« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

[Page 110]

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

The accusers appeared before the court with Polish power of attorney, which means with their authorized representative. Those powers of attorney before the court were also given to Jews: in 1681, the arendar from the dorf Męcina, Marek Jakubowicz appeared before the court and testified that in his case about a brick house in Niekarzyn, he gives his power of attorney to the “noble” Franciszek Kulikowski and his full brother Yoyne Yekubowicz.[78]

There was only one case of theft against a Jew in the entire period until the Austrian takeover of Sandz: in 1713, Jan Klimowicz from Dobromil accused the Sandzer Jew Shlomo ben Moyshe of stealing ribbons from his store.[79] On the other hand, there were a few cases where Jews were mentioned or directly accused as buyers of stolen items. In 1667 a thief admitted that he sold a gilded cross with a gilded star to the son of a Jewish innkeeper in the village of Cieniawa.[80] In a trial in 1675 against Zimerman Sebastian Yanowski for stealing gold and silver items from the Franciscan church and from the main district church in Sandz, he said that he secretly sold the stolen goods to Jews in Wiscnic and Cracow.[81] In 1701 the Sandz goldsmith guild put in a claim against the Jew Mark Salmonowicz and others by whom they found more than half a score “black-silver items” that had been stolen from the church by one Uzonski, probably a silversmith.[82] In the case from 1751 against Yakov ben Abush for murder, which we will speak about later, he was also accused among other things, of buying stolen church items.[83]

Both of the recorded trials against Jews over insults are characteristic because of their circumstances. In 1691, a Felician Dublanski, “accompanied by the Sandzer barber” Jakov Kulpowicz accused the widow of the barber Jonah the Jew along with other Jews, of blackening his honor in a public place, namely the Sandzer market, in front of his guest house.[84] From the opposition from the barbers of both sides, we can assume that just as in the above-mentioned trial of 1698, where a Christian barber insulted his Jewish colleague, here also there was a background of professional rivalry. In 1737 the Sandzer alderman Shimon Nalepowicz gave testimony before the court, under oath about the following case: he saw the “Oldtestamenter”, goldsmith Shimon, in the city hall, speak to a Jew who was in jail “although there was an order that no Jews were permitted to come to the imprisoned Jew”.

[Page 111]

When the alderman noticed the goldsmith Shimon, he remarked that Jews were forbidden in the city hall, the other started to curse the ratmayster* and pelting him with insults.[85]

The trials of Jews for attacks on Christians reveal mostly motives of socio-economic and religious antagonism. In the trials of Christians against Jews for beatings and attacks, the causes of the conflicts are not clear in all cases:

In 1706 the Sandzer councilman Marczin Wolanski complained against Shimon Zaleyski and the lessee of the king's mills in Sandz, Yakob ben Shimon that they badly beaten him, wounded and insulted him.[86] It seems that the conflict broke out over the fact that the mills lessee padded the liquor tax and the councilman was unwilling to pay as much as was demanded because one and a half years earlier, in 1708, this accusation notes: the mills lessee Yakov ben Shimon put in a complaint against councilman Marczin Wolanski because he had not paid his “chopowe” and he had also falsely reported the amount of grain that he was permitted to be milled in order to make liquor.[87]

Of a much more serious character was the attack in which a Jewish arendar [lessee] was accused at the beginning of 1717: a Blozhey Kamienski admitted after he was tortured – that the lessee from the dorf Spytkowice – instigated 17 peasants to attack the “gaspodarz” [landlord] Warmush in that village and “rob him roughly” and the peasants actually did it in the presence of that Jew.[88] We do not know how this difficult accusation finished up.

Among other complaint against Jews is the accusation of beatings: in 1730, the “noble Antoni Gzscegozcewski, the agent of the village magistrate's office in the dorf of Mizerna in the Szerzyny administration entered a protest in city court against the couple Habush (Abush) and “other Jewish residents of Sandz” that while he was going through the Jewish neighborhood knocking on doors asking that they open them, he was badly beaten and wounded…[89] In 1739 Kazimierz Perlowski protested against Shlomo ben Shimon that the day of the fair he had badly beaten his young son Yakov.[90]

*rotmistrz – the commander of the municipal guard
[Page 112]

In 1764 Jan Washke was a witness in court stating that he saw that Lewek “the Oldtestamenter”, in the outer room of another Jew's house, was holding the Catholic harness maker, Andzej Jendrichowski by the throat and suffocating him, stopping when the witness intervened. Later Lewek ran after Andzej and hit him in the face twice.[91] Here, as in the prior cases, the reasons for the attacks are not given.

From these cases against Jews for insults, attacks and beatings, it is generally inferred that the Jews, at least some of them, did not behave toward their Christian neighbors according to the klal [rule] “Be insulted but don't insult” but reacted with cursing and beatings when they thought they were right.

Two cases against Jews – separated from each other by a period of 25 years, throw a little light on certain elements of the way of life of Sandzer city Jews and dorf Jews:

In 1692 the court bailiff testified that he had found “the little Jew, the black artist” in a basement of the house of the mighty Kzeczowski, with a woman who lives near the Markowers in the back of the house of the mighty lords Stranski and they were lying on one another.[92] The fact that the woman lived with the Jewish woman Markowska (Mordechai's wife), shows that she herself was a Jewish woman, because at that time, Christians did not live with Jews.

In a case from 1717, Zofya Tobiascka (Tobiascowa) testified that the Jewish woman, the lessee from Piątkowa, gave her a remedy to expel her sadness and to improve her fate: she should find two frogs, put them in a pot in an ant's nest; when the frogs were just bones, she should burn the bones and the powder (that is, the ashes from the bones) and put it in a drink for her mother-in-law who lived in the city.[93] It appears that we are dealing here with a remedy to win someone's love.[94]

An accusation of witchcraft was also included in the blood libel case of 1751.

F. Aliles-Dam [Blood Accusation] (1751, 1761)

The period of the Saxony kings, during the first two-thirds of the 18th century (1607-1763) was, keyedue as everyone knows), the darkest epoch in the history of Poland. Never before or since did the clergy have such power in the land. Against the background of the general decline of the culture, a blind fanaticism and blunt intolerance toward all non-Catholics, Jews and Protestants became widespread; the population was deeply sunk in ignorance and superstitions. In the suffocating atmosphere of ambushing Protestant houses of worship, of witches' trials, where tens of guiltless peasant women perished at the stakes, blood accusations against the Jews spread over the land like a plague.

[Page 113]

Under the reign of the second Saxon king, August the Third (1733-1763) there was almost no single year without such a bloody accusation. It is no wonder when we take into consideration that not only the popular mob but also writers close to the gentry who, by the way, received their entire education in Jesuit schools (gimnasies) believed in the bizarre invention that Jews used Christian blood to make matzos. As is known, the popular writer of memoirs, the dorf priest, a supporter of the gentry, declared in his memoirs of that time: “freedom without liberum veto [from Latin, meaning: I don't allow] and Jewish matzos without Christian blood can not exist”. [This was a parliamentary device in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that allowed any deputy to a Sejm to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify all legislation already passed at it. Wikipedia Encyclopedia - editor]

The terrible succession of blood libels started in 1683 with a case in Tsozmir that became very bizarre in scope in the last fifteen years of the Saxony reign. In a blood libel case in Zaslaw (in Wolyn) in 1747 that was led by priests and the city court in Kamienica the four accused Jews met a violent death. In the same region, in Swidówka in 1748 two Jews were punished with death because of a false accusation from the Carmelite Brothers. In the same year there was an aliles-dam in Donji Grad with the participation of a delegate from the Bishop of Kamenets-Podolsk, Mikolai Dembowski, the same enemy of the Jews who later in 1757 imposed a debate with the Frankists that led to the burning the Talmud. Thanks only to the intervention by the owner of the city, hetman [commander] Jozef Pototskin in the trial, the accused got away with just a jail sentence. The blood libel trial in Zhitomir against the Jews from the dorf Pawliki that was staged in 1754 by the Kiev Bishop Kajetan Soltyk was almost a mass inquisition: twelve Jews were horribly executed. Of the same scope was the aliles-dam trial in Jampol (in the vicinity of Luck) that dragged on from 1756 to 1763 until the intervention of the Pope. Until this intervention, the sinister inciters of the clergy managed to kill guiltless people in several aliles-dam: In 1757 six Jews in Przemysl were beheaded in connection with a frame-up in the dorf Stopnica; in 1760 ten Jews were condemned to death in a blood libel trial in the Grodno region; in 1761 several Jews perished at the hand of the hangman in Więcławice (Chelm region); in 1763 there was a blood libel trial in Kalisz.[95]

This horrible wave of blood libel accusations spread from Zaslaw in Wolyn until it reached the Jewish communities near the Dunajec in 1751. It had been many years earlier when it had reached Przemysl.

[Page 114]

All privileges and broad rights that Jews had achieved in Sandz during three-quarters of a century were trampled in the dust when the priests and the city leaders made an agreement to entangle the kehile in a devilish net in a trial about spilling Christian blood. The remembrance of the Sandz blood libel only remains as a record in the books of the city court. The few pages in the record, written partially in Latin and mostly in Polish, speak complete volumes about the blood and tears and the bizarre tortures of the innocent victims and about the boundless fear that befell the Sandzer kehile. This is the document[96] translated word for word:

“Happened at the place of torments, on Friday, the day before the non-Jewish holy day of the Holy Stanislaw, the bishop and martyr, namely the seventh day in May of the year of our Lord 1751.

According to the town managers of the Sandz city Administration, in the presence of the bailiff-alderman, the Nowy Sacz court under the chairmanship of the present mayor and bailiff judge, the respectable Andzszej Kulpowicz, with the honorable alderman, went to the place of tortures of the Sandzer town hall and there, on the basis of his jurisdiction ordered an inquiry of the tortures by the non-believer Jacob Habushowicz in the accusation of a murder of a Christian man to make matzos. The same person was brought in and standing before the same court he said: I admit that I kicked Wojczech Plachtowicz because he beat me and I wanted to give him a blow with a wedge*, but I did not give him a blow because we ran off, nothing more. ** Later, when he was called by the 'noble prosecutor'*** of the city office of the Sandzer administrator and put in the place of torture and was startled for the first time. To the first question he declared: 'I do not know who murdered the Catholic and I did not murder him.' To the second: 'no one and also not I ever murdered a Catholic, I do not know if it is true that a Catholic was murdered in Czasław, but that was a pretence'; to the third: 'not one of ours and not I killed any Catholic people and I did not hear about what happened in Biecz'; to the fourth: 'It is true that a Jew from Tarnow was here and one from Cracow, the former Szynczycower rabbi, nobody else was here'. To the fifth: 'a student spent the night with me, but I do not remember which night before the holidays it was'.


**a formula for recording the disclosures of the accused.

***instigator - prosecutor, public accuser
[Page 115]

To the sixth: I did not buy any church things and I do not know that anyone bought any'. To the seventh: 'I do not know any magic and I did not hurt any Catholic in my life.' To the ninth*: 'I did not put anything in any drink, and I do not know about anyone doing it'. To the tenth: 'I did not give any bribe to any witness except that she herself may have given someone a cup of brandy'. To the eleventh: 'About Depta, I do not know who killed him, I only heard that they put him in the kruchta'.** To the twelfth: I never buried*** any kind of bloody shirt and no one saw me'.**** To the thirteenth: 'I do not know if the boy was killed by our people, he used to eat up their shabosim [meal prepared ahead to be eaten midday on Shabes]. They said about Eylish, the arendar who died, that he supposedly killed him, but I do not know'. To the fourteenth: I never stole anything from anyone and I do not know anything about that'. More he did not say. 'The blood that is on the symsiek***** is from a quarter of a cow.' More he did not say.

Later, at the request of the “noble prosecutor”, bringing up: on the first one: no one had tired out any Catholic and also I did not tire any Catholic'; on the second and third: 'I have not tormented anyone and I do not know if anyone has tormented a Catholic'. On the fourth one: 'there were no strange Jews here except the three, two from Tarnow and the third from Cracow, a former Szynczycower rabbi, the fourth son-in-law of the rabbi from Hungary who were here all at the same time'. On the fifth: 'the student left me and went to Reb Krzetshkowski's, but neither I nor any Jew murdered him'. On the sixth: 'I did not buy any church items and on one of ours bought any'. On the seventh: 'I did not hurt any Catholic with any poison, and I do not know that anyone else did it'. The eighth: 'I do not know any magic'. The ninth: 'I did not put anything in the brandy to make people drunk at my place; there was always clean brandy.

*eighth question was not mentioned. However, according to the later investigation we can see that in the report the eighth question (about magic) was included in the seventh.

**kruchta – Polish for church, where they also used to bury pious people, according to their wish, so that those coming to pray would step on them.

***In the original inaccurate zakupowalem, by the second taking of testimony, it was then written correctly zakopowalem

****The answer is shortened here, understand that the sense is: no one saw me do it

*****symsiek, later samsiek, the same in Old Polish that today is sasiek a sort of chest of hay in a barn.
[Page 116]

Others add something because they burn honey in a pan and mix it in'. The tenth: 'I did not bribe any witness, but the boy servants so they would give the mighty Tarnowski to eat and drink'. The eleventh: 'I do not know how and which way the same Depta died because he was not with me'. The twelfth: 'I did not bury any shirt, this is all made up'. The thirteenth: 'I do not know who killed the boy, but they were only talking about that Zelikn Eylish'. The fourteenth: 'the blood on the symsiek was from a quarter of meat not from a human. The gentleman Kszechkowski lost six red gildn but I returned them to him. On the Szelesznikowske fields, supposedly, a child was found. The bailiff from Żeleźnikowa had brought a living child for the use of the priest Vitan. What the priest Vitan was supposed to use him for, over which our people had made a complaint. He did not say anything more.

At the third inquiry . . .* 'no one near to me tortured a Catholic, and I also did not torture. That student only stayed with me for one night, I did not make any sort of magic and I do not know **Deptowicz. No shirt was buried and the blood on the symsiek was from meat from a quartered animal'. He did not know anything more.

Later, at the request of the “noble” prosecutor, singed by the first fire: 'I did not murder that person and I also do not know who murdered him; I did not buy any church items. The blood came from the quartered cow when I slaughtered her, nothing else'.

Later, at the request of the “noble prosecutor”, he stopped talking about the torture and standing before the court, voluntarily dropped formality: 'Zasławer shames [kehile sexton] had said that the Zaslawer Jews had killed a Catholic, and that is why they perished. I found out about it when they perished, it was a repercussion.' About that he said: I found out about it when they were reading it to me during the proceedings. It is the truth that I spoke when they tormented me. Even if you were to burn me into cracklings, I would not say, because I do not know.' Then he revealed: 'this is the day of my wedding', then he told the hangman': 'now it's your wedding' [meaning unclear-ed.]

*There is an illegible word here.

**Previously the murdered student was called Depta
[Page 117]

After those confessions, the same non-believer Jacob Habushowicz, was transferred to the town hall jail to wait for the further decision of the town court of the Sandzer city administrator.

A record of the verdict for the town from the Sandzer administrator, Maczej Alexei from Rekle Reklewski, the leader of the Sandzer tribunal in the town of the Sandzer administrator, written in his own hand was relayed on a card and written word for word in the present work:

'So that the court could extract information from the non-believer, Habush was given over to be tortured, and also to be burned by fire, to be carried by the hangman from the city of the Royal cities and to permit him to defer to the city powers, and to confer it to him in order for him to carry out corporeal punishment, and in order for him to carry out the tortures ordered by the city powers.'

On the basis of this report, we can reconstruct the course of the blood libel in Sandz:

The blood libel trial in distant Zaslow in 1747 inspired the clergy in Little Poland [Malapolska –includes Galicia] to follow the example of the priests in Wolyn. They staged a blood libel in Beicz probably against a Jew or a few Jews from the surrounding derfer, since Jews were not permitted to live in Beicz proper. As early as the blood libels in Beicz and in Zaslow the clergy in Sandz were claiming that the Jews of Sandz were connected through the Jewish conspiracy, to the alleged murders of Christians in both cities.

The blood libel in Sandz proper was systematically prepared from several points of view and in different ways; when the bailiff Zheleznikow brought over a baby that he found alive, the priest, Witan accused the Jews that the baby who later died – was probably murdered by Jews for religious purposes. It seems that he brought in an “ostentatious display” in court, meaning, he let his protest be written down. The kehile anticipated this and in time put in a 'counter-demonstration' that means, a 'counter-protest' in order to have a formal point of support in a possible defense. After a Polish boy was found dead or had disappeared, a second attempt at a blood libel was made mentioning that this was the one who used to “eat up the 'Shaboses' [the afternoon meal on Shabes], that is, the one who probably stole the “cholent” from the baker [a stewed dish served hot on Shabos afternoon, and since it is forbidden to cook or warm up food on Shabes, the cholent sits on the stove-top or on top of the baker's oven, from before sundown Friday evening]. They invented the charge that the Jews killed him for revenge. It is possible that the arendr of the Sandzer mills, Elijah ben Moyshe, who, in the meantime had died, had an argument with the boy and maybe beat him and therefore, they spread the rumor that he killed the boy.

[Page 118]

At the time, a certain Depta (Deptowicz) died under strange circumstances and was buried in the “kruchta”[see note, p. 115] of the church.

Finally, an opportunity arose for the clergy to arrange a big trial about a blood libel, a trial about a multiple murder. This was also an opportunity to renew the previous blood libels that had not succeeded previously. A certain student had slept over at Yakob ben Abush's house a certain night before Pesakh, 1751. The next morning the student went to a certain Krzetchowski, and disappeared or was murdered after that. On the same days, four Jews, two from Tarnow, a former Szynczycower rabbi from Cracow and a son-in-law from a rabbi in Hungary visited Yakob ben Abush.

It seems from the investigation, that Yakob ben Abush had had an akhsanye [inn]. It is also possible that at the same time he was arendar of the Sandzer mills, after the death of Elijah ben Moyshe. In the kehile, he held the position of either a parnes [one of the elected heads of the community] or an elder. He is mentioned as one of the six Jews who three years prior, 1748, had been accused of delaying the handing over the governor's universal [order] to the magistrate.[97]

Certainly, because of his distinguished standing in the kehile, an aliles-dam [blood libel] was contrived against Yakob ben Abush with offenses: he, as one of the representatives of the kehile, supposedly, was the one who would be in contact with the Jews in Zaslow and in Biecz. In a communication with them, he was involved in the ritual murders in Sandz and in the environs. He was involved in the murders of a child in Szelesznikow, the boy who was “stealing Shabosim” and Depta-Deptowicz. He himself murdered the student who had stayed the night. As evidence, there were blood spots in his little barn-attic that, under torture, he said were from a quarter of a slaughtered cow that he had hung up. The visit before Pesakh of four men from far away, between them a rabbi and a son-in-law is surely nothing other than a consultation about drawing Christian blood for Pesakh.

To the total of five accusations about murdering several Christians for blood for matzos, they attached a few accusations of heresy: he supposedly bought stolen items; he would put herbs in the drinks of visitors to his inn. He used magic – an accusation that was probably made up to show that he was also guilty in the death of those souls who were never near him, but he beat them from afar, like a sorcerer.

[Page 119]

As an addition, they added the accusation that he had tried to buy the witnesses with bribes or by making them drunk.

An accusation by the city administrator against Jakob ben Abush was entered in the town court, probably in the name of the order to conduct an “investigation” by torture. Therefore, the hangman was explicitly authorized to apply “burning with fire”. At the investigation, with the help of the hangman the 'noble' prosecutor, that is, the squire attorney from Sandz city court gave directions to the hangman about the degree and lengths of the torture.

Admiration arose for the courageous and dignified attitude of the battered Jakob ben Abush even in the light of the record itself. Three times they pulled him. This means they pulled him on a wheel uphill, breaking his joints. At the fourth time, they had already “burned him” and he had not confessed any guilt, that he had not committed and also took care not to put the blame on other Jews. How much steadfastness the words of the tormented alderman expressed at the “burning”: 'even if you burn me to cracklings, I will not say, because I do not know'. How much bitter sarcasm was in his message to the hangman: “Now it's your wedding”….

Only two confessions by the tortured victim may, at first glance, seem like surrender. Staving off the accusation about putting herbs into drinks, he added: “Others are doing it because they are mixing honey in the pan”. But aside from the fact that his words could have meant that he agreed, he was probably speaking hypothetically: “maybe others put it in”. He did not mention any names and did not even use the word Jews, but just “others”. Relating to his speaking about the arendar Elijah ben Moyshe, this was in relation to a deceased person and was also formulated very carefully, such as the repetition of the questions: “they say” then add: “but I do not know”. His confession during the tortures, such as that he allegedly heard from the Zaslow shames that the Zaslow Jews had killed a Catholic, he withdrew standing before the city court after they stopped the torture: he only just heard now about the murder in Zaslow while in court when they read the accusation to him.

The fate of Jakob ben Abush after the city court sent him from the torture cell to the town court is unfortunately unknown to us, because we did not find the decisions of the town court.

[Page 120]

Even though the worthy parnes [elected leader of the kehile], Reb Jakob came out alive, he was physically crippled for the rest of his life. But also the Sandzer kehile lived through the days of groyl un eyme [horror and terror], thus sharing the fate of tens of Jewish communities in Poland in that dark era of aliles-dam [blood accusation].

Barely ten years had passed since the blood libel against the head of the Sandzer kehile, Yakub son of Abush, and Sandz was struck again with a blood accusation. An entire Jewish family was chosen as victim. It ended up more dreadfully than the first one.

We only know about the scope of this bizarre event from the verdict signed by the town court against one of the victims[98].

A manager of the arenda, Yosef Markowicz ben Mordechai and his wife, daughter and son-in-law Aharonowicz lived in the village of Posadowa. There was also a girl in the family, but her relationship to the arendar, whether she was a daughter, granddaughter or some other relative was not stated. The Pasadower arendar was called Yosek Bobowski – he probably came from Bobos. Suddenly a child disappeared from the town, it seemed, in the fateful days before Pesakh- a Christian child- a three and a half year old boy. His name was not mentioned in the verdict. The accusation that he had slaughtered the lost child to drain his blood fell on Yoski Bobower [a version of Yosek Bobowski-translator's note] All five members of the family were put in the town court's jail, and all five were investigated using torturing. For this purpose, the Sandzer court turned them over to the bloody paws of the town hangman. The cruel tortures had their effect. Four of the victims could not endure the inhuman pain and surrendered.

It seems that the first who gave up in this “investigation” was the young girl. She not only “disclosed” what they wanted from her, but she also converted to save her life. The arendar's son-in-law, Ahronowicz, must certainly have been steady until the end, because there is no mention of anything that he had witnessed in the judgment against Yoski Bobower the main one accused. He surely shuddered from the violent threats that were described to him in great detail, and he converted in order to die an easier death. Of all the blood libels of that time, it often happened that some Jews would convert before they received their death sentence. They were “pardoned” by just being “beheaded”.[99] Naturally, in the judgment against Yoshke Bobower it was recorded that Abramowicz had converted voluntarily, but they carried out the execution just the same.

[Page 121]

Aharonowicz's wife the arendar's daughter, kept the Jewish faith until her last breath, and she was also killed by the hangman. The manner of her execution is not recorded. She could not bear the bizarre torture and confessed to the accusations against her husband and father. It is possible that she only broke down when she found out that her husband had been beheaded and her testimony could not harm him. It is possible that during the torture they lied to her, saying her father was already dead, in order to force her to testify against him. The same is probably true of her mother, Markowiczowa – she was also tortured and “freely* testified before and after being tortured.

The girl who converted then told them under coercion, that she saw how the arendar Yoshki Bobower, killed the boy in a house near the brewery. In the name of the wife and daughter, the town court then noted some details about the ritual murder. That is, the arendar took the boy to the brewery.

Then, in the house using a knife, “the child was slaughtered with terrible violence; he was chopped up worse than if he would have been a wild dog”. While Aharonowicz was holding him, “almost two quarts of blood poured from the murdered child into a pot; they hid his body in the ground under the can where the liquor from the liquor pots was floating and then they covered it up with boards”.

The next day, according to the accusations, the arendar, Yoshke Bobower, got the body of the child and put it in a sack somewhere. The aforementioned two – his wife and daughter, incited the same Yoshke.

After the investigation, Yoshke Bobower was handed over to the town court to be tortured, as was the custom, in the presence of the investigator, in this case, the “noble” Yosef Rogoyski. Bobower “did not disclose anything in answer to the questions put to him”. In the verdict it was explained that he kept quiet “because of his inborn hardheadedness and the stubbornness of his tribe (race)”. He denied all accusations regarding this crime that was practiced many times “in many places, carried out by the unbelievers, the Jews “.

*libere, that is, not forced
[Page 122]

The tormented Yoshke was brought back from the city court to the city jail. The accusers were the prosecutor Yosef Rogoyski and the “noble” Michal Glembocki. For the defenders, the court assigned the “genteel” Yan Bzhozowski and Stanislaw Mikuliz. The court at the first investigation before the torture had heard the accusation as well as the defense.

On June 19, 1761, the court issued the verdict. The accused did not declare his guilt. This was interpreted as caused by his Jewish stubbornness. The statements of the three women witnesses, which were brutally extorted from them, were used as evidence of the crime. For the murder of the Catholic child “with more than malicious godless madness” and for ”his poisonous, malicious hatred of the Catholic belief” he is condemned to this punishment: first, they should tear off three strips of flesh*, they should chop off his hands so that the treacherous Jewish race could not be greedy for “Catholic blood”. His chopped off hands should be burned at the place of execution; he should be cut into four part under the gallows. Those parts and his head should immediately be nailed up “to scare the treacherous Jews, the ones who are spilling Catholic blood and are tyrants of Catholics. This has been demonstrated in all the documents and verdicts of the tribunal as well as in courts in different localities” All this must be done immediately. The execution is given over to the local office.

The martyr Yoshke ben Mordechai Bobower, the town Jew, exhaled his last breath in such an awful death.[100] The Jew who, with his superhuman “spiritual strength” joined the gallery of his fathers, the martyrs of the Crusades, of the Black Plague, the Spanish Inquisition and Gzires T"Kh [massacre of Jews by Cossacks, 1648, Chmielnicki].

We can assume that the fanatical local court that breathed hatred for the ”spillers of Catholic blood” was not satisfied with the three victims, the arendar, Yoshke, his daughter and son-in-law. The arendar's wife languished in prison. After all the torments, her husband cut into pieces by the hangman, she also died a violent death. In the records, according to the witness, she was the one along with her daughter, who incited her husband and son-in-law to commit this ritual murder.

*In the Latin original of the verdict this punishment was certainly written partly in Latin and partly in Polish: et eundem infidum Judaeum, tribus partibus discordiandum, alias trzy pasy udrzec
[Page 123]

Characteristic of the clerical intrigue behind this blood libel, as it was for many others in Poland at that time, is the fact that no body of a murdered child was ever found and no boy or adult was allegedly lost[101].

VII. Efforts to build a new shul [synagogue]

The community cemetery was located at the end of Krakow (later Piotra Skargi) Street down and across from the teper place [shop where pots are made-translator's note] at the potter's baszta [tower-Polish] Until the beginning of the Second World War there was a sign on the fence with the inscription: “The old besoylim [cemetery] Yoshon; warning! “Kohanim should not enter”.

The cemetery also served the surrounding derfer. On April 29, 1706 the city council, on order of the Sandzer court performed an inspection of the cemetery. They announced that at the cemetery they found 29 newly dug graves of Jewish children from different derfer and six of elderly Jews that were buried there. The councilman and the bailiff ordered that in the future, the Jews must report every death. The city put a lock on the gate of the cemetery and the keys to the lock were given for safekeeping to the mayor[102].

Since 1718, the kehile had tried to get a permit from the city council to expand the cemetery. The permit was issued the same year and certified 1736, but only on June 3, 1750 did it finally go into effect. Permission was issued after a meeting held in the town hall that included the mayor, councilmen, the bailiff, aldermen and the heads of the guilds. The kehile gave the city a gift of 26 ells [old measure of length: an obsolete English unit of length equal to about 1.14 m (45 in.), used mainly for measuring cloth] of silk for a city flag.[103]

Incomparably harder than the problem with the cemetery was the matter of the Sandzer shul. By the end of the 17th century, the wooden shul that for tens of years,[104] the Jews had had in the king's castle was already too crowded for the growing community. Therefore, at the end of the 1690's the kehile petitioned the city hall about a place for a new shul, not without payment, it appears. The city hall not only assigned the kehile a place for the shul between “Pakwiczowskie and Popowskie” streets on Shpitalne Street not far from the Krakow gate[105] where they could build a “vaulted brick shul”, but also supported the request from the kehile to the Sandzer administrator.

[Page 124]

The abbot of the church in Damice, Yazef Lubomirski also stood up for the Jews. In his letter of June 30, 1695 to the prelates of the Sandzer Collegiate, he demanded they not interfere with the Sandzer kehile in the building of a new shul.[106]

On February 3, 1699, in the Sandzer court, the Sandzer administrator and count of Wisznic and Jaroslaw, Jerzy Alexander Lubomirski, issued a special charter to the Jews in which he permitted them to build the shul on the indicated site and exempted the site from all taxes. The administrator referred to the king's charters for the Jews of Sandz that assured them of the same rights as the Jews in Checiny and Chelm. The Jews of Checiny and Chelm had vaulted brick shuls; therefore the Jews of Sandz had a right to build such a shul [107]

This charter by the Sandzer administrator was confirmed by all three Polish kings up to the last one: by August II in Warsaw on August 25, 1693 and in Warsaw on November 16 of the same year by August III and Stanislaw August Poniatowski [Stanislaw II August Poniatowski-editor] on September 24, 1765[108].

When The Sandzer kehile finally started to build the new brick shul on the assigned location, it appears that those privileges were not enough. The Sandzer Catholics did everything possible to prevent this building for the hated Jewish belief. The church and “other believing Christians” who dominated in Poland under the rights of the second Saxon king, August III, used the favorable circumstances for an offensive. In 1757, priests in Sandz called the kehile to a hearing before a Consistory Clerical court. Negotiations took place on June 27 under the chairmanship of Pashic of the Sandzer Collegiate, Gaspar de Versha Pashic:

In the name of the church, the prosecutor accused the kehile of such “sins” as: the Sandzer Jews do not respect the Catholic religion, neither their canonical rights nor the laws of the land and they even violate the edict of April 20, 1851 from the bishop of Cracow that was promulgated in all the churches in the Cracow diocese. They keep observant Catholics as servants; they openly conduct their “superstitious religious ceremonies”; they dishonor the holidays of the Holy Church; they conduct music and choruses on forbidden days, that is, during fast days; they wander around the town during processions; they get possession of Catholic building sites.

[Page 125]

Finally, the accusation came to the main point: the Jews were building a new shul without any legal foundation and they are also interfering with the rights of the Church and the Catholic belief in other ways. The prosecutor therefore, demanded that the Jews be fined to “prevent Jews from being audacious in the future”.

For the kehile, Marek (Mordechai) Dawidowicz, one of the elected heads of the kehile, spoke, defending it: the Jews do not employ Christian servants but have in their houses only Christians who live there; they never openly perform any religious ceremonies, except wedding and funerals, they never desecrated Catholic holidays and they never had music or choruses on forbidden days – just in their homes during a wedding. They never walk in town when there were celebrations or procession with Holy Sacraments and are very careful not to come upon the Holy Sacrament. They do not obtain and do not possess new Catholic sites in violation of the prohibition of the highest Catholic authority, the bishop. They do not erect any new shul, just a house or a school for the education of the youth, and a hospital for the weak elderly and the sick.

The accuser maintained that several of these statements amounted to the Jews' admission of some of the charges. In regard to the charges they were denying, he assigned priests from Lacko, Bogusza and Kamionka as commissars. The defendants agreed on these commissars and did not assign their own; they “only asked the court for consideration”. The custos [Latin: guardian; officer in charge of voting-tablets; formerly, the canon of a cathedral or collegiate church: New Catholic Dictionary – ed.] of the collegiate appointed as commissars three priests that the accuser had proposed. He authorized them not only to listen to witnesses but also to perform inspections of the Jewish building sites and houses and an inspection of the shul to determine if it was newly built. The commissars also got the right to continue with the proceedings without the presence of the defendants[109].

As it seems from the conclusion of the above protocol, the primary accusation on the part of the Church against the Sandzer Jews continued to be the subject of the building of the new shul. Of course, it did not help that the leader of the kehile depended entirely on the mercy of the Catholic court. The court committee of the three priests issued an opinion that was hostile to the shul's case. Only this explains why the Sandzer kehile turned with their request to the Cracow bishop, Kajetan Ignacy Soltik, to whose diocese the Sandzer church belonged. They used the occasion of his pastoral visit in Sandz.

The Sandzer Jews knew very well the kind of person the Cracow bishop was. This was the very same Soltik who, previously as bishop of Kiev staged the terrible blood libel trial in Zhitomir in 1753 where twelve innocent Jews were violently executed.

[Page 126]

The same bloody bishop, a proclaimed card player and squanderer of money had, according to the reports of the Danish ambassadors in Warsaw, fabricated his own blood libels and trials against witches in order to inherit the money of the convicted Jewish and Christian victims. Cardinal Ganganelli, [Lorenzo or Giovanni, Vincenzo Antonio Ganganelli (1769-1774): New Catholic Dictionary: - ed] later Pope Clement XIV had, in his expert opinion on the blood libels in Poland, explicitly labeled Bishop Soltik's report as undependable because, “in his words it showed his accursed greed for money”[110]. Still, the Sandzer Jews had no alternative in their case with the Sandzer Collegiate and had to turn to Bishop Soltik. Perhaps his insatiable gluttony for money encouraged them to take this step. Their request to the bishop was undoubtedly greased with a substantial amount of money, and the “argument” partly helped.

On September 20, 1763, the Cracow Bishop Kajetan Ignacy Soltik issued this decree: “The non-believers, the Jews from the city of Nie Sandz asked him to give them his permission that, since the old wooden shul was falling apart, they should be allowed to put up another one, a new wooden one on an appropriate place in the city. They also gave as a special reason that large amounts of capital are invested in the old shul. This means large loans for the kehile, for which they are paying taxes. The bishop took under consideration the fact that the non-believers, the Jews, enjoyed the tolerance of the government and the Holy Canons “with the idea that they might at some time return to Christianity and Christian life, especially those it owed taxes from the sums that are recorded for the shul: they would, without a doubt, suffer great losses if they lost their shul”.

The bishop did not rely solely on the text of the request. He went to the Sandz commissars and they determined that the Sandzer Jews had not violated the content of the laws. Therefore, the bishop agreed that in the course of 30 days the old wooden shul in the king's castle should be torn down. Also, the Jews should erect a new wooden shul on a site near the Cracow tower across from the Norberton Church. The conditions are: the shul should not be built too high or too wide; it should be 22 cubits [cubit: a measure of length (length of forearm), equivalent to 18 in. (about 0.45 m.)] and the width 18 cubits. The walls should be 8 cubits, the roof to reach a height of 11 cubits and the length of the entry hall to be 16 cubits and no more. The honorable Sandz treasurer was to supervise*.

*venerabilis Fisalis Sandecencis, the appraiser of the Consistory of the church in Sandz
[Page 127]

The bishop not only specified the measurements and height of the shul for the “non-believers” so that it would not be too impressive, G-d forbid, but also he wanted the Church to have a steady income from the new shul. Previously, the Jews in Sandz, just as the Jews in other towns in Poland, were obligated to pay the local priest a yearly assigned “tribute” that included money and an amount of spices. The excuse for this was that the Church suffered a loss when the Jewish houses and lots did not belong to Christians and therefore, it had to get continuing compensation. He included in the same charter the decision that “wherever Jews lived and multiplied in the cities, it would cause damage to the Believers and a substantial loss for the local parish. Therefore, the bishop felt that the Church had to get extra compensation for the new shul. When Jews took away places for the Christians they decreased income for the priest's stola* and for the parish. He ordered the “non-believers, the Jews” of the city, in addition to the tribute and spices, and in addition to the sum that they pay annually into the Sandz treasury on the basis of custom and agreement, every quarter they must also, forever, deliver to the Sandz Collegiate a stone** of melted tallow for the lamp by the Sacrament”.

The bishop also used this opportunity to revive and intensify in all dioceses, an edict that had been used against Jews in the Dark Ages when the Church in Poland interfered in matters of the Jewish religion:[111]

“So that our approval that is granted to the Jew, only out of tolerance, let the same non-believing Jew not later misconstrue, we are insisting on Canonical sanctions, decisions of the Synod and the laws of the government of Poland. We are banning and forbidding the following: Jews can no longer keep Catholic servants, wet nurses or midwives. They cannot sell their taverns or household utensils and other things to the believers at certain times, with the right to buy them back later, in accordance with their superstitions ***. They also may not employ Christians to serve them during their ceremonies in the synagogue ****, or use them to help in whatever crimes they commit.

* stola, bigde-kehune [clothing worn by Cohanim; here, priest's clothing]; as priest's clothing was known for baptismal ceremonies, etc.

**a weight-stone weighed 32 lbs.

***probably here, to sell the tavern for Shabos and maybe also the “shtar mekhire” [a bill of sale]

****the intention here is probably the use of a non-Jew to straighten out the “neshome-likht” [candle lit in memory of a departed soul] on Yom Kippur night
[Page 128]

They may not desecrate Sunday or other Holy Days by brewing beer, making whiskey, opening stores with merchandise for sale, arranging dances and other work during processions, especially during the procession of Corpus Christi* and during the time when the Holy Sacrament is taken to the sick. They must not show themselves in the market or outdoors, and their windows and doors should be shut. They should not celebrate their weddings in the open, and on the forbidden days, they should not keep Catholic guards at their cemeteries. In general, the Jews must observe the rules and canons, the decrees of the previous bishop and also the rules of the land. The treasurer from the Sandz Consistory is ordered to watch that the Jews obey precisely all these regulations. In case they violate any of the above points, they will be taken to court so that their audacity could be restrained, by force of law”.[112]

The edict of Bishop Soltik to the kehile in Sandz was not new in Poland. Since the Synod of the Church in Luck in 1726 decreed almost all of the above listed items against the Jews. Among them were some characteristic ones, such as a fee for the lamp in the church, a ban against the use of “goyim” [non-Jews] to light candles and put out lamps, the prohibition against conducting funerals during the day and against using Christian guards at the cemeteries, and so forth.[113] On the face of it, the bishop's permission to build a new shul was a big achievement for the Jews of Sandz. But the permit had no effect for many years because of the obstacles of the Catholic Church. It seems that the Church arranged for City Hall to oppose the kehile's plan to erect the shul on the given location. On June 29, 1765, the mayor and bailiff Andrzey Kulpowicz with councilmen Antoni Cybulski and Franciszek Lokejski brought a protest to the Sandzer court in the name of the City Hall on behalf of the government , for other burdens of the city against the Jews. Jews wanted to take over sites without the knowledge and approval of the city in order to erect “Bozhnitze” [a shul in Russia; a Jewish house of prayer].[114]

The first point of the protest from the city hall against the kehile had, it seems, a connection to the second point: the sites and buildings for the Jewish school were free of taxes to the king. Therefore, the city hall wanted to secure the city's finances against such loss if the Jews were to build the shul on a site that was formerly subject to taxation.

*Boze Cialo
[Page 129]

VIII. The fire of 1769 and the new attacks from the church

Not long afterwards, the church in Sandz found an opportunity to issue a complaint against the kehile. On April 23, 1760 at four o'clock a big fire erupted in the city. The fire started in Yudke's (Yidl) house that was near the Franciscan church, later the Evangelican. An entire area burned down with 40 Christian and 36 Jewish houses in the Jewish quarter together with a few buildings in the castle area. Among them, the old wooden shul was destroyed.[115] This was a huge catastrophe for the Sandzer Jewish population. According to a statement by the Hereditary Head of the Castle, Michal Wolski in the name of the city and the community, 294 Jewish families were so ruined that they were unable to pay the head tax, interest on borrowed money and other taxes.[116] The Collegiate of the Sandzer Church – with bitter irony – felt it necessary in this situation to enforce an attack on the kehile and demand compensation for the fire:

On July 28, 1769, before the Consistory, the representative of the Collegiate, the Clerical Deputy Judge Wojczech Mrozhinski, vicar of the village of Siedlce accused the “parneysim” [the elected heads of the community], Yudke (ben Shmuel) and Marek (Mordechai) Dawidowicz and the entire kehile. He made the following protest:

The Sandzer Jews, “who always did everything to ruin the Catholic people”, were able to advance themselves much more than they were allowed by the charters. They took up a large number of Catholic locations and built houses for themselves; and against the law built their houses close to the churches of the Franciscans and the Praemonstratenser (Norbertines) [community of priests and brothers who live according to the spirit of St. Norbert and St. Augustine]. It came out that the fire that broke out on April 23 of that year in Yudke, the non-believer's house, was very close to the Franciscan church. All of the Franciscan's buildings and even the Church of the Holy Ghost would have been burned down, if with great effort, they had not been saved. But the nearby Catholic house was burned down.

The representative of the Collegiate was not satisfied with such a subtle argument for casting the responsibility for the fire on the Jews. He came before the Consistory with a devilish accusation of Jewish systematic murder of innocent Christians. The Jews used pits to throw in bodies of murdered Christians. As “proof”: first, the Jews had no other reason for digging such pits than just to hide the victims of their crimes.

[Page 130]

Second, after the discovery of the pits, the townspeople began immediately to hack at them with metal axes and pulled out “some kind of bed sheet” that “was under a corpse there”. Third, the smell of the bodies that were unearthed was evident to a lot of passersby; fourth, as soon as the Jews noticed that people were rummaging in the pits, they did not allow Catholics to explore further, but hastily and very carefully covered up the pits so that they would not be noticed, the same as they used to do in similar cases. “This showed that they were aware that something had happened in these very graves”.

If such “evidence” was sufficient for the Church's judge Mrozhinski to accuse the Jews of mass murder,[117] it is no wonder that he had the audacity to end his protest with a claim that the Jews of Sandz tried hard to do all they could so that the entire Catholic population of the town would burn down in this fire. Here are his “facts”: At night, right after the fire broke out in the Jewish houses, the ropes in the wells used to draw water for the townspeople and also in those for the house of the Custos' of the Collegiate were cut into small pieces. A certain Jew who was seen by the servant of a certain townsman Rejtarowicz did this. He was seen running away from the well clad only in a shirt and with an axe in his hand. The representative of the Collegiate found it necessary to enter a protest about all of this so that “the people would be wary of the Jews. Jews could not then use their usual violence, child murder and other crimes to destroy Catholics”.[118]

Apart from the Church's protest, the Franciscans made a complaint to King Stanislaw August Poniatowski [King of Poland 1732-1798]: the Franciscan Church burned down because of the carelessness and disorder of the Jews. The king ruled that in the future Jews were forbidden to erect houses near the church building and that they had to pay the Franciscans appropriate compensation for all their losses. However, the impoverished Jews, as was reported by official witnesses were unable to fulfill the king's judgment about compensation.[119]

It did not take a year after the concentrated attack on the Sandz kehile by the Church and the Franciscans when a great political crisis in the history of Sandz took place: The city of Sandz and its surroundings were taken over by Queen Maria Teresa's troops.

[Page 131]

However, under the new regime, for a few more years, the Church continued its hate campaign against the Jews, mainly exerting great efforts to prevent the building of the new shul.


  1. See above, Jewish residents on the King's castle land. Return
  2. A. D. 131, p. 58 Return
  3. A. D. 574, p. 43-45 Return
  4. See further about the “opposition” to the kool [people of the community] under the leadership of Shimon ben Moyshe. Return
  5. See above, concerning the agreement of 1733 about head tax Return
  6. It is worthwhile to note, at early as this time the spelling was already “Tsantz” Return
  7. The signature was written with flourishes, it comes out like “Knen” but as early as this time, Jews in Poland did not use such a name. Return
  8. See above about arenda Return
  9. A. D. 141, p. 300 Return
  10. A. D. 141, p. 579; see further about this ruling in the same chapter. Return
  11. See further in the same chapter. Return
  12. See Footnote 9. Return
  13. See M. Balaban, Ustroj Kahalu w Polsce XVI-XVIII wieku. Kwartalnik poswiecony badaniu przeszlosci Zydow w Polsce, Rocznik 1, zesz. 2, p. 24. In Krakow there were 3 auditors, in Opatow- 5 and 5 in Zolkiew Return
  14. See above about the legal situation Return
  15. Synagogae Neosandecensis bedelli, alias szkolnik: A.D.132, p. 350 Return
  16. A.D. 128, p. 224-5 Return
  17. A.D. 133, p. 206, 213, 293-5 Return
  18. Ex instantia infedilis Synagoge Neosandecensis eiusque instigatoris portulani Cracoviensis; A. D. 137, p. 237 Return
  19. Compare M. Balaban op.cit. p. 36 Return
  20. Compare p. 210 in connection with Jewish occupations Return
  21. A. D. 137, p. 70-86; A. D. 134, p. 615-616 Return
  22. Compare the count in 1764 Return
  23. A. D. 132, p. 181-182 Return
  24. See R. Mahler, History of the Jews in Poland, [Hebrew] p. 399-402, 406; M. Balaban op. cit. p. 330 Return
  25. Jan Ptasnik, Miasta i Mieszczanstwo w dawnej Polsce. Wyd. 2gie, Warsawa, 1949, p.106 Return
  26. A. D. 141, p. 300 Return
  27. Although the parnes [one of the elected head of the community] signed as Yakub ben Yehuda, he was also a Polish official named Jozefowicz, perhaps because it sounded better in Polish than “Judahwicz” Return
  28. The names of the six Jews we listed above, in the same chapter. Return
  29. A. D. 141, p. 579-580 Return
  30. Castr. Crac. 290, p. 1128, 1137 Return
  31. See further about the kehile's debt in 1762 Return
  32. See above in the same chapter, about the organization of the kehile Return
  33. See above about arenda Return
  34. See above about the organization of the kehile Return
  35. Rel. Castr. Sandec. 76, p. 889-892, 2185-2188 Return
  36. Allegata ad Replicam ad Num. 3222 ex 1777; ad 12 um; see further in the chapter about the fight to build the shul Return
  37. See further in the same chapter; also compare above the case of the arendar from the dorf Palne that the city court puts him in prison for a debt on the complaint of his landowner Return
  38. A. D. 140, p.2 Return
  39. It appears that his is the same Shimon ben Moyshe who was “deputized by the simple people” in opposition to the kehile Return
  40. A. D. 138, p. 264-5 Return
  41. A. D. 138, 339-40, 485-500 Return
  42. A. D. 126, p. 1113 Return
  43. A. D. 132, p. 754-756, 760-761 Return
  44. A. D. 137, p.277 Return
  45. A. D. 138, p. 295-6 Return
  46. A. D. 138, p. 559 as previously noted Return
  47. A. D. 125, p. 1159 Return
  48. A. D.137, p. 607-608 Return
  49. A. D. 145, p. 527-8 as previously noted Return
  50. A. D. 132, p. 343 Return
  51. A. D. 132, p. 445, 447-8 Return
  52. A. D. 132, p. 408 Return
  53. A. D. 132, p. 505 Return
  54. A. D. 133, p. 206, 213, 293-5 Return
  55. A. D. 134, p. 433-4, 591-2, 579-600; A. D. 135, p. 3 Return
  56. A. D. 133, p. 396 as previously noted Return
  57. A. D. 133, p. 116, 119, 121 Return
  58. A. D.140, p.305 Return
  59. A. D.126, p. 1089-1090 Return
  60. A. D. 131, p. 211-212 Return
  61. A. D. 132, p. 277 Return
  62. A. D. 134, p. 63-64 Return
  63. A. D. 132, p. 279-280 Return
  64. A. D. 132, p. 441 Return
  65. Compare above, about commerce Return
  66. A. D. 575, p. 13-15 Return
  67. A. D. 134, p. 294-298, 302, 540-541; compare above about credit Return
  68. A. D. 134, p. 408 Return
  69. A. D. 138, p. 528, 540-541 Return
  70. A. D. 139, p. 205-206 Return
  71. A. D. 138, p. 670-671 Return
  72. A. D. 142, p. 432 Return
  73. A. D. 143, p. 502; compare above in chapter on commerce Return
  74. A. D. 146, p. 123-124, 189 Return
  75. A. D. 135, p. 523-4 Return
  76. A. D. 136, p. 899-907 Return
  77. [Page 133]

  78. Compare above, opposition to the kehile Return
  79. A. D. 126, p. 982 Return
  80. A. D. 136. p. 259-261 Return
  81. A. D. 127, p. 307-308 Return
  82. A. D. 440-447; A. D. 126, p. 653, 658 Return
  83. A. D. 133, p. 52-53 Mark Salamovicz was also mentioned in 1698 in a civil case about expenses for repairing a wall of a house: A. D. 132, p. 525 Return
  84. See later in the same chapter Return
  85. A. D. 131, p. 213, 218 Return
  86. A. D. 143, p.61-62, 107 Return
  87. A. D. 135, p. 223-227 Return
  88. A. D. 135, p. 438-439 Return
  89. A. D. 137, p. .284-286 Return
  90. A. D. 138, p. 360 Return
  91. A. D. 140, p. 296-299 Return
  92. A. D. 144, p. 240-241, 338 Return
  93. A. D. 131, p. 267 Return
  94. A. D.136, p. 627-628 Return
  95. About the zgule [remedy] of inserting a cooked egg in an ant hill: J. K. Haur, Sklad albo Skarbiec znakomitych sekretow o ekonomiey ziemianskiey, Krakow, 1693, p. 452-45; about the remedy of ash from bones compare Aleksander Bruckner, Dzieje Kultury Polsskiej, Tom 2, Warsaw, 1958, p. 509 Return
  96. About the history of blood libels in those times, see: R. Mahler, History of the Jews in Poland, [Hebrew], 1946, p.335-345 Return
  97. A. D. 141, p. 720-723 Return
  98. Compare above in chapter on the kehile Return
  99. The psakdin [verdict] a copy from 1777 is kept in the Schneider Collection: Teki Schneidera 1160, Ad. Num. 3222 ex Feb. Return
  100. As, for example, in the aliles-dam [blood accusation trial of Zhitomir (Jews from the dorf Ptaszkowa) in 1753 where one of the twelve men who was found guilty and his wife converted. Compare Sh. Dubnow , The History of the Eternal People, book 7, Tel-Aviv 1925-1929, p. 90 Return
  101. In a similar akhzoyresdik [atrocious] manner, the death sentence was carried out on the guilty Jews in the blood accusation of Zaslow jn 1747 in Zhitomir, 1753; compare Sh. Dubnow, op.cit, p. 87, 90 Return
  102. Syganski brings in his frightening story from Nowy Sacz (Przewodnik lit. Nauk. 1101, 189, p. 27) information on the basis of a letter from the priest Jezew Bentkowski of Augut 29, 1761, that on the 21st of April, 1761 that two Jews were beheaded for harming two Christians. It is assumed that this is not a different blood accusation than the blood libel on Yoski Bobower, but that the priest given wrong information about the daughter and the son-in-law of Yoski Bobower for whom the death sentence had been carried out before the one for Yoski himself Return
  103. A. D. 134, p.503-504 Return
  104. A. D. 141, p. 886-7 Return
  105. Bekhol-oyfn [in any case]the shul existed way before 1657: compare above, about Jews in the castle Return
  106. This is certainly the place on which the shul was later built and stood to the end of the Nazi occupation Return
  107. [Page 134]

  108. Syganski, Przewwodnik nauk. i lit. V. 27. p. 170 Return
  109. Ossolineum 9653/III, p. 301 Return
  110. Teka Schneidera 1160, Ad. Num. 3222 ex 1777 Return
  111. Teka Schneidera, l.c. Return
  112. See: R. Mahler, History of the Jews in Poland, 1946, p. 341-342 Return
  113. Compare the gzeyres [evil decree] of the bishop of Przemsyl against the Jews in Przemsyl in the same era as the reaction in 1743: M. Schorr, Zydzi w Przemsylu. P. 213-226, 1903, Lwow. Also compare the rules of the Synod in Luck in 1726: W. Smolenski. Stan i sprawa Zydow w Polesce w XVIII wieku, Warsaw 1876, P. 23 Return
  114. Teki Schneidera 1160, ad. Num. 3222 ex 1777 Return
  115. Compare W. Smolenski, op.cit. p. 23 Return
  116. Teki Schneidera, , l. c. Return
  117. Syganski, Nowy Sacz w epoce Wazow, Orzewodnik nauk. i lit. v. 27, p. 1001 Return
  118. Syganski above, p. 1002 Return
  119. Characteristic of the anti-Semitic temper toward Jews by the above-mentioned historian of the city of Sandz, the riest Jan Syganski, is his manner of telling about the blood libel against the two brothers. For him, the “evidence” presented by the priest Mrozinski was completely sufficient to saying that is connection with the fire, they actually uncovered Jewish mass murder of Christians. Compare J. Syganski op.cit. 1001 Return
  120. Teki Schneidera, l. c. Return
  121. Compare footnote 115, 117 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 Director, Lance Ackerfeld
This web page created by Max Heffler

Copyright © 1999-2023 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 17 Jun 2009 by LA