Scepter of Judah: The Jewish Autonomy in the Eighteenth-Century Crown Poland (Studia Judaeoslavica)

Scepter of Judah

Studia Judaeoslavica Edited by

Alexander Kulik (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Editorial Board

Israel Bartal, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Lazar Fleishman, Stanford University Heinz-Dietrich Löwe, University of Heidelberg Alexei Miller, Russian Academy of the Sciences/Central European University, Budapest Benjamin Nathans, University of Pennsylvania Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, Northwestern University Moshe Taube, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

VOLUME 2

Chais Center The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Scepter of Judah The Jewish Autonomy in the Eighteenth-Century Crown Poland

by

Judith Kalik

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kalik, Judith. Scepter of Judah. The Jewish autonomy in the eighteenth-century Crown Poland / By Judith Kalik. p. cm. — (Studia judaeoslavica ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16601-1 (hard cover : alk. paper) 1. Jews—Poland—History—18th century. 2. Jews—Poland—Politics and government. 3. Jews—Poland—Social conditions—18th century. 4. Jews— Government policy—Poland—History—Sources. 5. Taxation—Poland—Lists. 6. Poland—Politics and government—18th century. 7. Poland—Ethnic relations. I. Title. II. Series. DS134.54.K35 2009 323.1192’4043809033—dc22 2009020818

ISSN 1876-6153 ISBN 978 90 04 16601 1 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS List of Maps ............................................................................... Acknowledgments .......................................................................

vii ix

Introduction ................................................................................ Chapter One The Development of Jewish Autonomy .......... Chapter Two The Structure of Jewish Autonomy ................. Chapter Three Jewish Demography and Geography ............. Chapter Four The Administrative Structure of the Urban Jewish Population .................................................................... Chapter Five The Administrative Structure of the Rural Jewish Population .................................................................... Chapter Six The “Leaseholders’ Belt” .................................... Chapter Seven Jewish Political Leadership ............................. Chapter Eight A Case Study: The Jewish Subjects of Kazimierz Granowski, Voivode of Rawa .............................. Chapter Nine Conclusions ......................................................

1 9 23 39

137 147

Appendix One Tables to Chapter Two .................................. Appendix Two Maps to Chapter Two ....................................

153 357

Abbreviations .............................................................................. Bibliography ................................................................................ Index ...........................................................................................

375 377 383

49 77 97 109

LIST OF MAPS Maps 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The Płock Voivodeship ........................................................ The City of Lublin .............................................................. Lublin’s Rural Periphery ...................................................... Przemyśl ............................................................................... The W\grów Autonomous Major Community .................. Villages near Grabowiec and Hrubieszów .......................... The “Leaseholders’ Belt” .................................................... The Places of Residence of Jewish Elders in Crown Poland ................................................................................... 9. The Estates of Kazimierz Granowski .................................

47 74 75 76 95 96 108 135 146

Appendix Two: Maps to Chapter Two 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The Jewish Autonomy in Crown Poland ............................ Autonomous Major Community of Rzeszów .................... Autonomous Major Community of Tykocin ...................... Autonomous Major Community of W\grów ..................... Chełm-Bełz .......................................................................... Great Poland ........................................................................ Little Poland ......................................................................... Lublin ................................................................................... Ordynacja Zamoyska ........................................................... Podolia .................................................................................. Przemyśl and Samborszyzna ............................................... Ruś. Voivodeship of Ruś ..................................................... Ruś. Voivodeship of Bracław .............................................. Wolyń. Major Communities of Dubno, Kowel, Krzemieniec, Łuck, and Włodzimierz ................................ 15. Wolyń. Major Communities of Ostróg and Owrucz .........

359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am aware that the title of this book is controversial. Supporters of the so-called Jewish autonomist movement in Eastern Europe first used the term “Jewish autonomy” to describe Jewish governance in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth in the late nineteenth century. They did so as part of their quest for historical precedents. The institutions I am writing about were not, of course, autonomous in the modern sense; rather, they were a typical medieval administrative network dealing with a specific population group. Nonetheless, I prefer to retain the traditional terminology, since my approach to terminological controversies is instrumental, rather than ideological. The Jewish autonomist movement has itself become a part of Jewish history, and the term “Jewish autonomy” may as well be used, all the more so since no other adequate and all-inclusive term has ever been proposed. Whatever moniker we employ, it seems clear to me that as an example of self-government or self-rule, the Jewish autonomous administration of the period was severely hampered. This book is based on the most Polish of Polish sources—files dealing with the history of the mythical Polish cavalry. What do Polish Jews and the Polish cavalry have in common? The confounding answer to this question may be the reason that no Jewish historian has ever investigated these files, even though they are readily accessible in Warsaw. The unexpected connection between such seemingly disparate constituencies underlines how intimately interwoven Polish and Jewish histories actually are. The forty-seven files, preserved in the Military Treasury Section (ASW) of the Central Archives for Ancient Acts (AGAD) at Warsaw, provide invaluable insights into the history of Polish Jewry. The same files also contribute to our understanding of the Polish cavalry’s history. In other words, “There is no Polish history without the Jews, and there is no Jewish history without Poland,” as Jacob Goldberg has so often stated. Because of the sheer volume of material involved, researching this archival material required much time and painstaking effort. Invaluable to this endeavor was the time I spent in Poland during the 2003–2004 academic year. This was made possible through the generous support

x

acknowledgments

of my husband, Alexander Uchitel, who contributed his sabbatical year to my research, and for whose assistance I am deeply grateful. I am indebted to the Yad HaNadiv Foundation, which provided the grant for a 1998 research trip to Poland, during which I discovered the archival material that serves as the basis of this book. I am also grateful to the Center for Research on the History and Culture of Polish Jews at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which financed the copying of some of the original documents. The preparation of this manuscript, including the arrangement of numerous tables, the drawing of maps, and the final editorial work, was made possible thanks to a biannual scholarship grant from the Leonid Nevzlin Research Center for Russian and East European Jewry, during the academic years of 2005–2006 and 2006–2007. I thank all of the institutions mentioned above in the spirit of the old Jewish maxim (m. Avot 3:17): im ein kemakh, ein Torah (without flour, there is no Torah). I am much indebted to Israel Bartal for his continued support and interest in my work, for his invaluable advice, and for the many conversations we have shared. I am deeply grateful to my teacher, Jacob Goldberg, who read the manuscript at various stages of its development and dedicated much time and energy to its improvement. It grieves me that the late Jonathan Frankel will not be able to see this book published—a book that would not have come to completion without his continuous help and encouragement throughout my academic career from its earliest days. Shaul Stampfer assisted me in word and deed, reading sections of this work and offering instructive remarks. All the ideas and any errors are, of course, my own. Some of the preliminary results of this work were presented at colloquia organized by the Żydowski Instytut Historyczny ( Jewish Historical Institute) in Warsaw and by the Centre for Studies of the Culture and History of East European Jews in Vilnius. I would like to thank my colleagues Jürgen Hensel and Jurgita Verbickiene for providing the stage for a very fruitful discussion. I am especially grateful to the late John Klier, who expressed genuine interest in my work during the Vilnius colloquium. It is my pleasure to thank my friend Tamar Duke-Cohan for her efforts in editing this work. The devoted workers of AGAD at Warsaw were most helpful and efficient, contributing to the successful accomplishment of my research. Last but not least, I thank my beloved children—Leah, Esther,

acknowledgments

xi

Ephraim, and Raya—for their support and forbearance during the writing process. Judith Kalik Jerusalem 16 Cheshvan 5768

INTRODUCTION Polish-Lithuanian Jewry was the center of the early modern Jewish world, and the most outstanding symbol of its glory was the famous Jewish autonomy. The prominent Jewish historian Shmuel Ettinger begins his article about the Council of Four Lands1 with a quotation from the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 5a). In it, the biblical verse “this scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gen 49:10) is interpreted as a reference to the autonomous Jewish self-government in contemporary Babylonia. Never since Sassanid Babylonia has the Jewish Diaspora succeeded in achieving such an advanced level of autonomous self-government as it did in prepartition Poland-Lithuania. Jewish autonomy in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth was unique among contemporary Jewish representative bodies in its scope, complexity, and duration. It affected all aspects of life from taxation to education, functioning at the communal, regional, and national levels for some two centuries.2 The Council of Four Lands and other Jewish autonomous institutions in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth have been heavily researched. Scholars have been especially interested in the councils’ internal regulatory efforts in the areas of trade, crafts, leaseholds, charity, religious educational institutions ( yeshivot), Jewish book printing, the Jewish judicial system, and so forth. The prosopography of the Jewish autonomous leadership has also proved to be a fruitful field of study. Additionally, scholars have devoted some attention to the members of the councils, the family connections of those members, the places where they gathered, the electoral procedures employed in their selection, and other related topics. The external connections of the Council of Four Lands with the Polish political establishment and Jewish communities outside Poland have likewise been the focus of much study. Finally, attention 1 S. Ettinger, “Sejm Czterech Ziem,” in Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. LinkLenczowski and T. Polański (Wrocław, 1991), 34; also in Hebrew: “Va ad Arba Aratsot,” in S. Ettinger, Bein Polin LeRusya, ed. I. Bartal and J. Frankel ( Jerusalem, 1994), 1:1–74. 2 See the comparative studies of H. H. Ben-Sasson, “Va adei HaAratsot SheBeMizrakh Eiropa,” in Retsef VeTmura (Tel Aviv, 1984), 239–257; and M. Rosman, “Samkhuto shel Va’ad Arba’ Aratsot MeKhuts LePolin,” Bar-Ilan, Sefer HaShana shel Universitat Bar-Ilan 24/25 (1989): 11–30.

2

introduction

has also been devoted to comparative studies of Jewish autonomous institutions vis-à-vis the Polish political system.3 Despite these research efforts, some core questions, including the organizational structure of Jewish autonomy both vertically (that is, according its hierarchical levels) and horizontally (according to its geographical composition), have received little consideration. Advancing scholarship has also left lacunae in our understanding of the structure of Jewish autonomous leadership and of relations between various of its institutions, especially between urban communities and their rural peripheries (svivot). These gaps in knowledge result from a disparity between intense scholarly interest, on the one hand, and a scarcity of source material on the other. As a young student of the history of Polish Jewry, I became aware of how little information about Jewish autonomy was available. The minutes (Heb. pinkasim) of the Council of Four Lands have been lost, as have most of the records of the regional councils (Heb. va ad galil). Halperin collected the remaining documentation related to the Council of Four Lands,4 and found that more or less complete records of only three local constituent councils have survived5 (Cracow,6 3 The most important studies on this subject are M. Schorr, “Organizacja Żydów w dawnej Polsce (od najdawniejszych czasów aż do r. 1772),” Kwartalnik Historyczny 13 (1899): 482–550, 734–775; . , “           ,”   , . 11 (Moscow, 1914), 161–184; I. Schiper, “Der tsusamenshtel funem Va ad Arba Aratsot,” Historishe Shriften fun YIVO, ed. Tscherikower (Warsaw, 1929), 1:73–74; idem, “Wewn\trzna organizacja Żydów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej,” in Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej, ed. I. Schiper, A. Tartakower, and A. Hafftka (Warsaw, 1932), 1:81–109; S. Ettinger, “Sejm Czterech Ziem” (see n. 1, above), 34–43 (also in Hebrew: “Va ad Arba Aratsot,” 1:174–185); J. Goldberg, “Żydowski Sejm Czterech Ziem w społecznym i politycznym ustroju dawnej Rzeczypospolitej,” in Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (1991), 44–58 (also in English: “The Jewish Sejm: Its Origins and Functions,” in The Jews in Old Poland 1000–1795, ed. A. Polonsky [London, 1993], 147–165; and in Hebrew: “Va ad Arba Aratsot BaMishtar HaMedini VeHaKhevrati shel Mamlekhet Polin-Lita,” in J. Goldberg, HaKhevra HaYehudit BeMamlekhet Polin-Lita [ Jerusalem, 1999], 125–142); A. Leszczyński, Sejm Żydów Korony 1623–1764 (Warsaw, 1994). 4 Pinkas Va ad Arba Aratsot, ed. I. Halperin ( Jerusalem, 1945; new ed., rev. and ed. I. Bartal, Jerusalem, 1990). 5 Cracow, Poznań, and Tykocin are singled out here because of their special position as independent constituent councils in the framework of Jewish autonomy. For the definition of the constituent councils, see ch. 2, below. Of course, several communal minute books and their fragments have survived as well (such as Boćki, Dubno, Leszno, Zabłudów, etc.), but they have no bearing on the subject of the Jewish autonomy. 6 I. M. Zunz, Ir HaTsedek: Toldot Rabanei Kraka VeHaKehila BeShanim 5260–5616 (Lwów, 1874); P. H. Wetstein, “Divrei Khefets MeFinkasei HaKahal BeKraka,” HaMe’asef (1902): 7–78; idem, Dvarim Atikim MeFinkasei HaKahal BeKraka LeKorot Israel VeKhakhamav . . .

introduction

3

Poznań,7 and Tykocin).8 The only systematic record—the census of the Jewish population in Crown Poland from 1764/65—is of little help in analyzing the Jewish autonomous administration, because it reflects the Polish administrative system, based upon voivodeships and districts. Since the original manuscript has been lost, we are in any case reduced to depending on those sections that were published when the document was still available.9 The Council of Four Lands was created around 1580–1581 mainly for the purpose of collecting the Jewish poll tax (pogłówne żydowskie). Thus, the only documents that directly reflect the structure of Jewish autonomy are assessment lists compiled for this tax. Only a few of these are believed to have survived.10 The widely utilized map of Jewish

BePolania Bikhlal UVeKraka Bifrat (Cracow, 1900); idem, MeFinkasei HaKahal BeKraka LeKorot Israel VeKhakhamav (Breslau, 1901); idem, “Kadmoniyot MeFinkasa’ot Yeshanim LeKorot Israel BePolin BiKhlal UVe-Kraka BiFrat,” in Otsar HaSafrut 4 (1892); M. Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu, 1304–1868, 2 vols. (Cracow, 1931–1936); also in Hebrew: Toldot HaYehudim BeKraków UVeKazimierz, 1304–1868, ed. J. Goldberg ( Jerusalem, 2002). 7 Pinkas Hekhsherim shel Kehilat Pozna (5381–5595), ed. D. Evron ( Jerusalem, 1967); Sefer HaZikhronot (Minutes), Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem, PL/PO 1a, PL 533(13). 8 Pinkas Kahal Tiktin 5381–5566: Haskamot, Hakhlatot VeTakanot kfi SheHa atikan min HaPinkas HaMekori Israel Halperin, ed. M. Nadav, 2 vols. ( Jerusalem, 1997–2000). 9 A compilation of all published data from the census may be found in S. Stampfer, “The 1764 Census of Polish Jewry,” Bar-Ilan, Annual of Bar-Ilan University: Studies in Judaica and the Humanities (Studies in the History and Culture of East European Jewry, ed. G. Bacon and M. Rosman) 24/25 (1989): 59–147. 10 Lists of the Jewish poll tax assessment for 1706–1711 are held in the Czartoryski library at Cracow (MS 2666), and copies are kept in the archive of Aaron (Arthur) Eisenbach at the Institute for the Research of Diaspora at Tel Aviv University (microfilm No. 735). Lists of the Jewish poll tax assessment for 1735, 1737, and 1756 have also survived in the Czartoryski library in Cracow. See Pinkas Va ad Arba Aratsot (n. 2, above), 271–272, 506–509, 514. The data for 1717–1718 that is also recorded there is wrong. The Jewish poll tax assessment for 1764 was printed in 1763 by the Polish treasury under the heading Dyspartyment pogłównego żydowskiego ordynaryinego na Seymie Anni 1717. One copy of this publication is found in the Jagellonian library at Cracow; see Mag. St. DrIII, 392787. For a critical edition, see J. Muszyńska, “Dyspartyment pogłównego żydowskiego w Koronie w 1717 roku,” Czasy Nowożytne 5 (1998): 121–131. The title is misleading, since only 1717 appears in the heading, but the tax assessment itself is for 1764. On p. 124, fifteen towns of the district of Przemyśl are omitted, and the rest of the towns of this district are annexed to the community of W\grów. Several such lists also survived in the library of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences. Copies of those lists are also held by the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People in Jerusalem; see HM 476-477, HM 2/8111.2. Data for Podolia found there was used in B. Lukin, “ .      ,” Cahiers du monde Russe 41/4 (2000): 451–494.

4

introduction

autonomy in Crown Poland that Halperin reconstructed is based mainly upon these surviving lists.11 Because of the limited scope of the extant sources, researchers have endeavored to broaden the narrow basis of our knowledge of Jewish autonomy in Crown Poland. Some scholars tried to draw upon fragmentary information found in inventories of private estates, lustrations of royal estates, and municipal tax records.12 Because of the obvious connection between Jewish autonomy and the Jewish poll tax, scholars also searched for evidence in the archives of the Crown Treasury. Some interesting documents were indeed found there, but all in all, the results have been disappointing. The assumption that most sources were probably destroyed when the Treasury burned down during World War II limited the scope and ambition of further searches. Expectations of success are in any case limited, because Schiper, who pioneered these efforts before the conflagration, unearthed but little information.13 In 1995,14 I began to focus on the crucial connection between the Polish military and the Jewish poll tax, which from its genesis was intended mainly to benefit the army. The fiscal reform of 1717, during which a separate military treasury was formed and military tax collectors began to collect the Jewish poll tax independently, seemed particularly important to me.15 It suggested that it might be possible to expand our understanding of Jewish autonomy by studying military tax collection records. Thus came the discovery of the entire corpus of Jewish poll tax lists in the Central Archives for Ancient Acts (AGAD) at Warsaw. During a research trip to Poland in 1998, I began to investigate the records of the military treasury of the AGAD. To my astonishment, I

I. Halperin, Beit Israel be-Polin ( Jerusalem, 1948), 1:100–101. For such attempts see Z. Guldon and N. Krikun, “Żródła i metody szacunków liczebności ludności żydowskiej w Polsce w XVI–XVIII wieku\,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 34 (1986): 249–263; Z. Guldon and K. Krzystanek, Ludność żydowska w miastach lewobrzeΩnej cz\ści województwa sandomierskiego w XVI–XVIII wieku (Kielce, 1990); idem, Żydzi i Szkoci w Polsce w XVII–XVIII wieku (Kielce, 1990); Z. Guldon, “Osadnictwo żydowskie i liczebność Żydów na ziemiach Pzeczypospolitej w okresie przedrozbiorowym,” Czasy Nowożytne 4 (1998): 23–36; S. Stampfer, “Gidul HaOkhlusiya VeHagira BeYahadut Polin-Lita Be Et HeKhadasha,” Kiyum VaShever, Yehudei Polin LeDoroteihem, ed. I. Bartal and I. Gutman ( Jerusalem, 1997), 1:265–285. 13 See I. Schiper, “Poilishe regestn tsu der geshikhte funem Va’ad Arba’ Aratsot,” Historishe Shriftn 1 (1929): 85–113. 14 In a lecture entitled “The Financial Basis of the Jewish Autonomy,” presented at the Third International Conference on Polish Jewry (“Between Slavery and Freedom— The Jewish Communities in Eastern Europe”) at Tel Aviv University. 15 See in more detail ch. 1, below. 11 12

introduction

5

found that complete lists of the Jewish poll tax assessments in Crown Poland from 1717 to 1764 are available.16 This discovery was announced in a lecture entitled “Jews and Peasants in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th–18th Centuries,” presented at the World Congress of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2001; the preliminary results of my research were published in Zion in 2004.17 The present study constitutes a broadening of this analytical effort. While it is surprising that these lists have survived despite adverse historical circumstances, it is even more surprising that neither military nor Jewish historians had previously discovered them. The reason for this neglect may lie both in the assumption of Jewish historians that there is nothing relevant to their research in Polish military archives, and in the lack of interest of Polish military historians in the “Jewish” section of these archives. The files of the military treasury comprise three separate groups of annual lists: (1) lists of peasants under the heading “Quarterly tribute” (Delata kwarciana); (2) lists of Jewish poll tax assessments under the heading “Assessment of the general Jewish poll tax delivered from the Crown Treasury to the Quarter Treasury” (Dyspartyment pogłównego żydowskiego ordynaryjnego od skarbu koronnego skarbowi kwarcianemu podany); and (3) the same lists under the same headings, but supplemented with the names of the cavalry units that collected the Jewish poll tax money from each Jewish community. The names of the officers who commanded these cavalry units are included in these lists. The first group of documents consists of lists of villages and rural estates, providing a unique account of eighteenth-century royal estates in Crown Poland. The third group of lists supplies us with a complete picture of the Polish cavalry, which in its level of detail far surpasses Bronisław Gembarzewski’s standard reference.18 The first group of lists is arranged according to the Polish administrative system, its fiscal unit being the voivodeship (województwo) or the district (ziemia). The arrangement of the second and third groups of lists is different. Although the fiscal unit is also termed województwo, it reflects 16 AGAD, Archiwum Skarbu Wojskowego (ASW), dz. 84, syg. 6–54. The year 1756 is missing, but full records for this year have survived in the Czartoryski library at Cracow, MS No. 1079. 17 J. Kalik, “HaOtsar HaAvud: Reshimot Mas HaGulgolet HaYehudi BaMea Ha-18 SheBeArkhiyon HaTsava HaPolani,” Zion 69 (2004): 329–356. 18 B. Gembarzewski, Rodowody pułków polskich i oddziałów równorz\dnych od r. 1717 do r. 1831 (Warsaw, 1925; London, 1948).

6

introduction

the Jewish autonomous administration and corresponds to the Jewish administrative unit known as the galil. Thus, for example, the unit called “the voivodeship of Poznań and Kalisz” (województwo poznańskie i kaliskie) in fact corresponded to the Jewish galil of Great Poland, which, however, consisted not only of these two Polish voivodeships, but also included nine more voivodeships and four districts of yet another voivodeship. The unit called the voivodeship of Ruś (województwo ruskie), which in fact corresponded to the Jewish galil of Ruś, consisted of three tracts of land without territorial continuity. In the first group of lists, towns are denoted with a capital M for miasto or miasteczko and villages with a capital W for wieś. It is clear that these lists are based upon the Hebrew originals that the Jewish councils submitted. In many cases, even the Hebrew alphabetic order has been preserved! Individual taxpayers are also sometimes named. Jewish merchants and craftsmen are to be found among them, but the overwhelming majority are leaseholders (arendarze). Marginal notations from the quills of Polish and Jewish officials (some in Hebrew) can occasionally be found. Thus, for example, the poll tax of the small town of Wierzbowiec in Podolia was reduced in half (from 324 to 160 złoty) in 1761 because “it was destroyed by Hajdamaks to its very foundations.”19 Additional knowledge can be garnered from numerous supplementary letters, penned by Polish and Jewish officials in Polish, Hebrew, and Yiddish. Military tax collectors, complaining of the difficulties they faced in the course of their duties, wrote many of these letters. Thus, for example, the tax collector Pokutyński tells the grand treasurer in his letter of July 23, 1736, that when he came to collect the Jewish poll tax in Baligród, all the Jewish inhabitants of the town fled to the woods, and many Jews jumped into the river. He adds that he “had never previously come across Jews so lacking a sense of honor such as these.”20 The historical value of these lists is inestimable. Even leaving aside the unique contribution that these documents make to the study of the history of Polish peasantry and the Polish military, which remain outside the scope of this work, their significance for our understanding

19 “które przez Hajdamaków zrujnowane jest in fundamento.” AGAD, ASW, dz. 84, syg. 51, p. 236. 20 Ibid., syg. 26, pp. 144–146.

introduction

7

of Jewish history is manifold. They provide a significant correction to Israel Halperin’s map of Jewish autonomy.21 They shine a new light on Jewish settlement in eighteenth-century Crown Poland, including relations between major communities and their periphery. They also contribute new information about communal and super-communal Jewish political leadership, the administrative and occupational structure of the Jewish urban and rural populations, and ties of dependency between Polish magnates and Jews. In all these areas, the new sources supply a diachronic dimension, about half a century in duration, to administrative data about the Jewish population in Crown Poland. The first aim of this work is to publish the aforementioned lists. The format in which they appear here requires some elucidation. There seemed to be little point in publishing the raw material, since sources of this kind consist of almost identical lists of place names with columns of numbers. The value of the lists lies in the possibilities that comparisons between them afford. Tabulation, rather than a consecutive listing, allows for such comparisons to be made. Because of the format I selected, the tables do not include the names of individual taxpayers or their villages, and, of course, all the letters and other supplementary documents have also been omitted. Non-Jewish materials concerning the cavalry squadrons and royal rural estates are also left aside for now. A series of maps supplements the tables; every place-name appearing in the tables can be located on a map. All place-names in tables and on maps are given in the historical forms used in the prepartition age, regardless of their present-day political affiliation. In the text, however, conventional English place-names have been employed (e.g., Warsaw, Cracow, Kiev). This means that places in modern Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova appear under their Polish names, but German and Ukrainian (e.g., Lisko instead of Lesko) names of some places in modern Poland are also preserved. When these place-names are mentioned in the text, in most cases their modern official names are also indicated in parentheses. The following chapters serve as an introduction to and analysis of the sources, focusing on the institutions of Jewish autonomy. Chapter 1 deals with the development of Jewish autonomy, and it explains the

21 I. Halperin, Beit Israel BePolin (n. 11, above), 1:100–101. The only correct description of Jewish autonomy in Poland is found in R. Mahler, Toldot HaYehudim BePolin (Merkhaviya, 1946), 91–392, which unfortunately does not cite its sources.

8

introduction

connection between the Polish military and the Jewish poll tax. This discussion sheds light on why these lists are to be found in the military archives. Chapter 2, along with the tables and maps contained in supplements 1 and 2, constitutes a reconstruction of the full geographical composition of Jewish autonomy in Crown Poland in 1717–1764. A systematic comparison of the census of the Jewish population of Crown Poland in 1764/65 with the information found in the poll tax lists follows in chapter 3. In chapters 4 and 5 I discuss the administrative structure of Jewish urban and rural populations. The reason for this discussion deserves some explanation. The study of Jewish communal organization is well established. The focus, however, has previously always rested on the internal structure of Jewish communities. Here, for the first time, Jewish communities are considered the elementary units in the administrative system of Jewish autonomy. This shift in perspective reveals unexpected features in the structure of Jewish urban communities. It also serves to establish the role of the Jewish rural population in the framework of Jewish autonomous administration. As mentioned above, most of the material on individual taxpayers remains outside the scope of the current work. Individual leaseholders are only discussed in the context of the “leaseholders’ belt,” which is defined and discussed in chapter 6. The structure of Jewish political leadership is treated in chapter 7, since it directly reflected the configuration of Jewish autonomy. This structure provides the only tool for distinguishing exterritorial urban communities, autonomous major communities, and regional councils, as well as identifying major communities inside the regional councils. Chapter 8’s case study of several lists of the Jewish subjects of Kazimierz Granowski, voivode of Rawa, concludes this work. It throws some light on the complex interconnection of three simultaneously coexisting administrative networks: Jewish autonomy, the Polish State, and magnatic private administration. I hope that this work will be followed by other monographs that address Jewish autonomy at the regional level, and that the sources cited here will prove helpful to other scholars.

CHAPTER ONE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF JEWISH AUTONOMY Three parallel historical processes contributed to the formation of Jewish autonomy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Two were integral to the development of the Polish-Lithuanian state, and the third was internal to the Jewish community. The first process was a by-product of the fiscal reforms that the commonwealth underwent, starting in the early sixteenth century. The purpose of the reforms was to provide a steady source of income for the growing number of military units that were engaged in a seemingly endless series of wars. During this time, the character of the Polish military underwent significant alterations due to the so-called gunpowder revolution and the gradual decline of the traditional knights’ militia. Such changes were taking place throughout Europe during early modern times, but in Poland they met with relatively little success. The second, simultaneous process was specifically Polish and was connected with the gradual transformation of the Polish state from a kingdom to a “republic of nobles.” This process contrasted with the trend toward centralization in other European areas during this period. A pivotal result was the transfer of many important state authorities and functions from the king to the Diet. As a result, Jews were no longer servi camerae but were subject to the private authority of magnates. Immigration and a demographic leap continually swelled Jewish numbers—a process that transformed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into the host of the largest Jewish community in the world. Complex communal structures naturally developed to support this large population. King Alexander the Jagellonian first launched fiscal reforms in 1503.1 The growing demands of the nobility, which their representatives loudly declaimed in the Diet and dietines even before the age of the “elected monarchy,” served as the impetus for these reforms. The nobles demanded that the royal and public treasuries be separated and that 1 J. Rutkowski, “Skarbowoćś polska za Aleksandra Jagiełłończyka,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 23 (1909): 30–31; W. Pałucki, Drogi i bezdroża skarbowości polskiej XVI i pierwsze połowy XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1974), 22–25.

10

chapter one

the onus of military expenditure be placed upon the king. The nature of these reforms can only be understood when considering the limited effectiveness of royal and public tax collection due to the rudimentary state apparatus of the age. For this reason, collection of the Jewish poll tax was often leased to tax farmers. The natural candidates to fulfill this function were existing Jewish leaseholders, who since the Middle Ages had been in the practice of leasing customs, royal estates, and various royal monopolies. These men were generally wealthy Jewish bankers, who maintained close ties with the royal court. The steady growth of the Jewish population further rendered the communal tax-collection system increasingly inadequate. Faced with this reality, in 1503 the authorities in some parts of the commonwealth handed responsibility for Jewish poll tax collection to Jewish “general tax collectors.”2 In this year, for example, Moses Fiszel, an important Jewish banker from Cracow, paid Jacób Szydlowski, the treasurer, 300 florins to be appointed the general tax collector for all of Great Poland. Such general tax collectors were also to be found in the voivodeship of Ruś in 1505, but their names are not specified.3 After the ascent of Zygmunt I to the throne in 1506, the need for financing grew steadily, due to his campaigns against Muscovy, the Tatars, Moldova, and the Teutonic knights. This king tried to introduce centralized financing for the noble militia ( pospolite ruszenie).4 For the purposes of taxation, the commonwealth was therefore divided in 1509 into five fiscal districts. In 1511–1514, the king appointed Jewish general tax collectors for all parts of his kingdom: Abraham the Czech, a former banker to Emperor Maximilian I, was appointed to collect taxes in Mazowia and Great Poland; Ephraim Fiszel, son of Moses Fiszel, 2 Rutkowski claims that the first Jewish “general tax-collector” was appointed in 1503 (ibid.), but according to R. Mahler (Toldot HaYehudim BePolin [Merkhaviya, 1946], 189–190) Moses Fiszel received this appointment already in 1499. Though Mahler does not disclose his sources, it is possible that he is right, since the general poll tax was introduced first in 1498 (see S. Weyman, “Pierwsze ustawy poglównego generalnego w Polsce (rok 1498, 1520) na tle ówczesnego systemu podatkowego,” Roczniki Dziejów Społecznych i Gospodarczych 19 [1957]: 5–15). Unlike the rest of the population, Jews together with Tatars and Gypsies had paid this tax even before this reform, since the Middle Ages; see J. Kleczyński, “Pogłówne generalne w Polsce i oparte na niem popisy ludności,” Akademja Umiej\Atności w Krakowie: Rozpraw Wydziału historyczno-filozoficznego 30 (1893): 1–3. 3 Liber Quitantiarum Alexandri Regis ab a. 1502 ad 1506, in Teki A. Pawińskiego (Warsaw, 1897), 1:55, 105, 146–147, 220. 4 A. Wyczański, “Z dziejów reform skarbowo-wojskowych za Zygmunta I. Proby relucji pospolitego ruszenia,” PrzeglAd Historyczny 43 (1952): 23–47.

the development of jewish autonomy

11

was appointed over Little Poland and Ruś; and Michael Józefowicz, a customs leaseholder, was appointed over Lithuania.5 In 1512 the king issued a special order regulating tax collection activities. This order called for the concurrent appointment of a general tax collector and a chief rabbi for each region. The chief rabbi’s intended role was to exert pressure on the taxpaying Jewish populace by excommunicating those who refused to pay. In fact, Alexander Jagellonian had already appointed a chief rabbi in Cracow by 1503,6 in all probability in the framework of the aforementioned fiscal reform. This combination of fiscal and rabbinical authority continued to characterize Jewish autonomy in all stages of its existence, from this embryonic start to its dissolution in 1764. From the start, family ties bound fiscal and rabbinical functionaries together. The first appointed chief rabbi of Cracow, for example, was Jacob Polak, the son-in-law of the aforementioned Moses Fiszel. The system of general tax collectors failed for several reasons. Collecting the poll tax per capita proved ineffective, and when big Jewish communities tried to overtax smaller ones, they met with resistance and calls for fiscal independence. In 1519 the king dismissed the general tax collectors and turned the responsibility for tax collection over to the communities themselves. In that year, representatives of the small communities in Great Poland assembled in Włocławek and established the first Jewish regional council, independent from the larger Jewish communities of the Poznań and Kalisz.7 In 1520 a fixed-amount poll tax was established for the first time at 3,000 złoty for all Crown Jews.8 By 1522, tax collecting regional councils (va adei galil) were also created in Little Poland, Chełm-Bełz, and Ruś-Podolia.9 This was the real genesis of the Council of Four Lands. From that time and until the eventual dissolution of Jewish autonomy in 1764, repeated demands for a return to a system of per capita poll tax collection were raised in the Diet and 5 This information is repeated in many sources; see, for example, R. Mahler, Toldot HaYehudim (n. 2, above). 6 M. Bałaban, Toldot HaYehudim BeKraków UveKazimierz, 1304–1868, ed. J. Goldberg ( Jerusalem, 1993), 1:88 n. 4. 7 M. Bałaban, Historia i literatura żydowska ze szczególnym uwzgl\dnieniem historii Żydów w Polsce (Lwów-Warsaw-Cracow, 1925), 3:149–156; J. Perles, “Die Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 13 (1864): 365. 8 J. Kleczyński, “Pogłówne generalne w Polsce” (n. 2, above), 4. 9 . , “           ,”   , . 11 (Moscow, 1914), 161–184; R. Mahler, Toldot HaYehudim (n. 2, above).

12

chapter one

dietines. The local dietines were especially vocal in such demands, which reflected the power struggles between the Diet and the dietines. The latter claimed that, unlike the Diet, they already had an effective tax collection apparatus in situ, and that the introduction of a fixedamount system unjustly deprived them of a steady source of income.10 Jews also deliberated over the proper method of tax collection. The fixed-amount system was generally preferred, since it allowed for richer members of the community to be amerced at a higher rate than their poorer brethren. The noted halakhic scholar Rabbi Joseph Kats, for example, expressed his preference for this sort of progressive taxation in his book Shearit Yosef, published in the late sixteenth century.11 In the mid-sixteenth century, the fixed-amount Jewish poll tax was abolished and a system of per capita collection reintroduced. In 1549, a royal edict of Zygmunt August decreed Jewish poll tax to be one złoty per capita and directed that it be used for the defense of the realm against the Tatars.12 In 1563, a resolution of the Diet confirmed this amount.13 There is some uncertainty about the date when the Council of Four Lands was first founded. It is commonly placed in 1580/81, but several scholars have suggested that it could have been established as early as 1549 or 1563.14 Whatever the truth of the matter, there seems to be no basis for claims that the fixed Jewish poll tax was first mentioned in 1549. In 1563 the last of the Jagellonians, Zygmunt August, decided to allocate a quarter of his tax revenues to the army and created a special treasury at Rawa (skarb rawski kwarczany) for this purpose.15 A Diet order transferred responsibility for the Jewish poll tax to this treasury. This edict has sometimes been erroneously interpreted as the order to establish the Council of Four Lands. Zygmunt August had envisioned

10 See J. Kalik, HaAtsula HaPolanit WeHaYehudim BeMamlekhet Polin-Lita BeRei HaTkhika Bat HaZman ( Jerusalem, 1997), 25–36. 11 N. E. Shulman, Authority and Community: Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1986), 57–63. 12 C. A. , - .        ,  3 (C.-, 1903), No. 152. 13 Volumina legum, vol. II/1, pp. 114, 149; also in Sejmy i sejmiki koronne wobec Żydów: Wybór tekstów