« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

[Page 93]

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

Kehile [Jewish Community]; Jurisdiction and Way of Life; Aliles-Dam [Blood Accusation];
The Court Case With the Church About Building the Shul [Synagogue]

A. The Organization of the Kehile and Its Representatives

Without a doubt, an organized Jewish community existed before the king's charter of 1673. A small Jewish congregation was already in existence in the king's castle and around it, under the protection of the governor. We can conclude this from the fact that even then, the Jews not only had their own shul in the court of the castle in which to pray, but also had their own rabbi[1]. After the charter granted to the Jews to settle in the city, city management officially recognized the kehile as the official representative of the Sandzer Jews. In their name the leaders of the kehile negotiated and finalized arrangements.

From the four signatures of the Jewish elders who signed the agreement with the city in 1733, we can see that the leaders were generally just like those in other communities at that time in Poland, and consisted of four parneysim [elected elders or heads of the community]. Quarterly, each one successively officiated as the “elder of the period”, in Polish, the “Jewish mayor”*. A document from 1690[2] shows that the elders in this particular case, that is, the parnes [elder] of the month together with another elder were present as witnesses in a certain case when a Jew signed a letter of debt to a non-Jewish creditor. (For a letter of debt between Jews themselves, the kehile-soyfer [shul scribe] or just two witnesses sufficed.

*burmistrz zydowski
[Page 94]

The following names of parneysim are mentioned:

In 1686: Shlomo ben Abraham, the elder of the period and Yokhim (Chaim ?) ben Wolf parnes[2]. Both were mentioned earlier in the deeds as buyers of houses and lots. Shlomo ben Abraham also lent money, 40 zloty as a mortgage for a house.

As the month's parnes in 1695 one Salomonowicz[3] is recorded. We can assume that he is identical with Yonah ben Shlomo, a rich man who was the chief factor for the staroste [administrator] Lubomirski and later the arendar [lessee] of the Sandzer mills.

In 1726 the three elders excluding the elder of the month were: Hersh ben Shmuel, Heresh ben Moyshe and Yitzhok ben Hersh[4].

The first two elders are also listed on other deeds. Hersh ben Shmuel in 1699 as the seller of a “khalupe” [peasant's hut] for 60 zloty and Hersh ben Moyshe as the one demanding the repayment of a debt of 6 zloty. In regard to Yitzhok ben Hersh it is possible that he is identical to the Izak Jelonkowicz who was mentioned in 1681 as the “Wisznic merchant” and in 1682 as the “Niesandzer merchant” although the parnes in 1726 was called in Polish Iczyk Jeleniowicz.

In 1733 the signers for the kehile[5] of a contract with the city were four parneysim: Menachem Nahum Mtsandz[6] Meir Katz Mtsandz; Benjomin[7] Koved Ha-rav Rabbi Eliezer [The Memory of the Righteous is a Blessing]

The last one who signed, Eliahu ben Moyshe is probably the same one who is mentioned as a lessee of the Sandzer mills in the years 1731 to 1739[8].

List of Parneysim
(Signatures in their own hand of four of the
parneysim for the SandzerKehile in 1733)

Return to Index

 

[Page 95]

In July 1746, Jakob ben Yehuda acted as elder[9].

In 1748, on August 7 six Jews appeared before the city court as representatives of the kehile: Meyer ben Eliahu, Jakob ben Abush, Shlomo ben Shmelke, Moyshe benYosef, Yosef ben Moyshe and Zvi (Hershko) ben Moyshe[10]. Although in the verdict they are called “elders”*, there is no doubt that there were no more than four elders in that year, just as in all the years of the kehile's autonomy. Invariably, two other representatives of the community, or two of their “tuvim”** or the sexton and scribe of the community also appeared before the court. Among the six names we can identify two who have been mentioned before – the first and the last ones. Meyer ben Eliahu could be identical to Meyer Katz who signed as one of the four elders under the agreement of 1733 with the city. Hershkoben Moyshe is probably the same Yelen Moisheshowicz who was accuses as one of the elders in the protest of “plenipotentiary” Shimon ben Moyshe in 1726[11]. The second one of the community representatives mentioned, Yakob ben Abush was destined to be the victim in a bizarre blood libel three years later.[11]

In 1757 the parnes of the kehile was Marek (Mordechai) ben Dovid. That year he represented the community in a case of the Sandz Church council against the building of the shul. (11) In 1763, two elders of the community were mentioned in a new accusation by the church in relation to the fire of that year, the same Marek Davidowicz and Yudka ben Shmuel.[11]

From the above information we can determine that the elders belonged to the merchant and moneylender groups, and between them, they selected the wealthiest people in the city as the lessees of the mills.

In documents from 1746[12] aside from the elders, there were three hospitalers [those who visit the sick on behalf of the community], who were at the same time labeled as controllers of the kehile-kase [community funds] ***. These two offices that usually existed separately[13] in Poland, were combined in Sandz in the hands of the same three people. The names of the trustees and roye-khezhboynes [auditors] for that year were Yitzhok ben Hersh, Todres the Krakower (Krakowski), and Josef Bonela. If Yitzhok ben Hersh is actually the same person who was the head of the community of Sandz in 1726, then it looks like they used to select from among the heads of the kehile for the position of hospitaler and roye-khezhbm.

*seniores

**deputies of the parneysim

***szpitalnicy i rachmistrze
[Page 96]

At that time, an important office was that of kehile shames [community sexton]*. In larger communities, for a long time, a separate officer existed for contacts with city and government authorities, the “shtadlen” [intercessor]**. In the Sandz kehile, the shames partially filled that function. In 1730, the shames Marek (Mordechai) ben Yakob proposed before the city authority, the above named staroste [administrator], Duke Jerzy Lubomirski[14] as “oblate” ***, that is, notarial registrar. There were also cases where a non-Jewish creditor was satisfied to sign a Jewish “mamran” [letters of credit specific to the Jews of Poland, the so-called mamram (Pol. membrana, membrane] and was satisfied with the signature of the kehile shames and did not insist on the signature of the parnenysim: in 1697, “Sandzer councilman Wowzyniec Cholewicz Delfinowski where only the name of the debtor and of “Markus Abramowicz the peddler, that is, the shkolnik of the Neisandzer synagogue” was signed in Hebrew.[15]

In addition to his important office, the shames who was wealthy, had a credit business. In 1679, the shames of the Sandzer Jews was admitted into the wooden house of Wowzyniec Delfinowski “near the town walls in the direction of the Krakower gate” over the debt of 80 zloty.[16] In 1701, “the scholasticum [shkolnik] of the Jew's synagogue”, the aforementioned Markus Abramowicz accused a citizen for failure to pay a debt of 20 zloty and over an insult.[17]

Except for the shames who represented the community before the government ion certain cases, there was also an “instigator” ****, a kind of government high prosecutor. In 1716 the one mentioned as a prosecutor was also, at the same time, the guard of the Cracower gate of the town wall, the gate that led to the Jewish section: a certain Tomasz Przemianek. He, the guard of the Cracower gate, was accused of stealing Jewish objects and was taken away to be tortured “on the accusation of the unbeliever Niesandzer synagogue and of its instigator,”[18]. In general, the duties of the prosecutor for the Jewish community in Poland belonged to the kehile shames.[19] Although a Jewish guard is mentioned in the tax list of 1711[20], we can assume that the instigator of the community, a guard at the town gate, was not a Jew.

*szkolnik, scholasticus

**syndyk, sindicus

***oblate [use of this word is not clear here]

****instigator
[Page 97]

The names of the Sandzer rabbis of that time were not recorded except for two: in 1707 the Sandz rabbi's name was Moyshe. His son, Yachim (Chaim) ben Moyshe is mentioned twice in a document from July 18, 1707 about his receipt of an empty building lot as a gift from the city council[21] and in the 1715 list of liquor storehouses. In 1764, and Rov Hershek Yuzefowicz,[22] that is, Twi Hirsh ben Yosef signed the register of the count of the Jews in Sandz and vicinity.

B. Opposition to the Kool [Community]

In the town office books of the Sandz, there are two documents, one from 1726 and the second from 1746.

Here is the text translated from the Polish original:

This occurred in Sandz on the sixth day of the week before the upcoming holiday of Easter, the tenth day in April, in the year of 1726.

The unbeliever Shimshon Moyzheshowicz, resident of the Sandzer synagogue, came to the office showing great,fiery excitement, and protested against the unbelievers Yelen Samuelowicz and Itzik Yeleniowicz, residents of the Sandzer synagogue about, and because: that I, the delegate of the common (plain people) of the entire synagogue* on the order of our rabbi and our Jewish mayor, while going with my friend to the rabbi, we found him with the above mentioned Jewish elders, also Lewek Markowicz, Lewek the goldsmith and the shkolnik [community sexton] and the blond Yakob Also present were the lord Jan Gurski, the councilman and current scribe for the city of Sandz, who read the order of the mighty lord Michal Stadnitski, the Sandzer wojski [the tribune; from the 15th century on, this the lowest official of a region; in ancient Poland the wojski was the official in charge of an area while the nobles and other authorities were gone during wartime: Slownik Geograficzny Glossary of Unfamiliar Terms] that the Sandzer synagogue has to keep all paragraphs in accordance with the charters of the illustrious enlightened duke, the great benefactor. After the reading of which, ** the elders started to pour out their hearts, to fight with me, and not let me speak further because I opposed the injustice against the common man, that we are suffering from the elders and from our entire synagogue. When they severely attacked me. I said that one case does not support another case.

*od pospolstwa calej Synagogi deputowany

**farordenungen [edicts]
[Page 98]

We will present our arguments directly to the illustrious enlightened duke, the great benefactor. But they did not pay any attention to this; they did not let me speak any more and told others to push me out of the rabbi's house. Then Itzik Yeleniowicz sprang from the table, grabbed me by the chest with one hand, and with the other by the throat and wanted to push me out. Inasmuch as I did not allow him to do this, Yelen Maizhewawicz jumped up from the table, attacked me and beat me over my head and especially on my sides with a small keg and badly bruised me by striking me arbitrarily. Yelen Samuelowicz came out from behind the table and also helped. While I was screaming for help, yelling “save me” they pushed me out of the house with my head down. I would have broken my neck if I had not leaned against one of the women who came running when they heard my screams. If this was not enough, they beat me up at the rabbi's house and battered my sides with their fists. I came to the city records office in the house of the lord Jan Gurski, the town scribe, with my friends, Yakov Shimon the Redhead, Yakov from Danzig and Yakov Shmuckler to file a protest. The same Itzik Yeleniowicz and Yelen Maizhewawicz came to the town office and fell on us like devils. The official papers on the protest were about to be signed by the Jew Yakov and Shimon the Redhead. Itzik Yeleniowicz grabbed the paper wanting to tear it. Yakov the Redhead grabbed the paper and would not let go. They both tugged at it so much that when they finally stopped, the document was all wrinkled. They made a commotion in the office with their violence, protesting that they had city rights and freedoms. They protested solemnly again and again in their own name and in the name of the entire community (of the common man) of the Sandzer synagogue. They declared they would follow the law, whatever happened; making sure that there would be an appeal to the duke and the area leader from the government and the administrator of this place. In accordance with these rights, the same enlightened duke would decide this case, the protest between Shimon Maizhewawicz as accuser and Itzik Yeleniowicz, residents of the Sandzer synagogue”.[23]

We can derive the following from the details and documents:

Sandz, just as in many other communities in Poland (Cracow, Lissa, later known as Wilno)[24] at the beginning of that century, the institution of “Representative of the People” was created, that is, representative of the simple (plain) man.

[Page 99]

The people won this institution, “Tribune of the People” because of the fight against the city government that took place in some towns in Poland.[25] The representative here was Shimon ben Moyshe. The nickname of one of four of his friends, Yakov Shmuckler shows that the artisans were on his side. The direct reason for electing the deputy was what Shimon ben Moyshe mentioned in his sharp exchange with the parneysim and with the rabbi: “The injustice the community suffers from the elders”. It is to be assumed that Shimon ben Moyshe and his supporters turned to the deputy of the city administrator, Wojski Michal Stadnitski, with their complaints. In the mentioned document, the message was that the kehile must conduct itself in accordance with the duke's charters. These charters probably anticipated that attention would have to be paid to the simple members of the community.

The representative, with his four friends came to the rabbi in order to listen to the wojski's decrees that the scribe Gurski was reading to the assembled elders. Listening to those decrees, the elders were enraged at the representative, Shimon ben Moyshe. They probably assumed that his application to the authorities was a denunciation. When the representative answered that he was ready to go with them before the administrator, the elders attacked him and beat him up and threw him out of the rabbi's house. The victimized deputy came to the city office with his friends to file a protest, but here the elders again attacked them. One of their followers tried to grab the record of the minutes.

The role of the rabbi and the parnes Chodesh is not clear in this case. Both asked the appointed Shimon ben Moyshe to come to the rabbi's house to listen to the wojski's decree, but both are not mentioned in the course of the event. It appears that they were not there. It appears that Chodesh was not entirely hostile to the appointed man and his party. The leader of the strong hand of the community against the one appointed as “Representative of the People”, was one Itzik Yeleniyowicz, which means Yitzhok ben Zvi Hersh.

The same Yitzhok ben Hersh himself 20 years later, in 1746, organized an opposition to the kehile, but under entirely different circumstances. The following document[26] that we provide here in translation from the Polish original describes the situation:

[Page 100]

“It happened in the city hall on the sixth day of the week after the last holiday of the Holy Ann, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Maria, that is, on July 29 in the year of our lord 1746.

The Old Testamenter, Yakov Yuzfowicz, personally came to the office of the acting mayor and the councilman of Sandz. At that time, he was the mayor of the Sandzer kehile and troubled about his entire function, he seriously and solemnly protested against the Old Testamenters, Itzik Yeleniyowicz, Todres Krakowski and Josef Bonella, the one in charge of the poorhouse and the auditors of the Sandzer kehile. He said that they were setting themselves against the chief commissioner and taking for granted the elections and drafts that were recently defined on behalf of the whole community by the almighty lord Przezdzitski*, the commissar of the enlightened and mighty duke, the count in Wisznic and Yeroslaw Lubomirski, the darling – Sandzer and so forth, administrator, lord and benefactor. In fact, the above-mentioned Todres Krakowski, the leader, wanting not to remember that he had been present at that election and draft, dared to say those words: but I warned you when I came from Koniecpol that the great lord Przezdzitski had no instructions other than making an accounting to the great lord scribe. Those elections are for nothing and the expenses are also for nothing. Therefore, the ones named above who demonstrated against the above Itzik Yeleniyowicz, Todres Krakowski, Josef Bonella are either not attentive or do not respect the present draft, or the commotion that they made (and that the above frequently mentioned protestor defends the shallowness of this disposition) for the second and third time, declaring that the above mentioned Itzik Yeleniyowicz, Todres Krakowski, Josef Bonella who are related, should therefore, be held responsible and punished for their audacity and the commotion – (thus) declared the mentioned protestor, the Old Testamenter Yuzfowicz. He built a store thirty years ago and paid taxes and stood for the rights of the kehile and, therefore, has to suffer the commotion for which he will be personally liable, and has to take them to the court of the enlightened duke, the almighty …of the crown, the merciful lord and benefactor with his manner and his way. To testify to the truth of the above, he signs with his own hand

Name Jakov the teacher Yehuda zts”l

[zeykher tsadik levrokhe = may the name of the honorable man be blessed, or of blessed memory]

The events of the community that are reflected here in this document are explained this way:

the attack in 1726 by Itzik ben Hersh against Shimon ben Moyshe, the representative of the common people had, without a doubt, resulted in a court case brought before the duke himself.

*Translator's note: not sure of the English spelling. Please consult the Sefer Sandz in Polish (available on the NYPL site).
[Page 101]

The result of his interference was probably that the system of community elections became more democratic. An opposition was organized against the new leaders from among the former community elders, among them the former elder Itzik ben Hersh, who was now one of those in charge of the poorhouse and the auditors. They interfered in the dealings of the community. New quarrels broke out. At that time the lord administrator Stanislaw Lubomirski appointed his commissar Przezdzitski, as overseer of the kehile. The commissar issued decrees “for the good of the entire community”, meaning that he would also take into consideration the rights of the simple (plain) members, and ordered elections. Itzik ben Hersh, Todres Krakowski and Josef Bonella did not recognize those orders or the elections, claiming that the commissar had no right to issue decrees and order new elections, that he only had the assignment of doing the calculations with the city's scribe. The elder Chodesh Yakov ben Yehuda[27] protested against the commissar's actions before the city council in order to be able to accuse them all in the duke's court. However, he found it necessary to “stick up for the rights of the community”, that is, to defend the new orders in the community against oligarchic opposition. He also wanted to show that on his part, he loyally executed the decree of the duke's commissar, and is not responsible for the fact that others do not want to execute the decrees. Therefore, he asked for his protest against the opposition to be presented to the notary.

Two years later, on August 7, 1748, a case came before the city court against the parneysim [elders] of the kehile [community] about which we can assume is related to the mentioned feuds in the community in 1746:

The “noble”* Antoni Dodinski the under-collector of Sandzer and Czaczower, deputy-governor Adam Kozecki accused “the unbeliever and unfaithful” six Jewish residents[28] of the Sandzer synagogue (later, in the verdict, they are called elders) that on July 28, he had given them a universal** from the deputy governor who was assigned to the Sandzer city hall. The accused did not give this order to the city hall but held it up until August 5. Dodinski accused the Jews of opposing an order. The accused Jews replied that they were late in giving over the universal not because of insubordination, but out of ignorance.

*generosus

**order
[Page 102]

The court ordered the named “elders of the Sandzer synagogue” to pay a fine of 14 grivnas to the official Dodinski and the fine of half a grivna to the court [A grivna was worth 48 groshn, that is, more than one and a half gildn {see footnote 15 on pg.93}]. They were also ordered to jail for 14 hours until they give bail to the accuser.[29]

Although the accused elders apologized for their “ignorance”, it is hard to believe that they did not intend to hold back the deputy governor's universal [order] instead of giving it to the city hall. The point that there was a relationship to the conflict between the city hall and the kehile cannot be excluded. However, taking into consideration the circumstances, that the universal was issued by the deputy governor, the representative of the governor, who is the king's memune [representative] to the communities, not the administrator's representative. Also considering the fact that the universal was sent to the city hall through, none other than the mediation of the community leaders, it seems clear that the universal had a connection to the arguments that broke out in the community in 1746. The deputy governor found it necessary to give instructions about it to the city hall. In any case, the content of the universal was not in the interests of the leasers of the community and they were hoping to win time by dragging things out. Maybe they had no intention of giving the universal to the city hall. They did it only when they could see for themselves that they had no alternative.

C. Debts of the Community

Just as in all kehiles in Poland in the 18th century, the Sandz community was forced to incur debts to the landowners, priests and orders of monks in order to meet their burden of taxes. The community in Sandz also got entangled in a vicious circle and could not creep out of its debts. The more the kehile borrowed, the more they were forced to incur new debts, just to be able to pay the interest on the old debts. We have two such characteristic notices in the actions of the Sandz town court:

February 21, 1752, a demand for the Jews of Sandz to appear before the city court was received from the prosecutor: Yelen (Zvi)Tamar*, Yakov Wisocki (the tall one), Todres Krakowski, Lewko Juzefowicz, Yehudis Halushowa,** Joachim Markowicz, Josef Lefkowicz. must pay the debt with interest, under penalty of expulsion from the city.[30]

*Expel Zvi ben Tamar, because on the entire list, first the father's name, or for women, her husband's name first. It ist impossible that the writer had switched the names around and that the name should have been Tamar the wife (or daughter) of Yelen (Zvi)

**Halushowa is probably a corruption of Elisheva, the wife of Elish.
[Page 103]

Neither the amount or the character of the debt are mentioned in the notice, but the number of the debtors, up to eight at one time, justifies the assumption that it concerns a debt of the kehile, not a private debt. Ten years later in 1763, Lewko Juzefowicz in a demand for payment of the debt, named one with the nickname Bonela as one of the leaders of the community.[31] He is, it seems the son of Josef Bonela who was mentioned in the previous action of 1746 as the gabe tsedoke [the trustee in charge of charity] and accountant[32] Joachim Markowicz had, as was mentioned, leased the administrator's mills[33] in 1714 in partnership with Yakov ben Shimon. The arendars [lessees] of this important income were often elected as leaders of the kehile .[34]

On February 26, 1762 it is mentioned that the deputy delegate of the town hall officially noted the “oblate” that the town court gave against the Sandz community for non-payment of a debt of 3000 zloty the previous year. Listed as plaintiffs, the Jewish “mayor”, are the leader Chodesh Mark Davidowicz and the elders: Shloyme Shmelke, Yakov ben Yehuda, Yeke ben Yakov, Lewko ben Josef Bonela, Yehuda ben Shloyme Porek* Lewkowicz.[35]

At that time the Sandzer kehile owed money to both the Sandz Collegiate of the Church and the Franciscans. The large debts of the community were discovered ten years later at the beginning of the Austrian rule in connection with a request to the government about a moratorium. And also in connection with the expensive and long standing case over the building of the shul. That request to the authorities for a moratorium on January 25, 1776, was made in the name of the Church and the magistrate. All was described as follows:

“This shul is being built from the bread of the poor, from unpaid and disputed taxes and interest both from debts (borrowings) from the Church as well as from residents from every station and every region, from religious beggar-monks (Franciscans), noble people, widows and orphans”.[36]

D. Jurisdiction

According to the rules of the oldest charter for the Jews of Poland, the Kalisz statute of 1264, quarrels between Jews and Christians, where the Jew was the accuser belonged in the court of the provincial governor or his deputy, “the Jewish judge”. We know that in the larger king's cities, namely Lemberg [Lviv, Lwow], Cracow, Lublin, Poznan and Vilne [Vilnius, Vilna] such courts existed.
*probably the name Perl made to sound Polish
[Page 104]

But we do not find any notice that the deputy of the Cracow governor and the deputy governor from Sandz and Czaczow established such a court in Sandz. The large amount of cases in Sandz city court where the Jews were the accused both in civil disputes as well as in punishable cases is, in itself, sufficient evidence that there was no court of the governor in Sandz. We also must not forget the fact that accused village Jews from the vicinity of Sandz went before the Sandz city court.[37]

Conflicts among Sandzer Jews were heard only in the Bezdn [rabbinical court]. The city court record books testify to the fact that in this era, until the partition of Poland, we can count only three isolated cases where a Jew brought a conflict with another Jew before the city court or the city council.

But also the character of the conflicts alone in these few cases is very instructive as to the steadiness with which the Jews acknowledged their Besdn and avoided having the city court mix in their internal conflicts. The two cases from 1726 and 1746 concerned the fight against the kehile-tkifim [powerful members of the community], and also these were not trials but registered notarized protests. Among these three trials, in the actual sense of the word, there was only one where the accuser would have had the option of turning to Michal Lewkowicz (ben Levi?), protested before the city court against Itzik Yeleniowicz; that during the wedding of the rabbi's son (Rabinowicz) from Tarnawa that took place in Sandz he, Itzik, had insulted and beaten the son of Eliyahu ben Moyshe.[38]

Itzik Yeleniowicz is none other than the hot-blooded, highhanded Yitzhok ben Hersh, who, in 1726, had brutally battered the “Deputy of the Plain People”, Shimon ben Moyshe, and later in 1746, as one of the gabe tsedoke had organized an “opposition” against the new rules of the kehile.

In the other two conflicts brought before the city involving Jews against Jews both dealt directly with the competence of the city council: on August 29, 1729 carried out a survey of Lewek Markowicz Bonela's house and determined that on the side of the house neighboring Shimon ben Moyshe's[39] house, they dug a channel where the filth from the pig-stall and from the bakery ran down and damaged the Jew Bonela's house. The city hall decreed that the channel should be directed to flow in another direction.[40]

Just as Lewek Markowicz Bonela found it correct to turn to the city hall in a dispute against Shimon ben Moyshe that dealt with structure, so Shimon ben Moyshe himself did not see any sin against Jewish solidarity when a year later when he turned to the city court against another Jew on the issue of structure:

[Page 105]

July 12, 1730 he filed a protest in the city body against the Jew Shloyme claiming that the latter had hit and chased away two workers that Shimon ben Moyshe had sent to start building on a lot that the city had assigned to him.[41]

Relationships With Neighbors and the Way-of-Life in Light of Court Cases

The court cases of Jews against their non-Jewish neighbors that came before the court were, in a number of cases, about theft and about insults. However, most were complaints about attacks.

In 1683, a complaint by a Jew of theft is noted: the known merchant, the jeweler Mark Wolfowicz, accused someone with the name Elizhbieta Lawieranka of the theft of gold and silver jewelry. The accused did not appear in court and the accuser demanded a penalty of 100 rut.[?][42] In 1699, the arendar of the Sandzer mills, Josef Itzkowicz lodged a complaint against the “industrious” * Pawel Gargula and his wife, Regina over the theft of malt and tools from the whiskey brewery.[43] It is to be assumed that the accused peasant was employed by the arendar and, therefore, had access to the whiskey brewery.

In 1716, one Tomasz Dzemianek was accused of the theft of Jewish “things” and would not admit it although he was tortured; it seems that this dealt with a theft in the shul since the accuser is the Niesandzer kehile.[44]

In 1729 there was a case of the goldsmith Jakow Lewek against the Sandzer citizen Wojcech Jargot who he had intercepted when he was in the midst of stealing two geese and a copper kettle. The goldsmith caught the thief and held him although he tried to wrench himself loose and was biting him on his hands and tearing the hair from his beard.[45] The same goldsmith registered a complaint in 1732 against coopers from Wieliczka who were stealing precious stones and silver from him.[46]

Regarding the derfer [villages], two trials against peasants who stole from Jews in the village were recorded in the town court: in 1680, the Jew from Mistkow, Aharon ben Isroel, accused three peasants from the same village of stealing money, clothes and food from him.[47] In 1722 a peasant from Mogilno admitted before the court that he had stolen the kettle for brewing beer from the Jew, the arendar.[48]

*laborious, title of a peasant
[Page 106]

The small numbers of cases of theft certainly shows that in general the property of the Jews in Sandz was safe and guarded from thefts and attacks. Even during a fire in the city in 1769 there was only one theft in a Jewish home. The accused, a peasant from Pasin justified himself by saying he returned the stolen trifles.[49]

In all the recorded cases, the complaints by Jews about the insults from their non-Jewish neighbors are characteristic:

In 1697 the aforementioned arendar of the Sandzer mills, Josef Yitzkowicz, accused Maria Wilenska of making up a note that insulted his servant.[50] In 1698, the same arendar accused the alderman Wawzyniec Buczyowicz of an insult.[51] In 1697, Josef Markowicz accused councilman Kazimierz Jaworetki, the guard* of the king's chamber in Sandz of an insult.[52] In 1698, the “surgeon” Josef Lachmanowicz (ben Nachman), lodged a ”protest” against the Sandzer “surgeon”** Kazimierz Kuligowicz about an insult and a bilbul [false accusation].[53]

In 1701 the “Scholasticus” (kehile shames [community sexton]) of the Sandzer Synagogue, Marek Abramowicz accused one Jan Kutrinoga over non-payment of a loan of 20 zloty and over an insult.[54] In 1705, Josef Salomoniwicz filed a protest on behalf of his “full brother” Yonah Salmonowicz, “manager for the city administrator, against the couple Jaworski, Sandzer butchers and citizens” over an insult.[55] Earlier in 1702, the same Josef Salmonowicz had a conflict with the elder of the butchers' guild, Buchowicz. In that action, Josef Salmonowicz is listed as the “guard of the tariffs of the Sandzer Royal treasury”.[56]

There were also cases where the insults were accompanied by fights and blows: in 1700 Josef Yuzefowicz protested against the named alderman, Wawzyniec Buczyowicz, that he had insulted him, beaten him badly and wounded him. This had happened in the vicinity of the Hungarian city gate.[57] In 1739, Yelen Rabinowicz (Hersh, the son or grandson of the rabbi), “citizen of the Sandzer synagogue”, protested against Stefan Domrowski because he called him by a nickname “zyd” [Jew]. When he answered Stefan “you yourself are a zyd”, the accused gave him “a severe blow in the face “.[58]

The social standing of the insulted accusers is an eminent one: arendar, manager for the city administrator, surgeon, the rabbi's son (or grandson), the guard of the king's chamber in Sandz, “scholasticus of the kehile”.

*custos, compare above

**chirurgus, betseem [basically] the same as cyrulik, a balbirer [barber]
[Page 107]

Those accused of insults were mostly eminent citizens: a councilman, an alderman (the same alderman in two cases) a balbirer [barber], an elder of the butcher's guild. The social standing of the insulted Jews, of itself, forced them to react to insults, particularly if they were made by citizens who were significant in the city. On the other side, we can certainly assume that just such significant burghers could afford to accuse a Jew of such a standing as manager of the city administration, a guard of the king's chamber and such. However, the background of those conflicts was certainly an economic one: the arendar of the Sandzer mills, and even more so, the manager of the city administration had a monopoly on the grinding of grain, making malt, and also got the taxes on liquor, “copowe”; the guard of the customs house managed with the money from late payments. The quarrel between the Jewish and Polish surgeon-barbers had without a doubt, originated out of competition; and the insulted “shkolnik” [sexton] is the borrower from whom the Jew is demanding repayment of the debt.

Also, the attacks on Jews, in some cases had the character of antagonism. In some other cases, they express the social contrast that is multiplied by the religious and national contradiction. In 1683, Josef Markowicz protested before the court about the alderman's attack on Josef Itzkowicz (ben Yekiel) who he brought with him: the injured person was fallen upon at one o'clock at night and attacked by a Polish boy who ran out of Glinski's house and injured him in the right temple; the wound that was displayed before the court was very deep “slashed to the bone”.[59] Josef Markowicz who brought the wounded man before the court is the above-mentioned custos of the king's treasury in Sandz, and is also mentioned in the actions a buyer of a house with a meadow and garden. The reason for the brutal attack is not known.

Disputes between landlords and tenants are probably the reason for an attack in 1691: a Jew and his wife who lived with the barber Yakow Kulpovicz, brought witnesses before the court, that their landlord together with his apprentice struck them and attacked them with their hands and with canes.[60]

Two attacks on Jews by an apprentice craftsman does not require any explanations in as much as the apprentice together with students from the Jesuit colleges used to be in the vanguard of all the attacks on Jews in the cities. In 1697, the Sandzer Jew Yakow ben Moyshe complained before the court against the butcher Francisek Buchow's journeyman that he had assailed him on the road and beaten and wounded him.[61] In 1702 the Sandzer Jew Fabian (Faybush) Yekubpwski and his wife accused Stanislaw Dushkowicz that he had, together with other journeymen, badly beat and injured both them.[62]

[Page 108]

In those same years, the causes of some other attacks are not known: in 1697, the Jew Avraham ben Yakow accused the Sandzer citizen Tomasz Wojszow of beating him badly and injuring his knee and his ear;[63] in 1698 Yakow Wolfowicz brought a. “friendly protest” to court against the Hungarian Ferenc, his last name is not known to the court, who had severely beaten him and wounded him in his face and knee.[64] Whereas the same Yakow Wolfowicz appeared before the court (this time with a surname Krakowski) later in 1704 with a complaint against another Hungarian, that the Hungarian had deceived him with the fish that he had ordered from him.[65] We can assume that the attack against him by the Hungarian Ferenc in 1698 also had to do with an argument about merchandise. The same Fabian Yekubowicz, as mentioned in 1702, who was attacked along with his wife by a few shoemaker journeymen, had about a year earlier, in December 1701 accused the Sandzer butcher Jan Kadrigej in court of invading his house and badly beating his wife.[66] It is possible that the two attacks are related, namely, that the butcher who was accused by Fabian a short year later turned his journeyman shoemakers on him.

In 1704 there was a case of the known agent of the duke city administration and his arendar against the councilman Jan Gurski because Gurski had attacked his farm. The reason given in the court protest itself ”Jan Gurski had a claim against the arendar that he had not returned a loan of 290 zloty.[67] A year later Wojcech Witowski (alias Wojtowicz) attacked the grain measurer of the Sandzer mills, Shloyme and beat and wounded him.[68] This was probably provoked by the claims about bad measure or high charges for milling.

In the later years, there were two occurrences of complaints by Jews of attacks: in 1731[69] and 1733.[70] The attackers were peasants who found themselves in the city. In the second case, three brothers from the dorf Wojnarowa attacked the brandy distiller “without any cause”. He ran to the meat market and then hid in the city church. In another case from 1733 where Yakov Yekubowicz accused the councilman Jakub Wojtowicz, the councilman defended himself saying he was really the one who was attacked: going home drunk, he said something to the accuser who was sitting in front of his house, and then he and his wife and others attacked him and beat him badly.[71]

[Page 109]

We can assume that the drunken councilman did not greet the Jew who was sitting in front of his house with friendly words. Except for the case of an attack in 1755[72] where the circumstances are unknown, there was a lawsuit in 1760 where the reason for the attack was given: Shifra, the daughter of Rafal and the wife of Yakov displayed bloody wounds on her face and hands before the alderman's court, saying that the “praiseworthy” * blacksmith Valenti Bus had beaten her in her shop because she did not want to give him tobacco leaves “without any payment”.[73]

It is understood that the relationship between the Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors did not change radically at the beginning of the Austrian rule regardless of the new legal situation. Indeed, we also find complaints about insults and assaults from Jews against non-Jews in the seventies: for instance, in 1773, Yakob ben Michal, a citizen of the Sandzer synagogue, accused citizen Regina Banachowska of abuse and slapping her. In 1774 Aharon ben Dovid, “in the presence of his father Dovid Markowicz”, protested against citizen Stanislaw Mazurkjewicz that he beat and injured him.[74]

In two cases about robbery and murder attacks, the accused were peasants. In 1708, the Jew Yelen (Hirsh) Samuelowicz brought the farm hand Wojcek Oliwa to court for a murder he had committed: He, with a friend, in the vicinity of Skolmierz, murdered a Jew whose name was not determined. They buried the victim of their murder. The murdered Jew, who was traveling among them carrying merchandise among which was coral, had borrowed a horse from the farmhand for one zloty.[75] No doubt, robbery was the cause of the murder.

In 1720, three Jews from Sandz: Jakob Markowicz, Shmuel Juzefowicz and Jakob Krakowski, in the presence of their plenipotentiary, Stanislaw Kulpowicz, accused three peasants from Amsene (Mszana Dolna) of murdering a Jew whose name and place of residence are unknown for 4 zloty.[76]

It is to be assumed that the Jew from Sandz, who reported the murder of the unknown Jew in the Sandz vicinity to the court, did so in the name of the kehile. The accuser in the 1708 case, Yelen Samuelowicz is the same Hirsh ben Shmuel who, later in 1726, was accused by Shimon ben Shloyme, “The Deputy of the Simple People” as one of the three heads of the community who had attacked him and beaten him.[77] The three Jews accused of the murder in 1720, were themselves probably heads of the community or had the power of attorney from the heads. One of them, Yakob Krakowski, is the frequently mentioned Yakob ben Wolf Krakowski who conducted business with Hungarian merchants.

*slawetny; this was the title of a citizen
« 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 22 May 2009 by LA