« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

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

A) The Right to Reside and Engage in Trade

As we already know the city council, in the first years after the legal ruling that Jew could settled in Sandz legally, actions were still applied to narrow their right to work and to punish individual residents who rented rooms to them. In the same years, the butchers' guilds tried to reduce the activities of Jewish competitors. In 1676, the butcher's guild complained before the city council about the butcher Adam Sulkowski because “he interferes with the members of the guild in their trade” “and told Jews to slaughter animals”[1]

[Page 79]

But, as early as a year later the oldest one in the butchers' guild himself geven oyver [violated] this iser [prohibition] and sold Jews animals to slaughter: on April 23, 1677, the Sandzer vice-staroste [administrator] * Jan Zawadzki complained to the city officials that the elders of the Sandzer butchers' guild had not anticipated the punishment because of the shortage of meat for khoge [non-Jewish holiday] [Easter]. The only slaughtered ox was sold by Jews through mediation with a Jew and because of this, they dealt with Jews, in spite of the government's order not to do any business with them. The city officials ruled that the elders of the guild had to aynzetsn vern in tfise [go to jail][2]. Without a doubt this is a case, where the elders of the butchers' guild sold the Jewish butchers an animal to slaughter, so that they could either sell kosher [prepared according to the provisions of the Jewish dietary laws] meat or sell Christians at a cheap price the hind-quarter portion of the animal that Jews were forbidden to eat, the gid haneshoma [the long sinew] if he were not chased away.

The prohibition against Jews living in places that the citizens owned, as we said, soon stopped. As early as the 1670's they built their own houses and also were buying houses from citizens. They also lived in various streets of the city and in the suburbs. As early as 1711 there were two Jewish families who lived in the marketplace, one of them lived in the brick house of the Franciscan [the order of priests].[3]

Characteristic of this relationship was the fact, that when the head of the Sandzer community came to the city council in 1725 with a memorandum in which they complained, among other things, about why Jews were permitted “to own houses in the city, and to penetrate even into the marketplace, this begun by the priests because they (the Jews) would pay wyderkaf'**; they should evict those who brought them in. We cannot because we are under the city's prohibition”.[4]

In the second half of the 18th century Jews were already living in the Franciscan's house in the marketplace Bariczkowskie, but on the wyderkaf's conditions. On July 18, 1751 a Gorlicer rmerchant, Leyb Moshkowizc took over the house from the Sandzer Jew Leywik Levkowizce, and was mishkhayev geven [obligated] to pay the Franciscan church 42 zloty a year of the 600 zloty, for the mortgage he had once taken with the Franciscans through Katazhina Kamienska.[5] The rate of percent therefore, amounted to 7 percent, exactly the rate that was set before wyderkaf in the order of 1635.[6]

Vos shayekh [as for] the artisans' guilds, just like the merchants in early 17th century, they agreed that Jews may work in crafts, but not more than was the custom in all other cities where the guild had recognized the right of Jewish artisans to work; in Sandz they were also obliged to give an agreed upon quantity of wax or tallow for lighting in the guild's kaplitse [{Christian} shrine].

*podstarosei [steward] Jan Zawadzki

**wyderkaf, the renting out of a place as taxes for an undetermined period; actually a kind of hete iske [business
document] that permitted the taking of interest for a loan] so the church would be able to add a percent.
[Page 80]

We find in the book of the hatters' guild in Sandz such a notice in Yiddish-Hebrew from 1686:

Today is Tuesday, the third day of the week, 10th day of Av in 1686 and we have reconciled with the hatters' guild and so they will give, every year two liters of wax equaling six pounds as follows:

Two pounds at Christmas
Two pounds at Passover
Two pounds at Mrkrita (??) [7]
Therefore, we have here three Jewish hat makers, who together pay the guild six pounds of wax a year at two pounds each. Such notices concerning individual hat makers is also repeated later. Although the quantity of wax varies, in the 18th century Jews were recorded in the hat makers' guild (1742) and Jewish journeymen hat makers became masters through the guild (1749).[8] These facts show that Jewish hat makers were not only permitted to work for the guild's set payment, but they were also thought of as connected to the guild. Whether they had the right to vote in the guild, as was the case in most private cities, is not found in the available sources.

Also Jewish tailors are mentioned as having paid wax to the general guild in the city: in 1706 the city administrators approved “that according to the agreement the Jew Letman had given the tailors' guild a pound of wax “.[9]

B) Taxes: sikhsukhim [controversies] with the city and reciprocal agreements

Although Jews paid many government taxes, der iker [above all] the Jewish poll tax*, in Sandz just as generally in other cities that had to contribute their portion of the city's government taxes, and undoubtedly they had to participate in the city's payment to the staroste. Punkt azoy [likewise] the internal taxes to support the institutions of the kehile did not free the Jews from delivering along with the citizens the amount of taxes needed by the city.

Of the government taxes that Jews paid together with the city, these are noted: hiberna** - to support the military especially in winter (1682, 1687, 1695, 1740);

*poglowne zydowskie

**hiberna
[Page 81]

“groszowe”* (payment on foods) in 1682 and 1707 and in the same year, 1707 stam [without good reason] a tax laid on by the city “for the needs of the Republic”**, poborowe*** for houses (1682- 1711; kopshtayer [head tax]**** (1733); liquor tax, namely “shelenzhne***** (1715) and czopowe (1741, 1754).

The participation of the Jews in the taxes and payments for the administrator is mentioned in “lennikowe”* (1709), that is lehnumg for the administrator's department of armored horsemen, Duke Lubomirski ** (1728); ” prowentowe”*** [provision] for the administrator of houses, lots and gardens (1751, 1761).

The participation of Jews in the taxes used for the needs of the city is mentioned in 1704: to repay a debt from the time of the Swedish invasion (1724), and in 1769 where the purpose of the tax is not known.

Some taxes, such as government taxes “poborowe” on houses, “prowentowe” for the administrator of houses, gardens and lots were collected by the city from each Jewish home owner separately. The lists of the above mentioned taxes act as evidence. The taxes are calculated for the Christian and Jewish city houses and the sum that each one of them paid. Also preserved is a determination from March 13, 1680, that was made at a meeting of the city leaders – the mayor, the councilmen and the old councilmen, the bailiff, the aldermen and the entire city gemeynshaft [rabble]**** - concerning the amount of tax “poborowe” that the “umgloybiker” [unbeliever] Mark Wolf Alexandowicz from the baths and house on Timowski Place: at every occasion that results in the payment of “pobor” he must give eight groszy to every “sympla” *****, and if he erected a brick or wooden building on the lot, he must pay even more[10].

The kehile paid a collective sum for its members for such taxes as hiberna and kopstayer. Es iz a svore [it is likely] also that certain taxes,

*a tax on certain products in der haykh [above] one groszy for a measure; compare Antoni Krasnowolski, M. Arcta Slownik Staropolski, T. I., 1914, p. 89

**na potrzeby Rzplitej

***poborowe

****poglowne

*****szelezne

******czopowe

*lennikowe from the German Lohnung

**na utrzymanie choragwi pancernej ks. Lubomirskiego

***prowentowe

****pospolstwo [populous, mob]

*****sympla: that is the coefficient for figuring tax for each one according to his means or possessions. The system of “sympla” according to the sample of the city administrators was also introduced into the tax system of the kehile, where it was called in Hebrew “sakhm” [all told].
[Page 82]

that Jewish individuals used to pay the city, they subsequently paid through their membership in the kehile, a contribution to the general sum that was ordered for the entire kehile. In the list of hiberna tax from 1682 notes the additional sum of “oysglaykh”* [even off] for each person separately; but as of 1687 there was a general “oysglaykh” for the entire kehile.[11] Also in 1715, the city powers administered a revision that Jewish houses would be equal to non-Jewish houses where a fixed amount was determined for liquor, beer and mead, in order to calculate for each person his tax on drinks, “shelenzhne”,[12] but after complaints from the city against the kehile in 1741 and 1754[13] we see that by then the kehile was paying a general sum for the drinks tax “shelenzhne”.

It was simply natural that concerning the portion of taxes paid by Jews in the city, quarrels between the city council and the Jewish kehile would arise when the city council attempted to increase the portion from the Jews vos mer [as much as possible], and the kehile opposed it. In 1682, each and every one of twelve Jewish roshi meshpukhas [heads of house] in Sandz paid hiberna according to an “oysglaykh” with the city, altogether 94 zloty. 163 Christian residents paid 799 zloty, a total of 893 zloty.[14] The total Jewish portion was something like ten percent (10.5 percent), but for the Christian residents iz oysgekumen in durkhshnit [on the average] it was less that 5 zloty, while Jews on the average paid 8 zloty. On the issue of paying hiberna, disputes also erupted between the city and the kehile until the ruler of the city, the administrator zikh arayngeleygt in [put all his efforts] into the situation. He appointed the vice administrator and the local judge Jezy Jordan from Zakliczyn as commissars to take care of the quarrel and aid the collector of the Sandzer commissar. In the Sandz city hall, they both ruled on the issue on November 6, 1687. Four days later, the tenth of November, in the castle in the residence of the Sandzer Count Jan Skzetuski from Leluchów, a settlement took place before the two counts Skzetuski and Jan Stadnitzki and two councilmen Kazimierz Glinzki and Jan Woyszekh Kholewizc in the name of the mayor, the city council, the bailiff and from the common people, two simple citizens**, and also the representative of the kehile. .[15]

According to “the freely agreed upon settlement of both sides” the city and the kehile that is, confirmed through the vice-administrator and the court judge, it had ruled that: this year, the Jewish kehile must pay the mayor or his collector according to the approved audit of houses that Jews inhabit, 270 zloty hiberna

*Moderatio

**Pospolstwo
[Page 83]

This sum did not include other taxes that would be decided by the Sejm or the Sejmik [regional Sejm {Parliament}] that the Jews will have to pay “along with other citizens”. For every house that a Jew builds or buys from a resident for the future, as per this agreement, would be added to the above mentioned sum, one and a half zloty per year for every hundred zloty that the city would have to pay as hiberna. Both sides, the city and the kehile, obligated themselves to keep the agreement and pledged as security 300 grivnes.[16]

It seems that it was very difficult for the kehile to come up with the great hiberna tax and so in 1695 a demand by King Sobieski in the sum of 200 zloty [17] was added on the issue of not paying the annual hiberna. The quarrel about hiberna between the city and the kehile also recurred in the 18th century.[18]

As for the other taxes, either city or national, Jews, as we have already learned in connection with their number and proportion in the city[19] which lasted until the 1830's, generally reached 15-20 percent: in 1704 the city imposed 150 zloty on the Jews, that is 15 percent of the tax for various city hitstarkhes [necessities] that came to a total of about 1000 zloty.[20] On February 14, 1707 the city council determined together with the “gemeynshaft [community] of simple citizens” that the Jews had participated with 600 tymf* that is, about 360 zloty in the taxes of the city “as the requirement of the republic” while the citizens paid 2621 zloty separately.[21] The Jews' portion, therefore, reached 12-15 percent. On May 18th of the same year, the city council with the “gemeynshaft of simple citizens” decided that Jews have to pay 108 zloty toward the account of the tax “groshowi”, while 543 zloty was the amount for the entire city.[22] The Jews' portion, therefore, was increased to 20 percent.

In 1724 the city collected a tax to repay the debt it had incurred with the Czernichower miecznik** Stadnitzki in order to pay tribute back in the times of the Swedish invasion. The Jews participated in this tax with 90 zloty, coming up with the total of 649 zloty[23] that is, 14 percent. It seems by ordering a lower percent than usual for Jews, the city considered the circumstances, that in those Swedish times, Jews were not permitted to live in Sandz.

*In Polish tymf, an inexpensive gildn used in the time of King Jan Kazimierz, whose worth initially amounted to only 18 groszy to the zloty compared to 30 groszy to the usual zloty. The proportion of tymf in relation to the zloty was not stable later.

**Miecznik, the king's sword carrier.
[Page 84]

Awn a shier [without limit] and higher than the proportion of Jews in relation to the entire city population was the additional tax added to the general sum set for the entire kehile, so the Duke-administrator could support the Horsemen Section. In 1709 a list was created of 75 tymf tax “lennikowe” to support 25 of the administrator's soldiers, 3 tymf for one soldier.[24] Jews paid 15 of the total of 35*; that is, more two-fifths (43%). In 1728 the city added a special head-tax to support the administrator's armored horsemen; of the sum of 134 zloty and 20 groszy, the Jewish kehile's share was 55 zloty,[25] which is again two-fifths. It seems that the administrator alone determined this high proportion in skhus [by reason of] the fact that he gave Jews protection and rights. So the administrator did indeed think it was necessary to champion Jews against a too high taxation on the part of the city not only concerning national charges but even concerning certain charges for the administrator:

On March 8, 1730 the administrator Duke Jezcy Lubomirski announced this general decree concerning the Jews in Sandz:

The mayors, and all Catholic citizens of the city were informed that the Sandzer kehile “shall not be burdened in regard to hiberna, ustowe (decrees from viovode in relation to prices)[26] and (head tax) more than is in accord with past and present agreements with the city. That way, we will not burden them more than under the old custom; the evening-out concerning fish and mead that had cost the citizens a third and the synagogue two-thirds.

Without a doubt the last determination of general taxes had a connection to products that had to be bought from the administrator at a price he set. That is how lords, owners of cities behaved in the past: They would compel the city dweller, Jews besykhem [included] to buy from them at dictated prices not only of products from their courtyard, such as animals grain, beer, mead and the like, but also products that the lord bought himself for profit such as salt, herring and others.[27]

There were also orders in general, that no one should dare to build in the marketplace of the Jewish area, under threat of a fine of 300 grivnes. It seems that with this, the administrator wanted to protect the Jews' important neighborhood. Heyoys [in as much as] Jews, except for one or two families counted, did not live in the marketplace of the city; Christians were prohibited from living in the Jewish marketplace. Here we have a kind of restriction, de non tolerandis christianis, that was a redress for the restrictive de non tolerandis Judaeis.[28]

*The value of the coin is not known, but if the cost of supporting the soldiers came to a total of 75 tymf, it is clear that the 35, means zloty.
[Page 85]

Finally it was agreed in general that all newly built houses (to be sure, by Jewish residents), “should accept the taxes of the public”.[29]

This rule, however, was generally formulated and further aggravated the quarrel between the city and the kehile in regard to its portion of head tax*. Regarding this tax, instructions were given by the administrator that determined that the kehile must participate every time with a payment for two heads from each house, but the kehile also called this an avle [injustice] and with right: The kehile had paid a separate Jewish head tax every year as a result mediation by the Vaad Ha'Arba Artzos. The city council agreed to a compromise on the community's request, taking into consideration the “various expenses on both sides”, that in the future the kehile would participate in the annual 454 zloty head tax for the entire city in the amount of 70 zloty, that is, 15 ½ percent. The kehile also miskhayev zayn [committed itself] to pay a fine of 3 groszy per zloty, that is, 10 percent, for every zloty that they did not pay by the deadline set by order of the Sejm. Since it was orves mekayim zayn [guaranteed that it would be done], both sides agreed to 70 zloty.

That agreement of April 29, 1733 was signed on the part of the city by the mayor and three councilmen, of which one served as bailiff, and on the part of the kehile four representative of the community, probably the four parneysim [the elected heads of the Jewish community].[30]

However, these agreements about the extent of their portion of the taxes, did not result in any end to the quarrel between the city and the kehile. Besides this, quarrels broke out over certain hakhnoses [income] for the city that the kehile got, on certain crafts that were given into the hands of the Jews; and that Jewish artisans did not want to submit to the city guilds.

December 4, 1740, the city administrators presented a petition to the administrator Duke Lubomirski[31] in which they enumerated a list of grievances: Wojewodztwo [provincial] looks old debts and harasses the city with notices of non-payment; the governor pays no attention to the charters of the court authorities above the Duke staroste, and issues kondemnats**; and takes the farms from the gentlemen councilmen; many of the titled lords who had built themselves brick houses in Sandz, were grinding meal in other mills causing a loss to the city and refused to pay taxes to the city. The majority of the points in the petition were against the Jews.

*poglowne

**Kondemnata – a decision that is rendered without the plaintive.
[Page 86]

The city complained about taxes, that although the commission in Lemberg[32] decided that Jews had to participate in the hiberna with payment of 400 zloty, the Jews now only pay 130 zloty. As for “poglowni” (head tax), they pay hardly anything. So it turns out that although the number of Jews is three times greater* than the Catholics, they only pay 130 zloty taxes, while the city “within the walls” has to pay, year in and year out 2000 zloty. Such a situation – they say - is not only a contradiction of the order of the Sejm that allowed Jews to settle in the empty lots “without a loss of their privileges”,[33] but it is also contrary to the privileges of Jews in general, who were determined to be obliged to participate in the city taxes for the government and the administrator.

The tavern keeping, the baking of bread, trade and also the sale of food was taken over by the city. The city scales that had been in the hands of the city since it's founding, were taken away “we do not know why”, “and the synagogue (kehile) had for it's own use every year. “ The market payment ** that was given to the city on the basis of the number of privileges “they took away with violence and gave to the arenda [leaseholder]” of the mills.

As for the guilds, the Jews took over all the crafts and did not want to come to an adjustment with any guild at all. “The entire population of the city became financially impoverished because of this, and had no ability to renovate the houses that are almost completely in ruins”.

Another complaint against the Jews was that “when a fie broke out among the Jews, 18 Catholic brick houses were burned down and the city hall, and whatever was vacant from year to year becomes more of a ruin, because the city which lost all its earnings did not have the ability to renovate”.

It is not clear if the well-known fire of 1712 in which a total of 44 houses in the marketplace were burned down on Dwalske and in Furmanske Streets,[34] is meant here, or whether it was nearly the year of the petition, 1740 when a new fire took place.

Finally, the city complained that the Jews were “willingly striving with all their strength to reduce the Catholics to a remnant” “The brokers enflamed the exalted lords against the city whenever the taxes were collected. Because of this, the tax collectors was seriously distracted and the impoverished city incurred hetsoes [expenses]”

*The intention probably was that Jews equaled three-fifths of the city population, which is an outright exaggeration

**Targowe
[Page 87]

It is unnecessary to mention, that the city's complaints, in every point from the start were either unwarranted, or excessive. If “the synagogue held the city scales every year”, the wording alone implied that the administrator himself or his steward had given that hakhnose [revenue] over to the kehile in a lease. Regarding the market fee, the petition befeyresh [clearly] implied that it was added to the arendar [manager] of the mills. This surely could not be carried out without the haskome [agreement] of the administrator. Jews had not taken tavern keeping and trade away from citizens of the city; only that in trade they became the chief factor, thanks to their mobility and practicality. As for tavern keeping, twice as many citizens as Jews were involved with it. As for the “audit” of supplies of 1715, only in liquor did the Jews have a greater supply than the shkheynim [literally 'neighbors' but in this context could also be tenants or lodgers}].[35] As for the guilds, according to the facts mentioned earlier about the furriers' and the tailors' guilds, Jewish craftsmen would even off the annual taxes.[36] In the furriers' guild Jews also used to pay registration fees and were promoted to master. Although the information about this stems from 1742, 1749, it is not at all clear that it was as a result of the petition of 1740 and that it was not the case earlier.

Concerning the participation of the Jews in the city's taxes, the implication that Jews amounted to “three khalokim [shares] more than the Catholics” is a great guzme [exaggeration]. Even after 1808 Jews, according to the Austrian census, were less than a third of the city population (1138 legabe [in relation to] 3629 souls).[37] Nisht kukendik [disregarding] the terrible exaggeration about the proportion of Jews, there was probably a mamoshes [reality] to the city's complaint that the kehile was in arrears in the payment of its portion of hiberna. Maybe the accusation that Jewish factors “incited the tax collectors against the city” had a basis in fact, where the kehile had argued with the tax messenger that before he could collect from them the entire portion that falls on them, they have to make sure what taxes the city council needs to pay out. It is also possible that Jewish brokers used to point out to the tax collectors houses of the people that were not included by the city in the tax lists.

Without a doubt the quarrels between the city and the kehile would have not reached such a sharp level if not for the fact that in the first half of the 18th century, Sandz had become poorer. It had also had been ravaged either by natural catastrophes such as mageyfes [plagues] or the plundering by the khayoles [armies] marching through.[38]

[Page 88]

Drawing of City Hall in Nowy Sacz
The old city hall in Sandz, a design from the second half of the 19th century.
(from the Schneider Collection in the state archive in the Wawel [museum]

Return to Index

 

We do not know how the administrator handled the petition, but at any rate, quarrels concerning the established taxes took place later between the city and the kehile on February 23, 1741.


[Page 89]

The mayor protested in city hall “against the unbelieving elders of the Neisandz synagogue and against the entire Neisandzer synagogue” because they would not pay the rest of the sum “stopowe” (payment for liquor) that was set for them by “the mighty master Bzowski, the regent* of the Sandzer town[39]. On February 11, 1754, the city council and the community from Sandz “the synagogue and the Jewish community” complained about non-payment of “stopowe” that the Jews needed to pay in the amount of 300 zloty. [40] The seal of the city remained with the kehile. For many years the city administrators had not wanted to make peace over the situation: in 1758, the representatives of the city turned to the Sandzer administrator with a new petition in which they ask, among other things,

The mayor protested in city hall “against the unbelieving elders of the Neisandz synagogue and against the entire Neisandzer synagogue” because they would not pay the rest of the sum “stopowe” (payment for liquor) that was set for them by “the mighty master Bzowski, the regent* of the Sandzer area[39]. In 1754, on the 11th of February, the administrator and the leadership of Sandz complained “the synagogue and the Jewish leadership” had not paid czopowe the amount of 300 zloty that the Jews were required to pay (40). The city scale remained with the Jewish kehile and the city population had not wanted to settle the quarrel for many years: In 1758, the agents of the city turned to the city administrator with a new petition in which they ask, among other things, that the “Jewish synagogue” should give up the scale and it should be given to the city [41].

If the proportion of the participation of the kehile in the taxes of the city caused complaints on the part of city residents, it was, at any rate, a fact that Jews carried a proportion of the payments for the administration that was a lot higher than their ratio to the entire population. According to the illustration from the Sandzer administration for 1765, Jews paid the administration of the city of Sandz as follows[42]:

Residents - with a “right of residence” tax108 zloty
Jews - with a “right of residence” tax300   “
Butchers – flakowe [intestines] from calves and cattle 55   “
The same for tallow -10 stone [1 stone = 32 lbs] 90   “
Jews – “lehnung” money* 64   “
Rowboat owners 60   “
From fishermen 45   “
Total722 zloty

According to the official census of that time, there were no more than 609 Jews, and in reality not more than about 775. In any case, therefore, although as a third of the city population, their share of the payment of administrative taxes was one half (64 +300). It is already self-evident that in regard to the tax for the citizens, Jews paid three times as much. One has to take into consideration from this that Jewish butchers probably were also included in the sum of 145 zloty that butchers in general had to pay annually “for flax and tallow”. Characteristically, the lenung** tax to support the administrator's soldiers that Jews had paid earlier was twice as much as their number in the population[43] and now was entirely on the Jewish kehile alone.

*regent, the same as notary public

**lenungowe see above, about lennikowe [feudal fealty] from 1709 and 1728; a tax on certain products
[Page 90]

We can see in Grybow from the illustration of the same year[44] that the Jewish part in the income for the district was about one half; “the tax from Jews on (their) houses and from the shul” was 518 zloty and 10 groshn. The citizens of Grybow paid 27 zloty and 2 groshn for fields and 209 zloty 25 groshn for gardens and a portion of the houses, that is a total of some 237 zloty, or only 46 percent of the taxes of Jews. Probably here Jews also participated in other payments besides the taxes; “topgelt”* “pleytse-gelt and “tish-gelt”** from butchers – 129 zloty (and 6 groshn) in total; bakers, potters and cloth makers ***, shoemakers and tailors – 14 zloty and 22 groshn.

*Garcowe, that is every pot of grain or beer

**Lopatkowego i stolowgo

***Knapi

C) The participation of the Sandzer leaseholder in the elections of mayor.

Without taking into account the quarrels between the city and the kehile in connection with the taxes and

city income, the city government was forced to consider their great influence on city finances and their importance to the duke-administrator, thanks to the lease of his mill and brew house. A rare document tells of the Sandzer Jewish leaseholder's participation in the city council meeting held during the vote for mayor and for two managers of the city's finances. Here is the text of this document translated from the Latin original[45]:

“Occurred in city hall the sixth day of the vote after the last reminstsere in the year of Our Lord 1710. At today's meeting, the unbeliever Jonas Salomonovicz, the arendar of the Sandzer district together with the worthy**, the lavnikes Frantsiczek Kotlarski, Yoannes Carnota, Martin Wolenski, Yoannes Lukascowicz, and with the worthy Laurencius Zratowienski from the old lawe*** and also with the esteemed councilmen and provincial Stanislaw Baczewski and with unanimous agreement from the honorable gemaynshaft**** who were acknowledged by the council –

*In 1710, the Holy Day “Reministsere” fell on Sunday the 16th of March; Friday after Reministsere, therefore, fell on March 21.

**In Latin Spectabilis [worthy]: this was the title of Reytses and Lavnikes

***That is the esteemed lavnik; the former lavnikes used to be a type of beyrat in the city council

****The ordinary citizens of the city had to be satisfied with the 'honestus' the honest means. The”gemeynshaft “ (pospolstwo communitas) was the representation of the ordinary citizens, shopkeepers and businessmen , members of guilds
[Page 91]

selected on the spot by the esteemed Piotr Szczemrowski, the current mayor* who is ill and in bed, the esteemed Michal Olchowski as the current mayor and finance minister** Kazimir Kolacziewicz and Yoannes Rostowski for the [meshekh {period}] of one quarter”.

It is hard to believe that only in this single case a Jewish arendar [manager] was lured into participating in the vote for mayor; to the contrary, it must be understood that the participation of the manager in such a meeting had been custom since an earlier time, and that this custom lasted until later. If this custom was introduced by the Sandzer administrator of that time, Duke Jezsy Pawel Lubomirski, we may assume that things went along in the same manner until his death and also later until the last staroste of the Lubomirskis, Duke Stanislaw, that is until 1755[46] or even until the time of his follower, the famous Stanislaw Malahowski[47], who was Sandzer administrator (as factor for the royal estates of Sandz) until 1784. In any case, no matter how long this custom lasted; it shows the favorable legal situation for Jews in Sandz in connection with the powers of the administrator.

As we know, Jews in many private cities in former Poland, such as Kolomyya, Bolechow, Brod, Dubne, Dulke, Zmigrod, Zabno in the 17th and 18th centuries had the right to take part in elections of the city administration or even for mayor[48]. Sandz, was certainly a royal city with old charters. Consequently it did not even achieve the power of staroste [county office] to be able to impose on the city the participation of the kehile in the city votes. But, the resolute power of the administrators and the leading magnates was strong enough so that the city council had to contend with the great financial role of the administrator's arendar [leaseholder] and with his influence not only in the kehile but also in the city. It depended on the power of his participation and approval, at least formally in the voting.

*Any one of the four councilmen of the city council, just as any of the four parnesim [one of the elected heads of the community] of the kehile as “parnes hakhoydesh” officiated as mayor for a quarter, that is, three months.

**dispensatores; compare Lunar in Polish, Lohnherr in German, J. Syganski. Op cit., Przewodnik Nauk. i Liter, XXVII, p. 3666; St. Kutrzeba, op cit., v. I. P. 92
[Page 92]

Footnotes:

  1. A. D. 128, p. 44 Return
  2. A. D. 128, p. 81-82 Return
  3. A. D. 137, p. 79-86 Return
  4. A. D. 575, p. 199-202 Return
  5. Rel. Castr. Sandec. 164, p. 1792-1797 Return
  6. See the previously mentioned encyclopedia of Z. Glazer, Vol. 2, p. 68 Return
  7. Ksiega cechu kusnierskiego w N. Saczu. Biblioteka Miejska im. Szujskiego. Quoted: M. Kremer, The Participation of Jewish Artisans, op. cit. p. 20 Return
  8. Op. cit. p. 20 Return
  9. A. D. 581, p. 245 Return
  10. A. D. 128, p. 239-240 Return
  11. See further in same chapter Return
  12. Compare above in chapter on tavern keeping Return
  13. See further in the same chapter Return
  14. A. D. 556, p.4-5 Return
  15. The signatures of the kehile representatives are unfortunately not in the copy. Return
  16. A. D. 574, 137-138 – A grivne was worth 48 groshn, that is, more than one and a half gildn Return
  17. A. D. 564, p. 43-45 Return
  18. Compare further the city's petition in 1740 Return
  19. See above on the participation of the Jews in city taxes Return
  20. A. D. 555, p.7 Return
  21. A. D. 134, p. 567-8 Return
  22. A. D. 134, p. 600 Return
  23. A. D. 575, p. 183-190 Return
  24. A. D. 559, p. 2 Return
  25. A. D. 562, p.4 Return
  26. Concerning the significance of the term, ustawa, compare Z. Gloger, Encyclopedia Staropolska T. II, Warsaw, 1958, p. 416 Return
  27. See R. Mahler, History of the Jews in Poland,[in Hebrew] 1946, p. 318-319 Return
  28. A charter de non tolerandis christianis was granted for the kehile in Krakow in 1568, in Poznan 1633 and for all kehiles in Lithuania in 1925, see: M. Balaban. Historya i literature zydowska, Tom. III, Warsaw 1925, p. 164 Return
  29. A. D. 138, p. 335-336 Return
  30. A. D. 138, p. 637 Return
  31. A. D. 140, p. 459-462 Return
  32. The date of this commission's verdict is not given Return
  33. Compare above about the “ Constitution of the Sejm for year 1676” Return
  34. J. Syganski, Nowy Sacz w epoce Wazow, Przew. Naukowy i literacki, v. XXVII, p. 1009 Return
  35. Compare above in previous chapter, “Management and Tavern Keeping Return
  36. Compare above in chapter, Trade Return
  37. J. Syganski, op. cit D. Ts. A., p. 1096 Return
  38. Compare above on growth of the Jewish population Return
  39. A. D. 140, p. 472-273 Return
  40. [Page 93]

  41. A. D. 575, p. 605-611, 933-936 Return
  42. A. D. 575, p. 655-8, 659-661, 667-8 Return
  43. Ossolineum 9698 / III, p. 1 Return
  44. Compare above on the participation of Jews in city taxes Return
  45. Ossolineum, doc. cit., p. 172 Return
  46. A. D. 135, p. 700 Return
  47. Ossolineum doc. cit., 1. c Return
  48. Cited there Return
  49. R. Mahler, The History of the Jews in Poland 1946, p. 156; compare: Jan Ptasnik, Miasta i mieszczanstwo w dawnej Polsce, wyd. 2gie, Warsaw, 1949, p. 246 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 14 June 2009 by LA