompass not only living Jews but all the documents of inestimable value in studying Jewish history. Therefore, every person browsing through the register in the near and distant future owes them gratitude, admiration and esteem for their historic enterprise. Otherwise, the whole past of the town would have drowned in the depths of the sea of grief and bereavement that engulfed the Pruzana Jews. The three editors looked at the sources at their disposal, checked them and saved their contents from oblivion. Thanks to them, the history of the town and the Jewish community was preserved. In addition, the editors carried out full demographic and statistical researches, processed the findings and drew the necessary conclusions. The articles on the first years of the 20^th century, World War I and Jewish life in the 1920's are a storehouse of documentation and valuable information. The minor blemishes in their work, which cannot be avoided, do not detract from its character and quality. We drink from their wells and remember them with feelings of gratitude and esteem.

Two of the editors of the Pruzana pinkas, G. Urinsky and M. Wolanski, have died, the former in Pruzana in 1940 before the Germans came and the latter in Argentina after World War II. Noah Zuckerman, who stayed in the Soviet Union during the war, is now in Israel, living with his wife and daughter in Netanya. We thank him for his agreement to the Hebrew translation of the Pruzana Pinkas and his cooperation with us, as well as his account of how the register was compiled.

The second pinks: “A Chronicle of the destroyed Jewish Communities of the towns of Pruzana, Bereza, Malch, Scherschev and Seltz, their origin, development and annihilation”, editor: Mordecai W. Bernstein, co-editor: David Forer, Buenos-Aires, Argentina, 1958, includes the whole of the first and important material about the later periods. The pinkas was a lavish publication of 950 pages on fine paper and pleasant print. The editors did excellent work expanding the picture to include the history of five towns closely linked with Pruzana, both before and during the Holocaust, as well as Pruzana's history.

[Page 15]

We thank Mr. David Forer for giving his agreement to use the copious material in the pinkas and translate it into Hebrew (Mordecai Bernstein is dead). Our pinkas includes material of the two Yiddish pinkasim and extra things added by us, but it proved impossible to add historic material prior to the 19^th century. Among the material which we added are:

1. Biographical details of the rabbis serving in Pruzana in the 19^th century.
2. A detailed biography of the last rabbi, David Faigenbaum, by his daughter, Dr. Hannah Krakowsky.
3. Excerpts from “Hamaylitz” and “Hazefirah” at the end of the 19^th and beginning 20^th century, which include reports about Pruzana life.
4. Memoirs on Zionist and Hebrew activity in the 20's and 30's.
5. A detailed biography of Dr. Olia Goldfein, by her son-in-law, Alexander Rabey. She was the most impressive personality of Pruzana in the last 50 years of its existence.
6. In the public and cultural personalities section, we have striven to bring details about prominent public officials, but unfortunately, we were unable to find information on Eliyahu Birnbaum who was deputy mayor for many years; Dr. Moshe Finegold who was very active in public affairs and also deputy mayor for a short while, and other personalities.
7. Our general aim was to bring documentary material solely and avoid personal memoirs that are full of nostalgia and personal experiences. The Holocaust section is an exception, of course. Apart from the brief German documentation on the number of Jews in the Pruzana ghetto who were taken to the Auschwitz labour camp, there is no documentation and all the sources are naturally accounts of survivors.

[Page 16]

I am grateful to the writer, Moshe Chinovitch of Tel-Aviv for his participation in the work of the pinkas and his great help and important advice in getting hold of historic material about our town. I did the whole work of Hebrew translation of the material in the two Yiddish pinkasim.

At the end of each article from the first pinkas which appeared in Pruzana, the digit 1 appears in brackets (1). At the end of each article in the second pinkas, which appeared in Argentina, the digit 2 appears in brackets (2).

Haifa, Elul 5741 – September, 1981.
Editor's address:

POB 7245, Haifa 31072.
Tel: 04-242212.

[Page 17 - English] [Page 32 - Hebrew]

We possess the pinkas (Memorial Book) of the kahal in Pruzana from 1801 to 1851. This pinkas, like that of the Hevra Kadisha, has no beginning or end. Protocols from the earlier years are found at the end and vice-versa. It is difficult to determine if this pinkas was the only one of the kahal or whether there were others which have been lost. According to the report we have, there was another pinkas from an earlier period, but it has disappeared. The cover is a simple one, without decoration or illustration. The page is circumvented with a parallel line in the shape of a gate. At the top is the title: “Pinkas of the Kahal of the Holy Community of Pruzana: At the bottom, there is the date – 5561 (1801) in the abbreviated version and the seal of the kahal that shows an eagle with two heads on which is written: “Kahal Adat Yeshurun of the “Holy Community of Pruzana” (see pictures of the seals). The language of the pinkas is Hebrew, but there is also one text in Yiddish. The minutes are not continuous and there are many empty pages between one minute and another. It is difficult to surmise why this happened. Apparently, they left room to register more minutes later, but they were not recorded. We find a lot of material in the pinkas about the economic and social life of the Jews in our town. The minutes relating to the economic situation of the Jewish population are very interesting.

As can be seen from the content of a minute written in Yiddish in 1823, the community defended itself against the cartel of the millers who intended to milch the public. The kehila even threatened excommunication for creating cartels. It is not clear from the wording what circumstances existed that caused public figures to adopt this step: were there subsidiary causes or did a real concern the welfare of the public guide their action? In many instances, the kehila organised the economic life of the Jews in Pruzana. Apart from the above example, which shows how the kehila protected the public against the millers who sought to raise the cost of milling, there is another very characteristic incident: in 1851, the kehila sought to organise the grain trade. Grain prices soared and there was hunger in the area; Public figures sought to stop the price rises. In addition to this step, there was also a warning not to send grain out of the town because this would lead to more hunger and even higher prices.

[Page 18]

There is another minute of the same year (1851), which discusses the state of the Kehila. It shows that the financial situation was deteriorating. The excise taxes on brandy which belonged to the Kehila did not bring in a lot of income (as mentioned in previous minutes). Tenders were being held in Grodno for the right to farm taxes for a further period. The important people in the town decided to send the rich man, Yitzhak Goldberg, to Grodno to acquire the tax farming rights. Later, the Kehila held a competition giving the right to the person who paid the largest sum. The most important thing in the minute is that Kehila figures call for a boycott of the ‘foreign’ leasees of the Pruzana excise. The lease was indeed given to foreigners and the boycott implemented, as can be seen from the next minute, which was recorded later. The leaders decided not to lease houses to the intruders for use as public houses nor lease public houses from them.

There are interesting reports on the Pruzana Kehila's sources of income in the pinkas. As in other communities, commodity taxes were introduced. Taxes on candles, meat and bread are mentioned, but figures on the income from each tax separately are lacking. There is one report of 1827 about income from the “chovat halechem” bread (Kozolke) tax. It was an extraordinary year. The authorities imposed large taxes on the turnover of the public houses (bars) in Pruzana. They appealed to the Kehila to help them in their distress. The Kehila leaders to lease out the ‘bread box’ to raise the necessary sum for the leasees of the public houses. The ‘bread box’ was leased and at the end of the pinkas, a report for that year showed that the ‘bread box’ brought in 97 rubbles a month or 1,164 rubbles for the year.

That is the one recorded case in the pinkas of the Pruzana Kehila that shows how the community leaders helped a group with that sum. The significance is that the public house tenants were among the important household owners who were supported by the Kehila. Ordinarily, the Kehila dealt with the bread box as the 1825 protocol shows.

That is to say, for the next two years, we had to lease out the bread box, which was meant for payment of the poll tax. At the end of the minute, the Kehila's seal was stamped, the only instance of its use in all the pinkas. In order to explain the importance of the decision, it was explicitly states: “To give greater validity to all that has been said above, the kehila's seal was imprinted”.

The tax on candles (korobke) was introduced in Pruzana in 1845 (as the protocol on page 38 shows). The writer of the minute reported that want

[Page 19]

Increased in that year, the number of paupers increased and the Kehila decided on a general tax on candles. The rate of tax on candles prepared for sale was 3 guldens a put (about 16kg) on candles for home use, 2 guldens and for Russian candles 1 guilder.

The pinkas never mentions how much the candle tax brought in. On the other hand, we found a report that was sent to the regional offices which said that in 1868 the income from candle tax was 659 rubbles. It is difficult to estimate how much other taxes brought in due to lack of information.

Another interesting fact in the pinkas records show how the korobkes were farmed out. The first minutes related that the Kehila leaders decided that the taxes would not be farmed out until the sums the proposed leasees were prepared to pay were announced three times in the synagogues. The pinkas does not contain information as to how korobkes were leased. It can be assumed the lease was made through “family” arrangements by the town's autocratic overseers who acted high-handedly. This is evidenced by the remark in the protocol: “whatever shall be, shall be”, which meant that the leaders expected opposition to the new regulation, which resulted from the kehila's financial interests. The Kehila had to bear a burden of taxes imposed by the authorities. The only way to get big sums was to hand over “korobkes” for leasing through tenders.

The second most important ‘calamity’ that bothered community leaders was army recruitment. It was decided in 1833 to collect donations for the soldiers who were taken into the army ‘for the general good’, so that they could buy themselves out through their superiors and keep religious commandments. The donations were collected at weddings, circumcisions, in monthly payments and haphazardly, as can be seen from the following minute: This minute dealt with the situation of those who went ‘to serve the authorities for the public’. They suffered a lot and the Kehila leaders explained that they were taking decisions who aim was to help and strengthen those who suffered. The pinkas details the methods of collecting money for the soldiers. When a soldier was sent to the army, he redeemed the rest of his relatives, who would not appear on other army recruitment lists. There were many cases of brothers or relatives of soldiers being sent to the army when community leaders forgot that one relative was already in the army. Such cases were recorded in the pinkas to prevent recurrence. A similar case occurred in 1842: This is the content of the minute: Since the Sussman boy, the son of Hanoch

[Page 20]

Berestizky, was recruited into the army, he thus redeemed his whole family. And as his brother became the father of two sons, nobody must do them a wrong by registering them under another number in the list (Izkazka) of inhabitants and until a new “reviziah” is compiled, their names must not be included among those eligible for call-up.

The Kehila also exempted the parents of the recruit from taxes. The 1845 protocol referred to some Yitzhak, who was exempted from payment of taxes for ten years, but not from the “korobkes”, because: “he could not be an exception”. The fate of every Jew lay in the hands of the Kehila notables (deputaten) and later the representatives. Anyone committing a felony was immediately placed at the head of the list (Izkazka) and had to go to the army. If anyone complained and his arguments were substantiated, his name was struck off the list and the next-in-line went instead.

At the end of the pinkas, there are descriptions of several cases of accidental loss of virginity through mishap by young girls. There are 14 similar cases in the Pruzana pinkas in ten consecutive years. There are also many protocols or minutes referring to personal matters, unredeemed promissory notes, property matters, etc. The religious life of the Kehila also occupies an important place in the pinkas. Some of the minutes deal with the salary of the rabbi and dayanim. There are also regulations sorting out the ties between two new Botei Midrash and the old, large synagogue, “Shul” and the large Beth Midrash.

Note (1). Although the “korobke” on candles was introduced in 1845 by the Russian government for the sole needs of the Jewish schools, the Pruzana Kehila leaders apparently knew nothing about this and allocated the income from the candle tax to general community needs.

[Page 21 - English] [Page 39 - Hebrew]

One of the certificates in the office of the former Governor-General of Vilna notes that privileges were granted to the town of Pruzana by the Polish kings. No details of the privileges were provided, but they are referred to in the documents of the “Vilna committee for examining ancient documents”. These documents cannot be found in our town. They may have been taken to Russia at the beginning of World War I, together with all the municipal archives.

On the other hand, there is one document (given to us by F. Golubovitz) that tells us of the whole content of the privilege granted to Pruzana Jews by King Wadyslaw IV in 1644, which was confirmed by Jan Kazimierz in 1650 and Jan III in 1677. The document is a Russian translation of the Polish original, a section of the gazette in the regional office (Wojewodstwo) in Brisk.

The privilege recounts that on June 15, 1679, two Jews (Starostes”), Mordechai Ben Shmuel and Zainvel Ben Hillel appeared before Ziegmont Kazimierz Janovsky, the deputy Staroste of Brisk and Poderosy of Smolensk and submitted a privilege of the king written on parchment granted to the Pruzana Jewish Kehila. The content was as follows : “Jan III, King of Poland par excellence, Grand Prince of Lithuania, Reisen, Prussia, etc., announces to all people concerned that he was presented with a manuscript written on parchment of King Jan Kazimierz that gave Pruzana Jews the authority to trade, handicrafts, plots and homes in Pruzana and a request was submitted by members of our clerical council and by Avraham Ben-Yitzhak, a Pruzana Jew, on behalf of all the Jews for his approval. The King allows the Jews to buy houses and plots in the market square and nearby streets; buy fruit gardens; ploughing land, meadows, houses for residence, mead and liquor factories and sell wholesale or retail in their homes or rented places, maintain public houses provided that they paid annually the King's treasury, according to the inventory list, not more than 600 gulden for trading in various commodities, maintain public shops in the market square and houses, trade in weights and measures and deal in various handicrafts, buy livestock in the market and sell meat in their slaughter-houses and not pay property and other taxes and to use all the detailed concessions in the privilege to buy victuals and particularly acquire plots they considered suitable for building a

[Page 22]

Synagogue, provided that its exterior did not look like a Catholic church. If, in accordance with God's will, it should happen that a synagogue built by them be burnt down, they are authorised to build a new synagogue either on the same spot or at another appropriate place and repair the old synagogue. They are allowed to buy plots for a cemetery to bury their dead and build a fence and structures as they see fit, without paying any taxes. But they will pay ordinary taxes to our estate in Pruzana on their homes, plots, gardens, ploughing land and meadows purchased at their own free will. In particular, they must plead not in the courts but before the Starosta in Pruzana or his deputy. The Jews are entitled to appeal before us or our court according to the right they possess. Like other inhabitants, the Jews may keep weights. They may use the public meadow to shepherd their animals and they have free entry to the Pruzana steppe together with the other inhabitants and they must carry out the same obligations as everybody else, with all the reductions and community freedoms that have been awarded in this manifesto to the Pruzana Jews, who may use them without any hindrance from the district officer or the local populace. We confirm all this and sign with our own hand, ordering the attachment of the seal of the Prince of Great Lithuania. Warsaw, December 20, 1644, in the 5th year of our reign over Poland and Sweden”.

A smaller seal attached to this manifesto refers to King Wladyslaw's confirmation of the privileges apart from one clause referring to the synagogue: “The Jews must not dare to buy new plots for their synagogue but be satisfied with the old site”. Signed in Warsaw, December 31, 1650. The same privileges are confirmed by Jan Kazimierz in 1677. A copy of the privilege was provided on May 29, 1830 at the request of the Kehila.

[Page 23 - English] [Page 49 - Hebrew]

The best-known legend about the name of the town of Pruzana goes like this: In the distant past the spot on which the town was established was empty and barren. The river Muchaviec flowed among the many marshes that covered the area. One day, a woman landowner passed through the area holding on to a small child. When she reached the river, a serpent jumped out of the water, snatched the baby from her hand and swallowed it. The mother built a church on the spot in memory of her child. The church drew worshippers to it and very slowly the settlement of Pruzana was established in memory of the founder. This legend was perpetuated in the emblem of the town: a snake swallowing a baby down its throat.

According to a second version, the name of the baby boy or girl was Pruzina and the mother called the church by this name. A third version ignores the name Pruzina and explains the name Pruzana as being like the word: “Pozarela” in Byelorussian or “Pozarta” in Polish, which means “swallowed”.

The well-known Polish historian, Balinski, relates a similar story. He recounts that the nurse of the children of landowners in the area dropped a child into the river which engulfed the child and the spot was called “Pozarla” and later the name was changed to Pruzana. The historian adds that “the story appears to be fabricated”. This remark did not prevent the story appearing in the article: “A historical list of the district town of Pruzana” in the book: “Urban Settlements in the Russian Empire”.

There is also another legend, according to which the area around the present town was wooded and contained several scattered settlements. But the area on which Pruzana was established was empty and barren. It was called “Poroznia” in Byelorussian or “Pruznia” in Polish, which means empty. This name became attached to the settlement that was built.

As the historic documents show, the name Pruzana was given to our city at the end of the 16^th century. Until that time, the place was called Dobuczyn like the name of the village which is seven kilometres north-east of the town. There is another legend that explains the change of name from Dobuczyn to Pruzana. In the distant past, the town was situated on the site of this village.

[Page 24]

Once, a plague broke out there that killed off many of the local population. The remnant abandoned the place and settled alongside the Muchaviec river and set up the town of Pruzana there. It is obvious that this story, like the others, has no factual basis, but it is included to show how much the people tried to explain the meaning of the name of the place.

Apparently, the name of Pruzana comes from the Pruzanka stream, which flows in the town's boundary into the Muchaviec. Today, we know about the Wiec stream which flows from the north and the Mucha from the west and they merge in the town and are called Muchaviec. The Baba stream flows from the lakes and marshes in the east of the town into the left flank of the Muchaviec. There are indications of another stream, which today is a marsh, that flowed from the south-west, crossed the present-day Kobrin street, continued to the new cemetery and emerged on the right side of the Muchaviec. Old maps indicate the name of the stream as Lacha. Nobody knows about the Pruzanka stream. Also, the ancients write in the Pruzana “gettin” (divorce-documents) “a town on the Muchaviec river, Pruzanka river and Pizhuvka river and springs …”, which shows that Pruzanka river exists. As regards the Pizhuvka, we believe that it is the Baba stream. Maps prior to World War I record the name “Pizogohtka” instead of Baba. Some, or all of the Pruzana streams have changed their names. Lacha in the 16^th century was called Polachwa. The “Revizia of the Kobrin Economy” states the Polachwa river. The same source refers to Pruzanka stream.

Since there is no other stream that falls into the Muchaviec, close to Dereczyn, it is obvious that Pruzanka is the Pirhovka or Baba, as it is now known. The version of the “gettin” that mentions Pruzanka and Pirhuvka in one breath as two separate streams is not understandable. Perhaps it can be explained away by saying that in the beginning there was the version: “on the river Muchaviec and on the river Pruzsanka”. Eventually, the stream was called by its other name and the writers of the “getting” did not want to omit the old name and for extra validity added the new name.

So much for the name of the town. Now, to examine when Pruzana was founded. M. Wislauch mentions many sources in his research on the boundaries of the Kobrin district in the 16^th century. He proves, on the basis of various documents, that all the area around Muchaviec was covered by marshes and virgin forests in the middle of the 14^th century. Settlements were most rare. Kobrin was already a town in those days which belonged to the Grand Prince Ulgird. After his death, Kobrin went to his son Roman and a

[Page 25]

few years later, on February 14, 1404, Roman's uncle, the Grand Prince Vitold, confirmed Roman's ownership of Kobrin.

The political-administrative state of Kobrin prior to this time is not known, but, at the beginning of the 15^th century, Kobrin existed as an independent principality, of which the Pruzana area formed an integral part. The first historic document that mentions Pruzana area belongs to this period. It is the letter of the Grand Prince Zygmunt Kejstutowiez of September 25, 1433 to Jagello about the war with Swidrigello. In his letter, the Grand Prince complains that the inhabitants of Sluck have destroyed the surroundings of Brisk and Kameniec and challenged the area of Prushanoy, Kabrin …

From this source, it is obvious that “Prushanoy” refers to the administrative district around the settlement that should have existed in the centre of that area was called by that name? We do not find any contradiction of this hypothesis anywhere. On the other hand, we see even in modern times that administrative districts are not exactly called after the name of the settlement in which the administrative authorities are situated.

That same Prince Roman, the owner of Kobrin, as mentioned above, starts the princely family of Kobrinsky. Roman's son, Semen Kobrinsky, took an active part in the fighting of those days and was defeated, losing part of his estates, including Kobrin. As a result of later peace treaties, he got Kobrin back. The principality, including the Pruzana district, passed to his son Ivan Semenowicz Kobrinsky who is regarded as the founder of our town.

There is a document of Prince Ivan in the documents of the “Lithuanian Metrica” about the first church in Pruzana (Dobuczyn) which he founded. The document was written in Byelorussian. The prince says he decided to build a church called Birth of the Son of God and contributes one-tenth of his yard in Dobyczyn, one-tenth of winter and annual crops for the priest and his successors. Also, he donates land to build a home for the priest and his men close to the church, not far from the Jewish prayer house. He grants three voloks for ploughing land and Dubowa island for piling up haystacks, all tax free, and a wine factory for home consumption and an inn. The priest may grind 15 barrels at Dobuczyn mills without payment.

Thus, the date of the foundation of the town cannot be determined. This document does not provide us with any date. But it can be said with certainty that the town was founded before the time of Prince Ivan Kobrinsky because in the afore-mentioned document, there is reference “to the town that

[Page 26]

was founded”, indicating that it had been established not long before. On the other hand, it should be assumed that this “foundation” was of a merely formal nature. In fact, there was a settlement, which when founded was called Dobuczyn (or Dobuczyny). It had the character of a town with fields and streets, as indicated by the document, and was apparently quite well populated. In those days, a town was generally like a village. Self-rule was out of the question and self-jurisdiction. The inhabitants were under the jurisdiction of the district officer. The mayor was called a Wojt who was elected by the inhabitants, and his powers were very limited. His job was apparently to look after the town seal and privilege charters box. The inhabitants of the towns, like those of the villages, got their living from the land, workshops and trade. Markets and fairs were held very rarely because even the smallest farm supplied its own needs. It was only in the 16^th century that cities were organised on the German pattern. The Magdeburg rights were established and the town became different from the village.

The foundation of the town meant nothing more than the provision of a town name for a settlement. There must have been a considerable number of Jews for they already had a synagogue. This fact confirms our hypothesis that a Jewish settlement already existed there in 1450 and a Hevra Kadisha was in operation. In 1863, after the fire when the old synagogue (shul) was burnt down, it was said that there was an inscription in the synagogue which indicated it was about 400 years old. Assuming that the inscription was accurate, it meant that the synagogue existed in 1463 and Prince Kobrinsky's document referred to the synagogue that was burnt down in1863. The document supplies evidence that a synagogue existed in 1473 and that there was a big or small community. If one considers that settlements in those days did not grow up in a few years and the population did not increase very rapidly, then 1450 appears as a realistic date.

A later document leads us to reconsider the accuracy of this date. In 1563, the State Comptroller (Revisor) Dimitri Sapieha carried out a census in three towns (Kabrin, Dobuczyn and Horodec) and 98 villages, which belonged to the economy of Kobrin. According to the census date, there were 11 houses of Jews. The 12^th house was a synagogue. The comptroller counted the names of the 11 home-owners. If this number is accepted as the number of Jewish families in 1563, then our assumption about a considerable Jewish population 113 years earlier must arouse many doubts. However, the above evidence leads us to further conclusions.

[Page 27]

Inspector Sapieha was mainly interested in the size of the land area that the Jews possessed and in the taxes that were paid for these areas. He had not intended to count the overall number of families. It can, therefore, be assumed that two or more families were living in every house. Furthermore, Jewish families could live in Gentile homes. If the number of families is multiplied by the number of persons in the family, then a considerable Jewish population existed. It is not out of the question that the Dobuczyn Kehila included Jews from nearby villages and public houses on the roadsides.

Another fact that could explain the small number of Jews in 1563 is that Prince Alexander expelled the Jews from all the Lithuanian principalities in 1495. It could be that his expulsion affected the Dobuczyn community and during the 60 years after the Jews were permitted to return to Lithuania, the Jewish settlement did not manage to grow. In any event, there is no evidence against our view that the history of the Jewish settlement in our town began, in fact, in the 15^th century.

The Kabrinsky dynasty came to an end with Prince Ivan. After his death, all his estates passed over to his brother-in-law, Waelaw Kostewicz – a Catholic. In 1522, Kostewicz founded a Catholic church in Pruzana (on the spot where the Prowoslawic church is situated, on the corner of Pacewicz and Szersuv Str). After his death, all his property passed over to Queen Bonna of Poland who renovated the church in 1534 and granted it extensive areas.

According to Balinsky, Dobuczyn was already, at this time, called Pruzana. However, later documents exist showing our town still having its former name. We, hereby, provide the content of interesting documents mentioning the name of our town:

A royal order issued on January 23, 1544, to Stanislaw Palishawsky, who served as director of the economy of Kobrin and Dobuczyn, instructed him, together with the emissary of Queen Bonna, to explain to the Catholics of Dobuczyn that they must pay “Kaliada” fees to Mazmus the priest and instead of the tithe that was customary in those times to give the Catholic priests a sack of grain from every vloka of fields.

The verdict in the trial of priest Timofey Feodorowicz of the “Holy Ghost” Church in Pruzana against the inhabitants Nicolai Zubawsky and Jan Stavasky etc., which forbade the farmers, who brought their carts to the Christmas and St. Spas fairs, to trade outside the church. The inhabitants argued that the commerce disrupted church prayers. They also brought the orders of royal inspectors which said that commerce should be conducted in

[Page 28]

the market place, not close to the church. The verdict ruled in favour of the inhabitants.

August 7, 1560. Faybush Ben Yosef, a Jewish resident of Kobrin was the renter of the Kobrin and Dobuczyn beer factories and had to pay 10 grush per head in Kobrin and 20 grush per head in Dobuczyn.

April 23, 1562. The trial in the affair of the Brisk Jew, Pesach Ben Isaac, against the royal marshal, Jaroslaw Matwejewicz, about the lease of the Dobuczyn public house and other places was postponed because the marshal was sent to war by royal order;

November 23, 1562. David Ben Shmuel and Avraham Dlugacz, on the one hand, and Yosef Ben Shalom, on the other, agreed to carry out the verdict of agreed arbitrators in the dispute over the renting of customs (mita-payment for goods) in Grodno, Kobrin and Pruzana.

1563. The ‘Revisia’ of the Kobrin economy mentioned above always uses the name Dobuczyn. The document refers to the following streets: Market square, the street by the estate, Kobrin, Chwatker, Zaharui and Dereczyn.

February 15, 1563. Mordechai Ben Yaacov, a Pruzana Jew, transported goat skins to Lublin. Lev ben Natan, also transported goat skins to Lublin.

March 4, 1583. Eliyahu Ben Haim, a Pruzana Jew, transported goods to Lublin: steel, plums, ‘Moreby’ weave, karazaya, figs, raisins, pepper, vegetable oil and rice in four carts.

After the death of King Stephen Batari (1586), his wife, Anna Jagellonka, daughter of Queen Bonna, received the estates of Kobrin and Pruzana as her widow's property. In 1588, she granted privileges to the town under which Pruzana received the rights of Magdeburg and actually receives the status of a town.

The rights of Magdeburg granted the town autonomy. An elected council handled the town's affairs, headed first by a Wojt and later by a mayor. The town had its own judiciary and was no longer dependent upon the Starosta. The town determined its taxes, fairs and market days, etc.

Pruzana also received an emblem of a seal together with the privilege. The emblem showed a blue serpent holding a baby on its tongue, on a silver background, topped by a crown. Later, the colours changed: a brown serpent on a green background. As previously mentioned, one legend relates that a baby was swallowed by a serpent. The truth is that the emblem is not the outcome of the legend, on the contrary. The legend was created on the basis of the emblem. Anna Jagellonka, who granted the privileges, did not introduce a

[Page 29]

new emblem for the city, but gave it her family one, the emblem of the Italian counts of Storza as her mother emanated from this family.

On December 18, 1615, the Brisk register recorded a complaint of the priest Christof Dybowsky against the Pruzana town executive. The priest complained that on the day determined for discussion of his claim against farmers who insulted him by sitting on church land, many inhabitants burst into the municipality, made a disturbance and came to blows. The judges dispersed without hearing his complaint.

The earliest documents bearing the seal of the town that have been preserved from the years 1750-1796. The seal is stamped without colour on the paper and has a Latin inscription around the emblem: “Sigillum Urbis Pruzan(a)ensis”. Later, the Pruzana town seal was dependent on the political conditions and it changed forms (see pictures), but in 1925, the municipality resumed the old emblem, which is still in use at present.

  Pruzhany, Belarus     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page

Copyright © 1999-2024 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 11 Apr 2024 by JH