« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

[Page 61]

The Growth of the Jewish Population in the 17th and 18th centuries;
Participation of Jews in the Taxation of the City (cont'd)

It was noted in the 1770's that one of these pritzim, the landholder of the estate Paszyn, shlakhtshits [Polish nobleman] Juzef Zaremba, was creditor of Sandzer Jews in the second half of the 18th century. As many of the lords of that time, he could not sign his name, and he used to sign the agreements with a cross *. His illiteracy did not interfere with his money business or in collecting profit. On March 17, 1758 an agreement was concluded between Juzef Zaremba on one side and Sholem (Solomon) ben Shmelke (Shmulewicz) and Yoyne (Jonas) ben Yoysif on the arendarn [managers'] side. They borrowed 400 zloty from him [the lord] at 10 percent a year. This was a relatively low percent for large loans and especially for long-term ones. As pledge the two Jewish debtors lenders pawned their house on Shpitalne Street near the city gate and were responsible for the debt with all their holdings. When the house burned down in the fire of 1769, on that site, later in the 1770's, the Sandzer synagogue was built[49].

Four years later, on March 21, 1762 one of the two debtors, Yoyne ben Yoysif, borrowed from that same Zaremba a sum of 300 zloty at the accustomed rate of ten percent a year. Of other debts of that time, we note a Jew named Markowicz **, who in the 1760's had been guilty as a shutef [partner] in a letter of obligation to a non-Jewish creditor for the sum of 330 zloty. Although the loan was formally for a year's time, the repayment of the principal dragged out for seven years. Because of this, the trial becoming so muddled, the priests and city hall instituted the following ruling against the kehile in connection with building the synagogue: the lender Zaremba then attached his complaints, as it were, onto the land for the synagogue on the basis of his mortgage right[50].

At that time, the largest holder of debts among the pritzim, and also among priests in Sandz was the kehile itself, just as it was in all of Poland[51].

It is also superfluous to note that now there were still money claims by Jews against lords, but these are claims for small sums and for merchandise on credit. When, on July 16, 1762, the wieluner mietchnik (sword carrier) Eliash Kurdwanowski took over the estates of the dorf [village] Brzewowa with his partner Ignacy Didinski, the Emberger podstoli [translator's note: podstoli: court office], figured among his debts 178 zloty for liquor to the Przyszower arendar Josef ben Yakob and 25 gildn from the arendar of Lapanow dorf, Aleksander ben Yakob.[52]

*nieumiejacy pisac klade znak krziza swietego

**Markowicz's first name was not given
[Page 62]

C. Arenda [lease holding] and Shenkeray [tavern keeping] in the City

Just as in the majority of cities in all of Poland, arenda and shenkeray held an important place in the economic life. Even more so, Sandz belonged to those royal cities where the greatest power of the administrator, an office that was found here to be constantly in the hands of the Dukes Lubomirski, the counts of Wisznic, made it possible for Jews to manage the most important sources of income in the city.

The largest arenda in Sandz was the arenda of the royal mills of the town administrator. Even before the royal charter for Jews to settle in Sandz, even in the mid-17th century, Jews used to become factors. As noted earlier, already (for the first time in 1655)[53] the manager of that mill is our well-known rich man, Yoyne ben Yakob who also had invested his money in credit businesses. Since that time this largest arenda was always, until the beginning the 19th century, leased through Jews.

Yoyne ben Yakob was mentioned in the documents as manager of the administrator's mill for the last time on January 13, 1679[54]. It turns out that he held the mills as manger for a quarter of a century. After him, Josef Yitzkowicz (ben Yitzhok) is mentioned as manager of the same mills. August 11, 1682, the administrator of Sandz, Jan Lipski*, released a “universal” a farordnung [an injunction, decree}] where he acknowledged that he had leased the Sandzer mills to that Jew, and he demanded that the population pay him for milling grain “honestly according to the adopted tariff”.[55] He [Josef ben Yitzhok] is also mentioned in 1696 as the manager of the Sandzer municipal mills[56] that were given to Jews to manage in the second half of the 17th century. For the first time, in 1703, the factor of administrator Duke Lubomirski, Yoyne ben Shloyme.was mentioned as the manager of the administrator's mills in connection with his complaint about damages incurred transporting the grain.[57] Mentioned as partner-managers of the Sandzer administrator's mills in 1714, were Yakob ben Shimon and Yoakhim (Chaim) Markowicz ben Mordechai).[58] One of the partners, Yakob ben Shimon, was mentioned earlier, in 1706 as the manager of the municipal mills.[59] It can mashaer zayn [be assumed] that exactly at the end of the 17th century, Josef Yitzkowicz is also now Jakob Shimonowicz and remained manager of the municipal mills after he became a partner of the royal mills.

*Jan z Lipia [Jan from Lipia]
[Page 63]

Helyos (Elihu or Aylish) Melsowicz is mentioned in 1728 as manager of the administrator's mills. Then his son took over as manager by beyerushe [inheritance] and after that, his grandson: in 1729 Moyshe Eliasowicz and in 1731-1739 Elias ben Moyshe who also managed the municipal mills. In 1739 he was mentioned as the manager of the municipal mills.[60]

Jews also managed the administrator's mills after the lease of his estate* was given over into the hands of the managerial family magnates. Until 1755 the Sandzer manager was Stanislaw Lubomirski, the Crown steward** and then until the partition of Poland (until 1784) – Stanislaw Malachowski, the later well-known marshalik [marshall] of the great four-year Sejm [parliament].[61] And so this aforementioned story of the Jews in Sandz in 1764/5 points out the Jewish “managers of the Sandzer mills”. ***

The managers of the administrator's and the city's mills had a monopoly, first of all, on the milling of grain, but also on other monopolies bound up with the mill. In any case, there was an explicit decree of June 12, 1729 from the administrator Duke Jezhi Lubomirski that while the manager was (the previously mentioned) Moyshe Eliasowicz, no one should dare to mill grain, produce malt, conduct a tavern with malt and also bake bread without the knowledge of the manager.[62] We hear about the milling of grain into malt by Jewish managers as early as 1678, and after that, in 1708 and 1739;[63] and of Sandzer townsmen milling grain elsewhere and bringing it through the shadows of the city.[64]

We learn from a notice from 1714 that the managers of the Sandzer mills also managed the administrator's brewery.[65] As we were able to establish also on the basis of the Jewish newspaper of 1764/5, in the Sandzer area not only the brewery itself but also the liquor brewery (guralnie) used to be called “Browar”. Apparently, by 1728 the production of liquor was thought of as a monopoly of the royal and municipal mills and brewery: In that year, Elias, the manager complained before the municipal court that the suburban townsman Kiczkowicz who lived in the yoridike [district owned by the church where Jews could live] of the priests of the pare [main district church], had dared to buy liquor from different breweries and secretly sell the liquor in his house, which was forbidden, “bringing harm to either the royal incomes or the municipal incomes”.[66]

*starostwo dzierzawne [administrator's lease]

**podstoli koronny [crown steward of the king's household]

***arendarz mlynow sadeckich
[Page 64]

Because of understandable motives, also in Sandz just as, bederekh-klal [generally] in Poland, the lease of liquor production and monopoly in the city was tied to the lease of the governmental beverage tax, czopowe [property tax??] and szelezne. * As a matter of course in Sandz, the Jewish mill leaseholder, who was also the brewery leaseholder, got the tax money. In 1698 the mill leaseholder, Josef Itzkowicz dunned a townsman czopowe, szelezne and the “Drite Mos”[the third {fee}]** for beer that she had brewed twice in 1696. In 1701 the same manager legally dunned all Sandzer townsmen who were in arrears in their payment of czopowe that they were supposed to pay in the stipulated term. The names of those who remained guilty were on a list and read aloud publicly by the court bailiff. In 1708 Yakob Shimonowicz “the manager of the mill fees and czopowe” dunned Councilman Wolenski before the court for failing to pay czopowe and for stating the incorrect quantity of grain that he had milled to produce liquor. Several years later, the same Yakob Shimonowicz together with his partner Yoakhim Markowicz leased the Sandzer mill. On July 24, 1714 they both surrendered an accounting under a shvue [oath], that in the space of a year, from August first 1713 to July 22, 1714 they took czopowe “from Catholic and Jewish tavern keepers” in the amount of 266 zloty and four groszy.[67]

In a petition to Duke administrator in 1740[68], we learn that with time the management of the mill also included the market fees “targowe” that earlier had been taken by the city.

Since the monopoly of milling grain, malt, bulk purchase of drinks and the payment drinks, the bread-baking monopoly and market fees were concentrated in their hands, the leaseholders of the mills owned a great deal of the economic potential in the city. It is no surprise that they were the largest lenders of money in the city, but they were also, as we shall see later, recognized as a factor in the city administration.

Through other monopolies the Sandzer Jews also took over the management of weight payments and the administration of tolls. Concerning the city weight management, the city administration complained in the cited petition on 1740, that these receipts that used to belong to the city from the time of its founding, “the synagogue” (the kehile) had at a certain time taken over “and held it yor-ayn yor-oys [year after year] as their just desserts”.[69] As for payment, Jews as “vekhter”[sentry] (custos) of the treasury of the city of Sandz were noted in court records in 1697 and later in 1702: in the first case it was Josef Markowicz (ben Mordechai)[70], in the second case Josef Salomonowicz.[71] The word “custos” means, first of all vekhter [sentry], guardian, but it also means finance administrator

*czopowe i szelezne

**tertiae munsurae
[Page 65]

True, since the 16th century, according to several decisions by the Sejm, Jews were forbidden from leasing any tariffs, but exceptions are still found in the time of King Jan Sobieski (the manager of tariffs from Raysn Bezalel ben Natan). Besides this, they were hired by magnate-factors as sub-factors and writers. Es leygt zikh ofn seykhl [It stands to reason] in these cases in Sandz, Jews were actually writers or administrators of the fee-treasury, hired by Adelman, the direct fee leaseholder.

But the lease of the mills and the lease of the monopolies was the business of certain wealthy men, and tavern keeping was, even at the beginning of the 18th century the source of livelihood of a very significant number of Jews in Sandz. In this detail, Jews were not an exception in comparison to the Sandzer townsmen, just the opposite: by the 17th century, before Jews had settled in Sandz, almost every house in the marketplace was an akhsanye [inn] and the majority of the townsmen used to brew liquor and beer, not only for their own use, but also to sell in the taverns af glezlekh [by the small drinking glass].[72]

We have a list of 1715 townsmen and Jews who produced and sold drinks: on the seventh and eighth of February the administrators in regard to the fee “shelongowe” executed an audit of the forratn [supplier {in German}] of liquor in the houses of the city and the outlying areas.[73] The audit included 36 houses of the townsmen and 16 houses where Jews lived (from the 16th century, two lived in houses rented by non-Jews). The number of Jews therefore, was one half of the number of townsmen, who produced liquor. The supply of liquor found among townsmen and Jews cannot be precisely counted because several townsmen postponed the declaration of their supply, while Jews declared them at once. In a search of the 36 houses of the townsmen, nothing was found during the search in six, as was the case in two of the sixteen Jewish houses. The actual proportion was, therefore, fourteen Jewish liquor stocks compared to thirteen townsmen. The comparison of the found and declared stock is represented as follows:

Mead among the townspeople was generally not counted, so among four of the fourteen Jews aside from beer and liquor, they found several kegs of mead; six townsmen declared from three to four “akhtl”*beer. In summary, sixteen townsmen declared 42 barrels of beer, 8 Jews – more than 20 kegs; ** in addition to twelve kerts [a measure] of malt, liquor was found among seventeen townsmen for a total of 57 pots and one keg at nine Jews -

*An “akhtl” (achtel, antolek) held 9 pots (garniec) or 36 quarts.

**In summary, 18 ½ kegs from 7 Jews; the eighth Jew gave approximately “ several kegs”.
[Page 66]

81 pots, 8 kegs and 7 spunt. * From this collection it can easily be inferred that besides the fact that Jews alone sold beer, they also sold a much greater volume of liquor than the townsmen, and only in connection with beer were the townsmen and Jews proportionately roughly similar in quantity of stock according to their number.

*Spunt in Polish. It seems from the source that a “spunt” holds three “pots”, that is 12 quarts.

D. Crafts and Free Professions: Gertneray [gardening, horticulture]

Information about crafts by Jews in Sandz in the 17th and 18th centuries is very rare, just as with the information on commerce, credit and leasing, but we should not conclude that crafts was actually not at all widespread among Sandzer Jews. We have to take into account that our only source for the history of Jews in Sandz up until the partition of Poland is the records of the city court. It is, however, more natural that crafts did not present that much opportunity for judiciary processes, or for notices from notary publics as did business, money lending, mortgages and others. Certainly the infrequent notices also provides evidence in the records that show that the number of artisans was a small part of the total Jewish population of the city. Among the various crafts noted were those that Jews undertook in all of Poland because of religious grounds, historical causes, well-rooted traditions and legal barriers: katsovim [butchers], tailors, kirshner [furriers] and hatters [translator's note; more likely cloth caps], lace makers, goldsmiths, bookbinders and others.

That Jews had their own butchers, there is no doubt, even if nothing was mentioned about it in the notices; but they were explicitly mentioned even in 1676 and 1677 in complaints about Jews buying animals for slaughtering.[74] Jewish lace makers, three at a time khasmen zikh [signed their names] on an agreement with the lace makers guild in 1686,[75] and later in the 18th century, we find in the guild's books notations of Jewish lace makers. The related trade of hatter was noted in 1678 regarding a Jew from Wisznic, the city from whence the first Jews came. In 1738 in Sandz a Jewish hat maker complained about a Sandzer councilman that he had not paid for a hat that he had taken from him. Also in 1755 a similar case occured in which three Jews accused a Sandzer citizen of taking two hats from the store without paying. A lace maker is mentioned among the Jewish owners of a house in the list of house taxes in 1761.[76]

[Page 67]

A Jewish tailor is mentioned in 1706 in the same situation as the Jewish lace maker: he held the same agreement with the tailors' guild about annual payment of dues to the guild.[77] A Jewish tailor is also mentioned in a list of taxpayers (poborowe) in 1711; their employment is seldom given; one was noted as a lace maker.[78] A lace maker was also mentioned in the list of Jewish homeowners of 1761. In a list from 1751 of payers of “prowent” [type of tax] to the administrator, were 27 Jews who were heads of families, only one mentioned by name. He was a bookbinder.[79] A bookbinder was also counted among Jewish homeowners in 1761.

One and the same Jewish goldsmith, Yakob Levek (Levi) was mentioned in the court records several times: 1726, 1728, 1729 and 1732: he made earrings mounted with expensive stones; he also traded in mead.[80] In 1737 another Jewish goldsmith by the name Shimon is mentioned.[81] In 1761 in a list of Jewish homeowners, two goldsmiths are mentioned: one Sztuma (Shimon?) (author's parenthesis) and another – Meyer.

We find Jewish workers and employees noted in connection with leasing: in 1705 a Jewish land surveyor (Pol.-:miernik) of the mill and in 1733 a Jewish liquor brewer.[82] Incidentally, in all of Poland at that time, these were two trades that were almost exclusively held by Jews.

Of earlier trades, in the actual sense of the word, the trade of feldsher [old-time barber-surgeon], in Polish “tsirulik” was widespread among Jews throughout Poland. In the Sandzer records we find Jewish feldshers mentioned quite often: 1638, 1700, 1711, 1730. 1743; then two at a time either in separate records at the end of the 17th century (1698, 1700), or in the taxpayer lists of 1711 (“poborowe”) and from 1761 (homeowners). At the end of the 17th century (1691, 1699) aside from these two Jewish feldshers ”Sandzer feldsher “[83] citizens were also noted. We see that we are not dealing here with actual balbirer [barber] but with royfim [old-time physicians, probably not formally trained] as shown by the label designation in Latin of “cirurgus”. As was the custom in the kehiles of that time, the Sandzer kehile also employed its own Jewish feldsher, who was, probably as was done all over, mekhuyev [obliged] to treat poor sick people without pay: in 1730 the feldsher Moyshe ben Yitzhok is mentioned as “the feldsher of the Sandzer synagogue”. * He presented before the court an agreement about a house with land that the feldsher Josef Lachmanowicz (ben Nahman) had purchased from “voylgeboyrenem” [well-born] that is, a shlakhtshits, [Szlachcic in Polish; nobleman] Adam Kownatski.

*Chyrugus Synagogae Sandscensis
[Page 68]

The Jewish feldshers also had non-Jewish patients: in 1709 “the umgloyiker” [the non-believer, infidel] Matus Lewkowicz (ben Levi?) the surgeon, a Sandzer citizen, complained that he was not paid for the cure, or for salves and other remedies.

Of the early professions that were not highly regarded at that time, we note in 1602 “a little Jew, a shvartskinstler [literally, a black artist; here probably someone involved in the dark arts]. **[84]

A kehile-appointed watchman (Pol. Zyd Straznik) who was probably Jewish was mentioned in the tax lists 1711.[85]

Finally, we have to mention here, that just as in other cities in Poland in the 17th and 18th century,[86] a number of Jews in Sandz had vegetable gardens near their houses that they worked for their own use. After 1676, cases are often mentioned where Jews acquired houses together with fields.[87] There also are two explicit court notices about Jews who had plowed under and sowed their field or garden. In 1718 the previously mentioned butter seller Joachim Markowicz (Chaim ben Mordechai) complained before the city court about someone by the name of Tomash Pech because he had taken a part of the building plot that was called Falsowska, that the complainant had “farakert un farzeyt” [plowed under and sowed].[88] In 1729 a trial, Abush “from the Sandzer synagogue” came before the city court against the burgher Wiotchek Jargatowicz who, he complained, had stolen from him “the plantings of cabbage from his little garden”.[89]

In connection with the managers of the administrator's mills and brewery, they also used to receive a field, as we will see later, ofn kheshbn fun [at the expense of] the manager. We have a notice about the previously noted administrator-manager and the Duke's factor Yoyne ben Shloyme, that he also owned his own farm: August 2, 1704 a trial was held before the city court between Yoyne ben Shloyme and the Councilman Jan Gurski about the attack that Gurski made against the city farmer Falkowe and which the Sandzer mayor Nowakowicz had written to Yoyne that the reason Councilman Gurski had attacked the farmer, was because Yoyne Salomonowicz had not repaid a debt of 290 zloty.[90]

*niewierny, perfidus: in official documents, that is the way Jews used to be “titled”, except when they just called him “the Jew” (Judaeus)

**Zydek Czarnoksieznik

E) Leasing and Tavern Keeping by Village Jews

Jews as managers in the derfer [towns] of the Sandzer surroundings were mentioned sporadically in the official notices of the 17th century: 1673 a tavern in Cieniawa, in1680 probably a Jew who lives in Mystkow, in 1681 a manager in Moszczenica who owned a walled house in Naykortchin, 1688 –

[Page 69]

A woman manager in Pisarwowa; 1719 – a manager of the estates in the village Polna, 1722 – a manager in Mogilno,[91] 1761 – in the village of Posadowa[92] and in 1762 – managers in the villages of Brzezna and Lapanow.[93]

As for the villages Cieniawa, Mystkow and Pisarzowa, they belonged to the royal estates, on which the Sandzer manager held the lease. One can assume that also in the thirteen other villages of this management lease, to which Biczyce, Trzetrzewino, Ptaszkowa, Kamienica also belonged, just as in the seven villages from the Grybower estate,[94] Jews lived completely free, presumably after they legally settled in Sandz.

In regard to the scope of the lease, we can assume, according to the ratio that is known to us from the counts of 1764/65, that, as a rule, it included the brewery, the liquor production and tavern keeping, or only tavern keeping, as was the case in the village Cieniawa in 1673 and in the village Leka in 1688. Characteristically, in 1719 the manager of village Polna is explicitly mentioned as the “manager of the estate of the village”.* This is, therefore, one of the few cases in Crown Poland (translator's note: Crown Poland usually means the Poland before 1569) in the 18th century where the Jewish leaseholder took over the management not only of the liquor production and tavern keeping but also the entire management. The nobleman Jezhef Bialecki z Bialcina brought this manager Yitzhok ben Eliezer and his wife Feygele to court after they were already in prison for not paying him the sum of 774 zloty and 8 groszy, asking that they remain in prison until they paid the entire sum.

As previously mentioned, according to the official count of 1764/65 the Jews within the limits of the Sandzer kehile, were already living in 103 villages, and amounted to 138 families and 595 souls.[95] The villages extended from Nawojowa in the south to Kroscienko and Czertyzne. Included are also Zalubincze (the “Piekla”) then still a separate village and where one Jewish family was mentioned.

Of the 138 heads of families, 22 were sons-in-law and were living af kest [room and board offered to a new son-in-law to enable him to continue his studies]. The total of the remaining 116 heads of families according to the count of the occupations is as follows:

1manager of the Sandzer mills13komarnikes [tenants; lodgers]
56managers of breweries4liquor brewers
23in the tavern1secretary in the brewery
18–their calling not mentioned
 Total:116independent heads of families

*arendator bonorum villae Polna
[Page 70]

Heyoys [in as much as] as the 18 heads of families without a calling were mentioned, every one of these Jews lived in their villages; we can assume that they should be added to the tavern count. Therefore, in summary we have 41 Jewish tavern keepers compared to 56 Jewish managers. As was previously noted, the count of “brey-hoys” [brewery]* is not necessarily accurate, and it has a connection to liquor-brewery. The managers of the brewery, without a doubt, were also paid for the taverns in the village. Only in 6 villages (among them Nowojowa and Kroscienko) where such “managers” were mentioned, Jewish tavern keepers were also mentioned: in Czertyzne, in addition to the manager of the brewery there were 2 Jewish tavern keepers. Two breweries with Jewish managers in one village were noted in only one instance, in the village of Witowice.

The designations “manager of brewery” and “tavern keeper” are not accidental; it seems that the tavernkeeper only leased the tavern, while the managers, with few exceptions, held the lease either on the brewery or liquor brewery or both together, or on the tavern in the village. About the social distinction between the managers and the tavern keepers in the villages of the Sandzer surroundings, just as in all of Poland, the statistics of Jewish meshorsim [servants] bear witness: of ten young male servants who were mentioned in the count, 9 were employed by managers and only one by a tavern keeper. Just as the 4 orphan boys that were mentioned in the count probably carried out the functions of servants, were all counted with leaseholders. Only in reference to belfers [assistant teacher in traditional kheder] a very small number, the tavern keepers were not very much behind in relation to the managers: of the 7 noted belfers, 5 were with the managers, 2 with the tavern keepers and one with a lodger.

The employment of the 13 lodgers is not given; of them, 5 were the only heads of families in the town, that is, they lived with peasants or on the estate. Probably they were part dairymen, part village artisans. Of the 4 orphans, 2 were attributed to Jewish managers of breweries, one to a tavern keeper and one – in Rytro – to a brewery that was in fact not run by a Jew: Brewing was practically a Jewish occupation and they could no more get along without brewing liquor as without arendarn [leaseholders]. There was also a case of a Jewish secretary in a brewery where there was not any Jewish manager.

*browar in Polish

F. Contracts Concerning Leasing

We can make an assumption from several documents in the Oselinium Archive.[96] about that period in connection with the contracts for the services of the arenda [lease] during the first years of the Austrian rule

[Page 71]

On January 24, 1784, a contract in Bichets* was finalized by the royal refendar [junior lawyer] Stanislaw Malakhowski between the lord ** Jan Feygl, the manager of the Sandzer administrative offices and the Alttestamentlekhn” [the Jews {of the Old Testament}] Yakob ben Shmuel. According to the contract, the lease of the propinacja [literally: taproom-Polish] in the dorf Pisarzowa was given for two years – 1784–1786, for 740 zloty a year, to be paid in two installments. The right of propinacja included the right to keep a tavern serving beer, mead and liquor. The manager got the utensils from the brewery, the pots and the boilers [kettles] and the right to chop wood in the forests for use in the brewery “except for wood that is good for building”. Two fields were given to the brewery for which the manager was mekoyev tsu [obliged to] pay mayser [tithe] (to the church) (author's parenthesis) and contribute to the government finances. The manager was obliged to make good liquor, to sell it at a 'true measure', “not to pour in a gromade [a heap-Polish] more than the license generally (would permit) (author's parenthesis)”, “to be careful of fires, and if it were his fault that fire broke out, the liability would be his responsibility. The well-born lord leaser on his side, pledged protection for the arendar against all attacks.”

The following footnote was added to this agreement: “the aforementioned manager presented two peasants who work three days a week, one zagrodnik [peasant, farmer who has his farmhouse- Polish] who also works three days (in the week) and two chalupnikes [cottager, laborer, poor peasant-Polish] who work one day (a week)”.

On July 1, 1784 in the dorf Biczyce the same leaser of the Sandzer administrative offices – Jan Feygl – concluded a three-year agreement with “Alttestamentlekhn”, Chaim ben Yakob for the taproom in the dorf of Mystkow. The manager got “this taproom, dehayne [namely] the brewery with all the duties attached to it, with the field ***, meadows, pantshizne **** and with all that belonged to the brewery, for the agreed upon sum, plus the additional czopowe [tax on tonnage], of 600 zloty a year”. The leaser promises every protection needed to collect his debts “that should not cost more than the amount prescribed as the highest permitted [97] in that respect; that also” “every protection against an attack or for damages” under this agreement signed on one side by leaser Feygl, and on the other side by the manager: “gbimsires [98] [by proxy-Hebrew] hk' [an abbreviation once affixed to a signature as a sign of modesty] Chaim bhr”r [son of Rabbi] Nahum zts”l [of blessed memory]”.

A footnote about 'panske' [the lord's, that is, work on the lord's land] added to the manager's contract: “the aforementioned manager was given one 'kmiec' [serf] who works two days with a hoe and a pair of horses and one zagrodnik who finishes up panske [obliged to work on the lord's land] three days a week, also on foot”.

*Biczyce

**Jegomosc

***grunt [ground, soil]

****robocizna [wages, the cost of labor]

[Page 72]

July 26, 1784 in the presence of the same pakhter Feygl, the commissar of the staroste, Stanislow Malachowski, finalized a leasing contract with Wiaczech Korwin Gutowski for the dorf Ptaszkowa. The leasers were alttestamentlekhe, two neighbors Hershl ben Aron (Aronowitch) and Yoyne ben Shmuel (Shmuelewicz). The lease includes “the kretchmers [inns] and the brewery and the implements that are found there with the various inventories for the work put in writing,” “with the right to make beer and brew liquor as well as shenkeray [tavern keeping] in all the inns; with three serfs who work with horses for two days and with other panske according to the old custom of leasing; and with all this in general and with the field and meadows and with the right to use the mill without charge”, for the freely arranged sum “of 7036 Polish zloty in a three year contract, to be paid in two installments, the first - on the Three Kings [the Feast of the Three Kings – January 6] 1785, the second - two weeks before Sacred Jan which fell on June 21, 1785 [St John the Baptist's Day], and “although a number of the buildings of the inn belong to the manager”, however because of the treasure, in order to prevent harm to the dorf, every care should be taken to prevent fire and to have appropriate cleanliness; all implements from the treasure should be kept in good order and they shall be left in the same condition on the ground as when they took them over”, “from his side the mighty lord Feygl, the manager from the Sandzer starotsower [administration] promises to give every assistance to the tavern in collecting debts from the gromada [community-Polish] with the condition that they shall not give more credit to the peasants than usual, and other protections that were demanded by the court and to keep and carry out everything in this contract that has been promised and affirmed”. Inasmuch as the leasers could have had obstacles to the taproom that were left out because of the erection of a new brewery by the mighty lord Stanislaw Trachewski, consequently the mighty lord leaser will make an effort as much as possible that such a brewery will not be any handicap to them.

Finally, after the signature of Commissar Gutowski, a footnote was added: “it is permitted to freely cut wood in the administrative woods, either in area of the inn of Ptaszkowa or from Cieniawa with the warning that they must not cut down any wood that could be used to build, only wood left over that would not be useful for any industry”. The commissar signed the footnote with the initials: W.G.

[Page 73]

To the contract for the lease in dorf Ptaszkowa that was signed on the same day in Biczyce by Commissar Gutowski, a supplementary contract for the same two leasers regarding the leases in the derfer Cieniawa, Mszalnica and “in the Gorkowski” [Las [forest] Gorkowski: now a protected nature area in Poland] but not for three years, only for one year, from June 1784 to the same day of the month in 1785, for a “freely stipulated sum” of Polish zloty. The leasing sum to be paid in two installments, on the Feast of the Three Kings and on Sacred Jan day. All other stipulations are designated as the same as in the previous leases, namely the lease of Ptaszkow. Finally, after the signature of Commissar Gutowski, two footnotes were added signed by leaser of the administrative estate, Jan Feygl:

“To the aforementioned two breweries are added four 'kmieces' [serfs] who have to work with hoe and horses for two days a week, and five chalupnikes who work on the lord's land one and a half days a week on foot.”

This footnote had, without a doubt a relationship to the arenda of Ptaszkowa and Cieniawa together, and not only to Cieniawa, because otherwise it would surely seem that the arenda from Cieniawa that amounted to a total of 500 zloty a year received as much as 4 kmieces and 5 chalupnikes while the contract with Ptaszkow which amounted to more than 2345 zloty (7036 zloty over 3 years) was assigned only three kmieces. The same leaser Feygl added a second footnote concerning the labor force for the arenda of Cieniawa itself:

“The same leaser adds to the one from Cieniawa two chalupnikes who work one day a week on foot and one (who works) two days”.

On July 20, 1784 under similar conditions and in similar style, a contract was finalized in the dorf Biczyce to turn over the Sandzer mills, the brewery and the propinacja under a lease. The arenda included the kool [the people of the Jewish community] and in the name of the financial management of the Sandzer administrator Stanislaw Malachowski, the previously mentioned commissar of staroste Wiaczech Gutowski signed[99].

The kool received on lease for three years from June 24, 1784 until June 24, 1787, the starostwe mills and the brewery and fields, for a sum of 8100 zloty, 2700 zloty a year, payable in Hungarian gold according to the coin of the realm. Here the hiskhayves [obligations] of the manager were also stated to beware of fire, and in addition, the kool was obliged to completely repair either the mill or the brewery. “In general the elders of the kool are responsible for returning the mill and the brewery in the same condition as when they took it over”.

“According to the old custom” the arenda, the “panske” from the dorf Falkowa, namely the three “kmieces”, one “zagrodnik” and one parobek* [menial - Polish] from Krolowa Ruska “from those who came to the castle” “on a mission and to serve”.

*pacholek – menial, flunky
[Page 74]

The arenda [lease] included the free production of beer and liquor “according to the old custom” and the right to freely sell mashkes [liquor] in a tavern. The authorities notified the kool that it must not take “from those who supply”, namely grain, a measure more of grain than what is customary, Those who bring liquor into the city must not take more than, “according to the old custom”, that is, four groszy for a “top”[pot].

As we see, the arenda included, aside from the production of liquor and the monopoly of taprooms in specified derfer or cities and one field or more[100], one meadow or more as pasture, horses and animals and “panske” (panszczyzna [serfdom]), and above all, the work in the brewery and connected to the brewery. Generally, leases were given to Jews all over Galicia[101] and in other areas in Poland with these conditions[102].

For the “panske” work [menial work] the manager was given peasants alpi rov [mostly] from all three social categories into which the peasants of that time were divided: “kmieces”* having their own household. They had to come to work with a horse or horse and vegn**; “ zagrodnikes”*** who own not more than a little house with a small piece of land or garden and “chalupnikes” **** that have only their own hut. These two categories work for the manager just as they do for the lord, “tsu fus” ***** that is, without a horse. In the Sandzer arenda contract there was an additional fourth category, resembling the field worker in the lord's courtyard, an ordinary parobek.

The number of panszczyzna [serfdom] peasants that the manager would get depended on the size of the arenda, from one to four kmieces, one or two zagrodnikes and from one to five chalupnikes. The maximum of panszczyzna work for kmiece was three days a week. This was as a result of the decrees for the protection of the peasants that the Austrian rulers published for Galicia. According to the imperial license of 1781 the “panske“ [the work on the lord's land – transl] could not be more than three days a week[103]. Therefore, one can assume that before the Partition of Poland the “panske” for the arendar, just as for the lord amounted to more than three days a week in a number of cases. Similarly the contracts explicitly recall the limitation on the arendar in the selling liquor on credit to the peasants that was introduced by [Empress] Maria Theresa, while in this respect in Old Poland there was no sort of limitation.

[Page 75]

From these cited contracts we also learn what the lease of the taproom amounted to in a dorf: In small derfer such as Cieniawa, Mystkow, Pisarzowa the fees for the lease amounted to 500, 600 and 740 Polish zloty a year. The lease in a large dorf Ptaszkowa with several breweries and inns reached 2345 zloty a year, not a lot less than the lease for the Sandzer mills with the city brewery an taproom, which amounted to 2700 zloty annually. It is not a surprise that with a lease such as in Ptaszkowa that it was divided between two partners.

Also in the same year 1784 in which all these contracts were arranged, the position of the Jewish managers changed completely after the decree of Kaiser Josef the Second that forbid Jews from occupying themselves with taprooms in the derfer,[104] and the Jewish dorf managers had to adapt to illegal conditions.

*kmiecie - serfs

**sprzezajni – team, yoke

***zagrodnicy – farm worker

****chalupnicy – domestics

*****pieszy - on foot
[Page 76]


Footnotes:

  1. A.D. 125, p. 698-699 Return
  2. A. D. 123, p. 591-693; 126, p. 1647-8 Return
  3. A. D. 127, p.576-7; A. D. 125, p. 723-4 Return
  4. A. D. 128, p. 355 Return
  5. A. D. 126, p. 1065, 1073-4; A. D. 128, p. 353-4 Return
  6. A. D. 132, p. 5-7 Return
  7. Either mead or honey are called: miod in Polish Return
  8. A. D. 126, p. 993 Return
  9. A. D. 125, p. 1143 Return
  10. A. D. 134, p. 99-100 Return
  11. A. D. 138, p. 458 Return
  12. z czerwiem [from worms, maggots] Return
  13. A. D. 145, p. 586-7 Return
  14. Archiwum Glowne Akt Dawnych, Akta bylego Skarbu Koronnego oddz. 65A [division][Records of the former treasury of the Koron. Akta ogoldwe dotyczace ludno:ci zydowskiej, No. 2, f. 86, 89, No.2, f. 86, 89 Return
  15. The entire sum of tax on wine that the finance tribunal assessed on Jews in Crown Poland reached approximately 20 thousand zloty, but a portion of it (six thousand in 1724 ) the Vaad Arba Arotses [ Council of the Four Lands, a conference of rabbis and kehiles [Jewish communities] leaders of four provinces formerly in Poland}] had imposed on all kehiles in the country, also on kehiles that did not do any wine business, f”gl [compare {cf} ] R. Mahler, A Budget from Vaad Arba Arotses in the 18th century. YIVO Bleter, vol.15, p.72-3 Return
  16. A. D. 146, p. 34 Return
  17. A. D. 131, p. 58 Return
  18. A. D. 132, p.581, 593 Return
  19. A. D. 138, p. 639-644
    A ponieważ tu w Sandcyn nonreperiuntur międyz chryeścianami takowi, ba²wiącz sią kupiecyu tzlko Yzdyi, pryz burmistryn sznagogi sandeckiey yostawuje się łokieć cechowanz sameo weilmoźnego Imci Pana Podwojewodyiego. Return
  20. A. D. 134, p. 359, 398, 481-50 Return
  21. A. D. 138, p.225-6; A. D. 143, p. 615-616 Return
  22. A. D. 136, p. 494-5 Return
  23. [Page 76]

  24. A. D.138, p.389-390; A. D. 140, p. 17-18; A. D. 139, p. 316-317; A. D. 143, p. 502 Return
  25. A. D. 132, p. 23-25; 70-71; 85-98 Return
  26. A. D.129, p. 169 Return
  27. A. D. 129, p. 291-294 Return
  28. A. D. 126, p. 993 Return
  29. A. D. 131, p. 107 Return
  30. A. D. 132, p. 82-84 Return
  31. A. D. 134, p. 306-7; 315-316 Return
  32. A. D. 131, p. 107 Return
  33. A. D. 132, p. 71-79; 85 Return
  34. Compare above in the same chapter Return
  35. A. D. 134, p. 254-5 Return
  36. A. D. 145, p. 527-8 Return
  37. A. D. 126, p. 725 Return
  38. A. D.126, p. 385 Return
  39. A. D. 126, p. 1025 Return
  40. A. D. 125, p. 481, 491-492; A. D. 127, p. 235-7, 254-6, 259-60; A. D. 123, p. 470-1; A. D. 126, p. 522, 540, 647-8; A. D. 123, p. 591-3 Return
  41. A. D. 126, p. 842-3; A. D. 128, p. 171-2 Return
  42. A. D. 126, p. 790-1; A. D. 128, p. 224-5; A. D. 129, p. 609-11, 614-15 Return
  43. A. D. 129, p. 204; A. D. 110, p. 539; A. D. 131 p. 206, 213, 293-5 Return
  44. A. D. 132, p. 22-3, 3-3, 579; A. D. 133, p. 206, 213, 293-5 Return
  45. A. D. 133, p. 554-4, 559 Return
  46. A. D. 132, p. 367, 330, 579; A. D. 134, p. 294-8, 302, 540-41 Return
  47. A. D. 126, p. 793-4 Return
  48. A. D. 132, p. 256 Return
  49. A. D. Castr. Sandec. 290, p. 964-971 Return
  50. Compare with subsequent chapter Return
  51. The files of these loans are in Teki Schneidera 1160, ad Num. 2322 Feb er. Return
  52. See further in the chapter about the kehile Return
  53. Rel. Castr. Sandec. 176, p. 1808-1819 Return
  54. See further above in the previous chapter Return
  55. A. D. 128, p. 171-172 <#54r"> Return
  56. A. D. 128, p. 344-5 Return
  57. A. D. 132, p. 279 Return
  58. A. D. 133, p. 554-5, 559-60 Return
  59. A. D. 135, p. 223-4, 226-7 Return
  60. A. D. 135, p. 223-4, 226-7 Return
  61. A. D. 138, p. 457-460, 241-242; A. D. 139, p. 66, 69, 71-72; A. D. 140, p. 2. 205. 248-249, 272-273 Return
  62. Ossolineum 9698 III, p. 1; J. Syganski op. cit. Przew. N.i.lit., T. 27, p. 1108-1111. Return
  63. A. D. 138, p. 241-242. Return
  64. A. D. 138, p. 793-4; A. D. 135, p. 438-9; A. D. 140, p. 205-248, 272-273. Return
  65. A. D. 139, p. 66, 69. Return
  66. [Page 77]

  67. A. D. 575, p. 99-103. Return
  68. A. D. 138, p. 457-460. Return
  69. A. D. 132, p. 480; A. D. 133, p. 199-200; A. D. 134, p. 30; A. D. 135, p. 438-439; A. D. 575, p. 99-103 Return
  70. A. D. 140, p. 459-462 See further in chapter on the legal position Return
  71. Ibid. Return
  72. Infedelis Joseph Markowicz Sandecensis in Camera Sacrae Regiae Maiestatis Sendecensis custos Return
  73. Perfidus Joseph Salmonowicz Judaeus Sandecensis in Camera civitatis Neo-sandecensis, tam regalis quam Republicae Poloniae Return
  74. J. Sygnaski, op. cit. Przewodnik [Guide] n.i.l. T. 28, p. 31, 1106, 1138 Return
  75. A. D. 137, p. 79-86 Return
  76. A. D. 128, p. 44, 81-82 Return
  77. Zsiega Cechu Kusnierskiego w Nowym Saczu, Bibl. Miejska im. Szujskiego
    Cited from R. Mahler, The Participation of Jewish Artisans in Christian Guilds in Former Poland, Papers for History, editor R. Mahler, Vol. II, Warsaw 1938, p. 20 (Also see further in chapter about the legal situation).
    In 1689 the kirshner [furrier] Shmuel in a dispute with the guild, stated he would make payments of eight pounds of wax during the year. (M. Kremer, ibid. p. 20). In as much as, in 1689 the three furriers together paid six pounds of wax, we must assume that Shmuel paid eight pounds of wax as an agent for four Jewish furriers and, at any rate, not only for himself. Return
  78. A. D. 126, p. 836; A. D. 140, p. 91 –95; A. D. 142, p. 245; A. D. 565, p. 2-4 Return
  79. A. D. 581, p. 245 Return
  80. A. D. 575, p. 55-62 Return
  81. A. D. 563, p. 3-6 Return
  82. A. D. 132, p. 181-182; A. D. 138, p. 457-60, 241-242, 559 Return
  83. A. D. 143, p. 61-62, 107 Return
  84. A. D. 134, p. 408; A. D. 139, p. 205-206 Return
  85. A. D. 132, p. 505; A. D.131, p. 211-217; A. D. A. D. 133, p. 104; A. D. 575, p. 55-62; A. D. 138, p. .302; A. D. 140, p. 586-588, 602-605 Return
  86. A. D. 131, p. 267 Return
  87. A. D. 575, p. 55-62 Return
  88. Compare R. Mahler, 1946, p. 135 Return
  89. The field connected to the house was usually called agellus. However, there is also a case where a Jew got a garden without a house for debt payment. Return
  90. A. D. 136, p. 751 Return
  91. A. D. 137, p. 688-690. Return
  92. A. D. 134, p. 294-298, 302, 540-541. Return
  93. A. D. 127, p. 307-308; A. D. 126, p. 952; A. D. 126, p. 982; A. D. 130, p. 439-441; A. D. 127, p. 284--286; A.D. 136, p. 627-628; A. D. 136, p. 873-875; A. D. 137, p. 607-608. Return
  94. See later in the chapter about the kehile, the aliles-dam [blood accusation] in 1761. Return
  95. Rel. Catr. Sandec. 176, p. 1808-1819 Return
  96. Jan Syganski, Dawne zabytki dziejowe Nowego Sacza, Przewodnik n.i.l., T. 29, p. 424. Return
  97. [Page 78]

  98. Compare above, about the count of 1764, where the source was also given. Return
  99. Ossolineum Wroclaw, Dep. 9653 III, p. 111-117, 364. Return
  100. According to a Christian license from the beginning of the Austrian monarchy, managers were forbidden from giving
    whiskey to peasants on credit of more than 3 Polish zloty. Compare the following page 163, Waclaw Tokarz, Galicya w
    początku ery jozefinskiej, Krakow 1909 Return
  101. Here “phonetically” instead of the spelling “bimsoyres kulmes Return
  102. The seal of the kehile is missing from the documents Return
  103. In Lithuania some managers also used to get their own fields hat provided them with their own grain for the brewery and making of liquor. Compare the writings of Salomon Maimon on the arenda of his grandfather Chaim Yosef. He was manager of one of the derfer of Duke Radziwill. Fields, meadows and gardens belonged to the arenda. The grain from his fields was enough to produce whiskey and beer. Salomon Maimon, Selbstgeshichte 2nd Aufl. Munich 1911, p. 149 Return
  104. W. Mukazs dts”w [the cited work; op cit] Return
  105. Regarding panszczyzna – peasants or those who were added in 1766 to the arenda in shtetl Sirokomle(powiat [district] Lukow) and surrounding derfer see: E. Ringelblum, Projekty i. Proby Przewarstwowienia Zydow w epoce stanislawowskiej (odbitka ze “Spraw Narodowosciowych”, R. VIII, Nr. 1 i. 2-3), Warszawa, 1934, p.13. oncerning panszczyzna-peasants that arendarn [managers] received in contracts in the area of Vielun [Wielun] J. Goldberg, Rolnictwo wsrod Zydow w ziemi wielunskiej w polowie XVIII w. Biuletyn ZIH Nr. 26, p. 78-88. gives details: Return
  106. St.Kutrzeba, Historya Ustroju Polski, Tom IV, Lwow 1920, p. 149 Return
  107. There, see p. 161. Return

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »


This material is made available by JewishGen, Inc. and the Yizkor Book Project for the purpose of
fulfilling our mission of disseminating information about the Holocaust and destroyed Jewish communities.
This material may not be copied, sold or bartered without JewishGen, Inc.'s permission. Rights may be reserved by the copyright holder.


JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.

  Nowy Sacz (Poland)     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page


Yizkor Book Project Manager, Lance Ackerfeld
This web page created by Max Heffler

Copyright ©1999-2014 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 17 Jun 2009 by LA