Waszakowa - SEMANTYKA

The Jewish Community
Authority and Social Control

in Poznań and Swarzędz, 1650–1793
3
EDITED BY
MARCIN
WODZIŃSKI
Anna Michałowska-Mycielska
The Jewish Community

Authority and Social Control
in Poznań and Swarzędz, 1650–1793
Translated by
Alicja Adamowicz
Wrocław 2008
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
The title of the original
Między demokracją a oligarchią. Władze gmin żydowskich w Poznaniu i Swarzędzu
(od połowy XVII do końca XVIII wieku)
The translation of this book was made possible by a grant from

Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej (The Foundation for Polish Science)
as part of the program TRANSLACJE (TRANSLATIONS)
Referees
Jerzy Tomaszewski and Andrzej Zakrzewski
Language consultation
Sean Martin
Publisher’s editor
Irena Szymaniec
Cover design
Barbara Kaczmarek
On the cover
Kajetan Wincenty Kielisiński (1808–1849), A Jew from Poznań,
drawing from the collection of the National Library in Warsaw,
and a page from the pinkas of the Swarzędz community
The volume is sponsored by

Taube Foundation for Jewish Life and Culture
PRINTED IN POLAND
© Copyright for the English edition by Anna Michałowska-Mycielska

and Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Sp. z o.o., Wrocław 2008
ISBN 978-83-229-2967-4
Prepared for printing: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Sp. z o.o.

Print: Wrocławska Drukarnia Naukowa PAN im. S. Kulczyńskiego Sp. z o.o.
CONTENTS
Editorial Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CHAPTER 1. Outline of the History of Jews in Poznań and Swarzędz . . . . . . . . 13
CHAPTER 2. Source Materials Used in the Study of the Wielkopolska Jewish Com-
munities in Early Modern Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CHAPTER 3. Community Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Community Officials and Their Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2. Functionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. Governing Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4. Demonstration of Social Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
CHAPTER 4. Election of Community Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1. Electors and Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2. Elected Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3. Promotions of Officials (cursus honorum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
CHAPTER 5. A Community Rabbi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
CHAPTER 6. Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
CHAPTER 7. Guilds and Brotherhoods and Their Relations with Community Au-
thorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
1. Craftsmen’s Guilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2. Charity Brotherhood (ḥevrah kadishah) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3. Other Brotherhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
CHAPTER 8. Community Authorities and the Control of Residents . . . . . . . . . 157
1. Citizenship and the Right of Residence in a Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2. Control over Business Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3. Sumptuary Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4. Methods of Exerting Influence: an Oath and a Curse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
5. Conflicts between the Authorities and Community Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
CHAPTER 9. Community’s Financial Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
1. Taxes and Their Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
2. Community Earnings and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
3. Community’s Debts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
CHAPTER 10. Relations between Poznań and Swarzędz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
CHAPTER 11. Relations with Non-Jewish Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
1. Control Exercised by a Voievode and Town Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
2. Non-Jewish Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
6 CONTENTS
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
ANNEX 1. Officials of the Swarzędz Community and Their Tax Payments . . . . . . . . . 253
ANNEX 2. People Holding the Position of a Parnas in the Swarzędz Community from 1723
to 1793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
ANNEX 3. Career Paths of Officials whose Names Appear on Election Lists of the Swarzędz
Community for the Longest Period of Time (More than 35 Years) . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Manuscript Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Printed Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
EDITORIAL NOTE
In this book the simplified transcription of Hebrew and Yiddish words has
been adopted. In Yiddish texts – the rules of YIVO have been followed, and in the
Hebrew texts – the modified transcription of Encyclopaedia Judaica. The Hebrew
letters alef and ayin have not been marked at all except where they may stand for
a long vowel – then two transcribed vowels are separated by an apostrophe. No
distinction is made between teth and taf, kaf and kof, samekh and sin. The letter he
is represented as h, and ḥ et as ḥ , khaf as kh. The letter tsade is represented as ts.
When it discharges the function of mater lectionis at the end of the word, the letter
he is represented as h. Sheva is featured as short e only if it is preceded by a con-
junction or pronouns which are written jointly, the only exception was made for
the words which already function in the English language and are transcribed
otherwise (tefilah). The capital letter is used only in the first word of the title of
a published work. In order to make them adequately legible, the article, preposi-
tion, conjunction and the relative pronoun are written jointly with the word they
are followed by and are separated by a hyphen (mi-she-oved).
The only derogations from the adopted rules have been allowed in the terms
which operate in the English language and are transcribed otherwise (e.g., bar-
mitzva or challah).
Due to the specificity of this work’s subject matter there is a large number of
Hebrew and Yiddish terms. This is why they have been printed in antique (if not
in italics for editorial reasons), including those that have not been assimilated by
English. In the Index at the end of the book (with the names of things, people and
geographical places) marked in bold are the pages where explanations are offered
of the most important terms related to the discussed subject matter.
INTRODUCTION
This book features the mechanisms underlying the operation of Jewish com-
munities and the policies pursued by community authorities in early modern times.
The communities featured are Poznań and Swarzędz. Although authority was
mainly exercised in a community by the kahal and its officials, the rabbi, brother-
hoods, and craftsmen’s guilds were also involved in the community’s manage-
ment. The purpose of this work is also to highlight the mutual interdependencies
between all of these groups.
It is by no means accidental that Wielkopolska (Great Poland) has been cho-
sen as an example. This region, important in demographic and cultural terms, was
the area of the earliest Jewish settlement in Polish lands. Jerzy Topolski described
Wielkopolska’s unique socioeconomic structure.1 Agriculture and industry shaped
the area’s economy (with the grange catering to the domestic market rather than to
exports across the Baltic Sea, with nobility more inclined to invest, with highly
developed sheep breeding and textile industry, woolen cloth production in particu-
lar, and with a high share of urban population, a positive trade balance, and a high
share of pecuniary rent in peasants’ performances to their lords). Wielkopolska
was mainly inhabited by medium nobility and there were no large magnate estates,
typical of the eastern regions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Owing to
Wielkopolska’s specificity, the nature of Jewish settlement in this region was dis-
tinctly different from that in other regions: Jews mainly settled in towns,2 taking
up such typical urban occupations as trade and crafts. Hence jobs which had been
stereotypically associated with the commonplace understanding of a Jew’s role,
such as an innkeeper or arrendator, accounted for a small percentage of professions
taken up by the Wielkopolska Jews.3
Last but not least, quite a large number of surviving source materials regard-
ing Jewish communities come from the Poznań and Swarzędz communities. They
are mainly handwritten community books, which are called pinkasim, of which
only a few have survived until today and which are therefore unique and priceless.
1 Topolski, “Model gospodarczy Wielkopolski,” pp. 57–71.
2 According to Artur Eisenbach, Jews accounted for 2–5% of the population living in the rural
areas of Wielkopolska in the second half of the 18th century (Eisenbach, Emancypacja Żydów,
p. 38).
3 In Wielkopolska, Jewish arrendators accounted for only 5% of all innkeepers, and they most-
ly settled in south-eastern corners of Wielkopolska (Topolski, “Uwagi o strukturze gospodarczo-

społecznej Wielkopolski,” p. 71).
10 INTRODUCTION
Their relative profusion allows us to observe many aspects of a Jewish communi-

ty’s internal life. Moreover, the Poznań and Swarzędz communities maintained
relations and, using these communities as an example, one may keep track of how
the principal community and its branch operated. When Jewish sources are com-
pared with those produced by the municipal, starosta’s, or voievode’s institutions,
one may get a broader picture of the environment in which the authorities of
a Jewish community operated.
This study covers a period of 150 years, beginning in the mid 17th century
until the Partitions of Poland. I am aware that the dividing line set in the middle of
the 17th century is controversial. The reason why I opted for it was the chrono-
logical scope of the source materials. In my opinion, the mid 17th century does not
constitute a qualitative turning point in the operation of Jewish institutions. Some
phenomena, such as indebtedness or centralization, had been evolving gradually
over the entire period, even though their starting point may be traced back to ear-
lier times. On the other hand, the turn of the 18th century was certainly a turning
point, not only due to the fact that Polish Jews began to live in three separate states
with different political systems, but also due to new trends that became manifest
in Jewish society, namely the Haskalah and Hasidism, both of which had their
impact on the following century.
Moreover, I am not inclined to perceive the examined period as an era of
crisis, mainly for this reason, e.g., that it is difficult to conceive of a crisis that
would persist for 150 years. This is why the approach taken by many studies, one
that emphasizes crisis phenomena, oligarchy, and abuses of power by officials,
seems to be only partially right. Moreover, most of those phenomena affected the
Commonwealth’s entire society, even though they manifested themselves in dif-
ferent ways and their scope differed as well. Many of the practices which seem
repellent by today’s standards, such as the buying of positions and titles or the
existence of informal patron-client relations, were typical of early modern political
life in which a borderline demarcating the private from the “public” was perceived
quite differently than it is today. A Jewish community operated within the frame-
work of a more general model of the exercise of power, as evidenced by the fact
that it had many similarities with the system that prevailed at the time in towns and
among Polish nobility.
I am aware that some issues are discussed briefly, only in so far as the com-
munity management is concerned. Hence such important aspects of the commu-
nity life as charity, schools, or religious life are treated as if they were of secondary
importance. Still other problems, such as relations with town authorities and
townsmen, or cooperation between the communities and central Jewish self-gov-
ernment (between the provincial council of the Wielkopolska Jews and the Coun-
cil of Four Lands), were not raised at all. I am aware that many aspects of a Jewish
community’s life call for further studies, also based on the source materials com-
ing from other regions of the Commonwealth.
INTRODUCTION 11
This book is a modified doctoral dissertation and was also published in Polish.4
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who contributed to its improve-
ment, but first of all to Professors Jakub Goldberg, Adam Teller, and Jerzy To-
maszewski. I particularly value the longstanding tutelage and help offered by
Professor Antoni Mączak. It is to his memory that I dedicate this book.
4 Michałowska, Między demokracją a oligarchią.

CHAPTER ONE
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF JEWS

IN POZNAŃ AND SWARZĘDZ
The Poznań community is one of the oldest Jewish communities in the Polish
lands. The oldest reference to Jews living in Poznań (Pozna) comes from 1379.1
Legend has it that a synagogue was built in that town in 1367, first referred to in
source materials in 1449. The first mention of the cemetery comes from 1438.2
Another Poznań legend, which most probably dates from the second half of the
15th century, tells about the host profaned by the Poznań Jews in 1399. It seems
that in the middle of the 15th century Poznań was the only place in Poland where
a group of Jewish scholars were active. The community flourished in the second
half of the 16th century when it consisted of more than 1500 inhabitants. It follows
from an inspection carried in 1565 that Jews lived in 50 houses of their own,
43 tenement houses and 4 houses that were owned by the community and con-
nected with two synagogues. In 1578, the Poznań Jews paid 1058 złoty (zł.) in poll
taxes and ranked as the second largest group of Jewish taxpayers after the residents
of Kazimierz (near Kraków).3 During this period, Poznań was a Jewish center of
Wielkopolska and its rabbis were held in high esteem.
The Jewish quarter was situated in the northern part of Poznań and bordered
on the back alley of Żydowska street. On its other sides it was delimited by Wro-
niecka Street as well as the buildings along Szewska and Przed Dominikanami
Streets. Information about the number of houses located inside this area is offered
by a text of a contract that the town authorities concluded with the community au-
thorities in 1558. Jews were allowed to own 83 houses (30 more than under the
previous contracts), but at the same time they were prohibited to live in galleries
and town walls.4 The Jewish quarter was not a ghetto in the strict sense of the word
1 Guldon, Wijaczka, “Żydzi wśród chrześcijan,” p. 150.
2 Nożyński, “Żydzi poznańscy,” p. 93.
3 Guldon, Wijaczka, “Żydzi wśród chrześcijan,” p. 152. This information is the reason for the
author to question the number given for the Jewish population in Poznań offered by Stanisław
Waszak (see Waszak, “Ludność i zabudowa mieszkaniowa miasta Poznania”). The number of hous-
es and amounts of poll taxes indicate that in the late 16th century Poznań could have been inhabited
by more than 1400–1700 Jews.
4 Ibidem, pp. 80–81.
14 OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY
as it was not surrounded by a wall. Nor was a prohibition observed that Christian
houses situated close to the Jewish quarter were not to be rented to Jews. Syna-
gogues were built in the very center of the quarter, and the most important ones
were the Old Synagogue (built at the turn of the 15th century and then refurbished
several times) and the New Synagogue (built at the end of the 16th century; con-
struction was completed before 1618).5 The Poznań pinkasim also mention the
High Synagogue as one of the three main community synagogues. Apart from these
synagogues, the Poznań pinkasim also refer to the Synagogue of Young Men (beit
kneset baḥurim), the Synagogue of Mendel Abrush, and the Synagogue of Neḥemiah.
Just behind the Wroniecka Gate there was a Jewish slaughterhouse (the so-called
Jewish kutlof ) for which the community paid the town authorities an annual rent.
Due to a very dense and wooden development, the Jewish quarter was fre-
quently ravaged by fires (e.g., in 1590 and 1613) which would usually spread all
over the town. They resulted in protracted and costly litigation which was initiated
by the town authorities that usually demanded on such occasions that Jews should
be completely expelled from Poznań.6
Due to the overpopulation of the Jewish quarter, the community authorities
were looking for ways to address this problem and they asked the town authorities
to find a new area for Jewish settlement. They invoked the example of Lwów
(Lviv) where two Jewish communities existed, one inside the town limits and the
other one on its outskirts. Although the request was unproductive, the case eventu-
ally reached the King, and a special royal commission examined the problem. The
commission’s report of 1619 lists all the houses in the Jewish quarter and their
inhabitants. This source is highly valuable and more reliable than censuses con-
ducted for tax purposes. The report mentions 3130 Jews living in Poznań (includ-
ing 335 people outside the Jewish quarter) and that one house was inhabited by an
average of 21 people.7 Overcrowding was great and sometimes several dozen
people lived in only a few rooms.8
5 Stęszewska-Leszczyńska, “Poznańskie synagogi,” pp. 103–105.

6 Wróblewska, Rozplanowanie nowożytnych miast w Wielkopolsce, pp. 110–111.
7 The development of the Jewish quarter, the living conditions, and relations with the Christian
population are discussed by Adam Teller (Teller, Ḥayim betsavtah). In his book the author offers
a register of Jews living in Poznań in 1641. See also Teller, “Warunki życia i obyczajowość w ży-
dowskiej dzielnicy Poznania,” pp. 59–60. Population density of the Jewish quarter in 1619 is also
discussed by Stanisław Waszak (Waszak, “Ludność i zabudowa mieszkaniowa miasta Poznania,”
p. 113). The text of “Rewizja mieszkań żydowskich w Poznaniu” [Inspections of Jewish Houses in
Poznań] dating from 1619 was published by Marian J. Mika (Mika, Opisy i lustracje Poznania,
pp. 59–65).
8 Examples of overpopulation in the Jewish quarter in Poznań in 1619 are also offered by Adolf
Warschauer: in the house of Salomon (3 rooms) there were 10 households with 38 household mem-
bers; in that of Bienasz (5 rooms, 1 store), 12 households and 48 people; in that of Józef (3 rooms,
1 store), 5 households with 16 members; in that of Daniel (2 rooms), 7 households with 17 people
(see Warschauer, “Die Entstehung,” p. 172).
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY 15
In 1621, Zygmunt Grudziński, the owner of the nearby Swarzędz (Grzymałów,

Schwersenz, Shverzents), concluded an agreement with the authorities of the Jew-
ish community in Poznań, whereby Jews were allowed to move into his estate.9
Initially, Swarzędz was a village, and in 1638 it was promoted to a town. Owing
to a tolerant attitude of its owner, the town became a refuge for people who, for
a variety of reasons, including the religious ones, were not able to enjoy a full
range of freedoms in Poznań. When the agreement was concluded with the Poznań
community, the number of potential settlers was very high due to its overcrowding.
Soon, many Jews moved to Swarzędz which is only 10 km away from Poznań.
A dense network of small plots was delineated in the northern area of the town.
Grudziński built 32 houses for Jewish settlers at his own cost and allowed Jews to
build as many houses as they wanted, promising to provide them with land and
timber. He also gave them land and timber to build a synagogue and other com-
munity buildings (a poorhouse, houses to accommodate the rabbi, cantor, shames,
a school and mikvah).10 A privilege vested the Swarzędz Jews with full freedom
to pursue various occupations in trade and crafts, on a par with Christians, and they
were also allowed to elect their own authorities.
A significant amount (8000 guilders) was contributed by the Poznań commu-
nity for the construction of houses and a synagogue in Swarzędz, on condition,
however, that the Swarzędz Jews would repay 2100 guilders a year. As a branch
community, Swarzędz depended on the Poznań community from the beginning,
which provoked frequent disputes that were then lodged with the Council of Four
Lands for settlement.
The middle of the 17th century is a dividing line in the history of the Com-
monwealth and the Jews living in its territories. Its eastern regions were destroyed
by a Cossack uprising and passage of the Russian troops, and central and western
regions were affected by the Swedish invasion and operations of the Swedish,
Brandenburg, and Polish troops. The developments of 1648 in Ukraine made the
Jewish population of the Commonwealth even more sensitive to any threats. In
August 1655, about one thousand Jews from Poznań and its vicinity applied to
Emperor Ferdinand III for permission to emigrate to Silesia. In the absence of any
reply, the Jews crossed the border. Once they found themselves in Silesia, they
repeated their plea by describing their tragic plight after the Swedish troops had
invaded Wielkopolska. Ferdinand III allowed them to stay in Silesia, demanding
at the same time that they settle in several locations.11 Some of them sought refuge
9 According to Joseph Perles, the Jewish settlement in Swarzędz began after 1590 when the
Jews from Poznań moved there for some time after a fire had affected their community. Some of
them preferred to stay in Swarzędz and set up a new community (Perles, “Geschichte der Juden in
Posen,” p. 86).
10 Goldberg, ed., Jewish Privileges, p. 322.
11 Guldon, Wijaczka, “Ludność żydowska w Wielkopolsce,” p. 27.
in Western Europe, mainly in the German and Dutch Jewish communities, which
were very friendly towards the émigrés from the East.12
In the mid 17th century, at the time of the Swedish wars, the Poznań commu-
nity was decimated by hunger and epidemics, and then, after Jews and protestants
had been accused of collaboration with the Swedish, the city fell victim to po-
groms staged by townsmen and military units. It was then that the number of Jew-
ish families living in Poznań fell from 2000 to 300.13 How much the Wielkopol-
ska and Kujawy voievodships were ravaged in those days is best reflected by the
results of the inspection carried out in 1659–65.14 They include data about the
number of Jews and rents they paid. The inspectors frequently offered pre-war
or previous census data which clearly show the degree of destruction and de-
population.
After the Poznań community had been devastated in the middle of the 17th
century, its debts continued to grow. In 1653, the town council closed the com-
munity slaughterhouse in order to make the community authorities pay its overdue
taxes. In 1655, all the Torah scrolls were deprived of their embellishments, as they
were either pawned or hidden to prevent their attachment by creditors. In 1656,
King Jan Kazimierz warned Jews that they would be deprived of their synagogue
for “manifest friendliness towards the Swedish” and that it would be handed over
to the Franciscans whose monastery had been burnt to the ground by the Swedish.
But it was no more than a threat.15 The plague of 1661–62 dealt the final blow,
which was particularly severe in Wielkopolska.
The wars waged in the middle of the 17th century raised the hostility felt by
the Polish population to Jews, and after the war operations were over, townsmen
frequently took steps to have Jews expelled from their towns or moved to other
parts of town. They also leveled various accusations against Jews, e.g., charges of
ritual murder. Jews sought protection of the authorities, both secular and ecclesi-
astical. This is why the Council of Four Lands dispatched Yakov, son of Naftali
of Gniezno, to Rome. It is unlikely that he was received by the Pope, but he was
12 Shulvass, From East to West, pp. 25–26.

13 Heppner, Herzberg, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden und der jüdischen Ge-
meinden, p. 743; Lewin, Louis, “Die Judenverfolgungen,” pp. 90–91. Samuel Fayvel (Faybish), son
of Natan of Vienna, describes these events in his chronicle: “First came the Swedish King to the holy
community of Poznań, the city and metropolis of Israel. And there were two thousand heads of
household and alms were dispensed. But most of them had died due to famine and plague, and only
three hundred of them survived. So [the Swedish King] left the city and conquered Krotoszyn. It once
had had four hundred heads of household of whom not more than fifty survived, while others had
died of hunger and plague. So [the Swedish King] left the town and headed for the holy community
of Leszno, which had had four hundred very rich heads of household but, as everything had been
destroyed, not more than one hundred of them survived by running to the Ashkenaz country.” (See
Bałaban, “Ha-milḥamah ha-gdolah,” p. 89.)
14 Ohryzko-Włodarska, ed., Lustracja województw wielkopolskich i kujawskich.
15 Perles, “Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” p. 453.
handed a letter by the head of the Dominican Friars addressed to the Polish pro-
vincial asking him to protect Jews from unfair accusations.16 In 1659, a crowd led
by the Jesuit college students raided the Jewish quarter in Poznań, plundering and
destroying it. In the aftermath of those events, Jan Kazimierz ordered the offices
of starosta (holder of a royal land grant) in Poznań and Kalisz to protect Jews
against anti-Jewish attacks and to make every effort in order to provide them with
greater protection (1660).17 Despite that, similar events soon followed suit: in
1662, at the time of the great fire in the Jewish neighborhood, the crowd broke
inside the synagogue and plundered it. In 1663, too, in the absence of the militia
that had left the town, the Jewish houses and stores in Poznań were robbed and
many Jews were wounded. In 1687, anti-Jewish riots broke out instigated by the
students of the Jesuit college.18
In 1667, the Jewish community negotiated with the voievode the amount that
it was to pay for protection guarantees and asked him to intercede with many of
its creditors. In the years to come Jews asked the voievode to issue a ban that
would prohibit begging by the poor who were not the community residents in the
Jewish quarter as it was so impoverished that it had to turn to other communities
for assistance. In 1675, the Poznań community asked the German and Czech com-
munities for help, but that plea did not help it raise any major funds that would be
sufficient either for charity or to bail out the Torah scrolls pledged as a security for
the repayment of debts. The community’s grave economic situation and growing
debts were accompanied by a decline in intellectual and cultural life.
The number of the Jewish population and its distribution in Wielkopolska
of the second half of the 17th century is provided by the poll tax register of the
years 1674–76.19 Of 52 cities, where the poll tax was paid by Jews, their largest
concentration was in Poznań, where in 1676 it was paid by 917 Jews (accounting
for 32.3% of all residents). A larger number of Jews lived only in Kazimierz near
Kraków (1210 in 1676) and Lwów (918 in 1662).20 Swarzędz, with its 119 taxpay-
ers who accounted for 19.9% of all residents, was the seventh largest Jewish cen-
ter in the Poznań voievodship. Such towns as Kalisz, Leszno, Grodzisk, Wronki,
Krotoszyn, Piła, Międzyrzecz, Łobżenica, and Skwierzyna also had large Jewish
communities.
The main occupation of the Poznań Jews was trade (in wool, linen, silk, furs,
and spices), both local and with other lands. Many regulations issued by town
authorities tried to limit the activity of Jewish traders, e.g., they were prohibited
from door-to-door selling and retail trade was limited only to the days when a mar-
16 Guldon, Wijaczka, Procesy o mordy rytualne, p. 72.
17 Guldon, Wijaczka, “Żydzi wśród chrześcijan,” p. 162.
18 The pogroms were described by Józef Łukaszewicz (see Łukaszewicz, Obraz historyczno-
statystyczny miasta Poznania, vol. 1, pp. 349–350).

19 Guldon, Wijaczka, “Ludność żydowska w Wielkopolsce,” pp. 29–31.
20 Ibidem, p. 29.
ket was to be held. Other restrictions were also imposed.21 In crafts, the most
common among the Poznań Jews were tailoring, animal slaughter, shoemaking,
and goldsmithery.
The Wielkopolska Jews played a very important role in the trade of the Com-
monwealth with the West. The main trade centers of the time were Leipzig and
Wrocław, but also Frankfurt an der Oder. Out of 632 Jews who in 1681–99 at-
tended the fairs in Leipzig, 249 came from Poznań, 149 from Leszno, 105 from
Kalisz and 50 from other towns of Wielkopolska (such as, e.g., Grodzisk, Jarocin,
Kępno, Krotoszyn, Międzyrzecz, Rawicz, Wronki or Wschowa). Generally speak-
ing, the Wielkopolska Jews accounted for 87% of all Jews who went to the Leipzig
fair in those days.22 The Jews of Kalisz, Leszno, Krotoszyn, Poznań and Działoszyn
maintained particularly animated trade contacts with Wrocław. After 1684 the
Wielkopolska Jews even had their own synagogue in that town, and after 1694
they had their own fair shames who helped them do their business.23 The Jewish
merchants from Poznań frequented the fair held in Frankfurt an der Oder,24 but
they also went to the fairs held in Gdańsk, Toruń, Gniezno and Lublin.
At the beginning of the 18th century, at the time of the Northern War, the Wiel-
kopolska Jews suffered serious losses. They were due to epidemics, fires, and the
contributions of subsequent passing or stationed troops rather than direct war op-
erations. The occupation of Poznań by the Swedish in 1703–9 and a large scale
plague which broke out in 1709 resulted in high mortality (estimated at nearly 9000
people25). The damage brought by the troops of the Tarnogród confederates, who
seized the town in 1716 when the Saxon troops were stationed there, but also the
fire which consumed the High Synagogue and beit midrash (1717), added to their
plight. Rabbi Yakov, son of Icchak, composed his own penitential prayer (seliḥah)
to commemorate the misfortunes of 1716–17, which was recited in synagogues on
the 5th day of Av (on that day Jews were persecuted in 1656 and Poznań was occu-
pied by the confederates in 1716, which event opened a whole string of disasters).26
Taking advantage of the destruction of the Jewish quarter, the authorities of
Poznań prohibited the rebuilding of more than 86 Jewish houses27 in 1717; it was
21 Numerous examples of such regulations may be found in wilkierze (regulations issued by

town authorities) of Poznań. Townsmen were frequently forbidden to buy anything from Jews or it
was prohibited to sell some goods to Jews; see Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 2, no. 190
(1669), no. 204 (1692), no. 215 (1704), no. 225 (1723), no. 229 (1728), no. 274 (1782), no. 275
(1783), no. 276 (1784), no. 279 (1788); part 3, no. 196 (1724), no. 197 (1724).
22 Schiper, Dzieje handlu żydowskiego, pp. 183–184.
23 Ibidem, p. 182.
24 Gierowski, “Die Juden in Polen,” p. 13.
25 Łukaszewicz, Obraz historyczno-statystyczny miasta Poznania, vol. 1, p. 63.
26 See Lewin, Daniel, “Posener Minhagim,” p. 155. Another prayer mentions the names of 33
martyrs (18 men and 15 women) who lost their lives at the time of the attack launched by the con-
federates on Poznań; see Kaufmann, “Der Sturm der Tarnogroder Conföderirten,” p. 192.
27 Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 1, no. 161 (1717).
also then that an order was issued to fence in the Jewish quarter. Despite those
measures, the number of Jewish houses was growing, as evidenced by the inspec-
tion carried out in 1728 which recorded 102 buildings that were owned by the
Poznań Jews.28
In 1736, the Poznań Jews were accused of the ritual murder of a two-year boy,
a son of the Poznań townsman Wojciech Jabłonowicz. At the time of the trial, in
the aftermath of injuries sustained during tortures, darshan Arye Leib Kalahora29
and shtadlan Yakov, son of Pinkas, died martyrs’ deaths. The community leaders
managed to flee, but in their place a few community members were arrested. Even-
tually, the case was examined by a tribunal in Warsaw. After the arrested Jews had
solemnly vowed their innocence, they were let free in the middle of 1740. At the
time of the trial the Poznań community sought the assistance of many communi-
ties, even abroad,30 and it took steps asking the King to intervene. All that contrib-
uted to the community’s high expenses and debts.31
It was in the same ill-fated year of 1736 that Poznań was grievously afflicted
by the flood which destroyed, among other buildings, the synagogue and many
houses in the Jewish quarter.32 The events of the first half of the 18th century, es-
pecially war damages, plunder and damage from troops, as well as the consecutive
floods and fires, brought about a general decline of the town. Increasingly more
Jews began to leave Poznań, heading for Swarzędz and other destinations. From
then on Leszno gradually began to play a dominant role among the Wielkopolska
communities, as its prosperity and population continued to grow. Eventually Lesz-
no became the site of the “main synagogue of Wielkopolska.” In 1764, fire de-
stroyed 3 synagogues and 76 houses in Poznań, taking many lives.
Under the reforms that were to improve administration and finance of the
Treasury of the Commonwealth, in 1764 the convocation parliament repealed
28 Kędelski, Rozwój demograficzny Poznania, p. 16.
29 For more information on Arye Leib Kalahora, see Landsberger, “Zur Biographie des Posener
Märtyrers.” Both martyrs were remembered in prayers on the anniversaries of their deaths by many
communities of Wielkopolska which were deeply moved by the Poznań trial (Lüdtke, “Beiträge aus
dem Vatikanischen Archiv,” p. 171).
30 In 1742 Zelig, the learned dayan, was dispatched to the communities of Małopolska to
collect donations which were to support the Poznań community (Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba
aratsot, no. 660, Poznań, 1 Tevet 5503 / December 28, 1742). The authorities of the Poznań com-
munity also sent letters to other Jewish communities (Berliner, ed., “Zakat shever”). Funds were also
raised in Italian communities (idem, “Posnania und Polonia”).
31 See Guldon, Wijaczka, Procesy o mordy rytualne, pp. 69–70, and also APP, Akta miasta
Poznań I 2258, materials regarding this trial (excerpts from the starosta office and town records).
32 The flood is described in the Poznań electors’ pinkas. It reads that waters rose high and
poured out on the 9th day of Av 5496 (July 17, 1736) flooding the Jewish streets so that only a few
locations situated above water level were dry. The flood destroyed foundations and many houses
collapsed. It also destroyed synagogues and holy books, and the synagogue seats were damaged. The
losses were magnified by heavy rains which continued for several days and nights on end (AEP no.
2151, 28 Elul 5496 / September 4, 1736).
the lump-sum poll tax levied on Jews and dissolved the Council of Four Lands, the
central Jewish institution responsible for tax apportionment among individual
communities and its collection. The poll tax was replaced by a tax which was to
be paid based on the census of the Jewish population. The first such census was
carried out in 1764 and 1765, at a different time in individual regions. As it turned
out later, it was the only census covering the territory of the entire Common-
wealth.33 In each community the census was conducted by a commission consist-
ing of four auditors: three representing the local community (the rabbi, parnas and
shames) and one nobleman. The register was to be sworn in in the presence of
a commissionaire who was to set a tariff for the entire voievodship, land or district
(Polish powiat).
The census covered all people aged more than one, both men and women. It
recorded 430,009 Jews living in the Crown (including 32,642 in Wielkopolska)
and 157,649 Jews in Lithuania. A total of 1951 Jews were registered in Poznań and
1024 in Swarzędz.34 As the census was conducted for fiscal purposes, its data were
subject to manipulations and this is why they need to be corrected (increased by
the number of children aged less than one and unreported individuals). Rafał Mahler
claims that infants accounted for 6.35% and unreported people made up 20% of
the entire Jewish population.35 When corrected by those estimates, the Jewish
population in Poznań would be equal to 2649 and in Swarzędz to 1390 people,
while the population of Jews in the entire Commonwealth should be estimated at
750,000 (of which 550,000 lived in the Crown and 200,000 in Lithuania).36
More censuses were conducted after 1765. According to these censuses, the
Jewish population in Poznań was as follows: in 1775, 1560 people; in 1778, 1611;
in 1781, 1827; in 1784, 1836; in 1787, 1896. Mieczysław Kędelski is of the opin-
ion that compared to 1764, the censuses of 1775–87 are much less credible. By
comparing the number of children recorded in 1778 (based on the name list of
Poznań Jews) with the figures from 1764, he concluded that in 1778 the census
failed to list 400 children and 80 infants.37 Granted that the rate of omissions is
constant for all censuses (i.e., the same as in 1778), the Jewish population in
Poznań would be as follows: in 1775, 2140 people; in 1778, 2200; in 1781, 2500;
in 1784, 2520; and in 1787, 2600.38
33 Mahler, “Żydzi w dawnej Polsce w świetle liczb,” p. 135.

34 Kleczyński, Kluczycki, eds., Liczba głów żydowskich w Koronie, pp. 6–7.
35 Mahler, “Żydzi w dawnej Polsce w świetle liczb,” pp. 146–154.
36 Ibidem, p. 154. These figures are sometimes questioned. Criticizing Mahler’s calculations,
Zenon Guldon and Nikołaj Krikun argued that miscalculations were considered by the contempo-
raries to be much higher, e.g., Tadeusz Czacki, who worked for the Treasury Commission, overesti-
mated the census data by 50%, setting the number of Jews at about 900,000 people (Guldon, Krikun,
“Przyczynek do krytyki,” p. 155).
37 Kędelski, Rozwój demograficzny Poznania, pp. 112–113.
38 Ibidem, pp. 113–114.
In the second half of the 18th century the debts of the Poznań community grew
enormously. In 1774, after the Poznań kahal had declared its insolvency, the state
authorities decided to intervene and address the problem of Jewish debts. A special
royal commission was set up to calculate and cut those debts, but it failed to come
up with any solutions as to their repayment.39
The Good Order Commission (Komisja Dobrego Porządku), which operated
in Poznań in 1779–84, tried to normalize the situation of the local Jewish popula-
tion by verifying earlier legislation and by issuing a number of new regulations.
Jews were prohibited from building houses outside the Jewish quarter. Their trade
was confined to specific hours of the day and week; the market square and major
streets were reserved for Christian merchants; and Jews were prohibited from trad-
ing in some goods and they were strictly banned from pursuing door-to-door sell-
ing. The influx of Jews to Poznań was put under control: they were required to
have the appropriate “decency certificates” issued in their previous place of resi-
dence; they were prohibited from engaging in trade in Poznań; beggars were not
admitted at all into the town and, instead, they were given alms before the town
gates. It was also then that the amount of annual tax payable by Jews and the rent
for the Jewish cemetery were set. The foregoing measures were accompanied by
nullification of all claims on account of earlier taxes and debts.40
It was also then that two censuses were conducted. The one commissioned by
the Permanent Council (Rada Nieustająca) and carried out by the Poznań council
in 1777 recorded 1572 Jews, but the figure was offered by the authorities of the
Jewish community.41 The other census taken in September 1789 along with the
census of the Christian population registered 1771 Jewish residents in Poznań,
accounting for 25.97 % of its total population (6820 people) living both in the
town and in its suburbs.42
At the time of the Four-Year Diet, when the drafts of reforms regarding the
Jewish population were developed, the Poznań Jews became involved in the po-
litical revival and sent their plenipotentiaries to Warsaw.43
39 The debts of the Poznań community were eventually forgiven as late as 1870 (Jacobson, “Zur
Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” p. 248).

40 See Tyszkiewicz, Działalność poznańskiej Komisji Dobrego Porządku, pp. 58–60. Accord-
ing to the census conducted by the Commission, in 1780 Poznań was inhabited by 1085 Jews. This
figure is much understated in the opinion of Mieczysław Jabczyński, who proposes to increase it by
the number of Jewish lodgers. According to his estimates, the Jewish population stood at 2555 people
at the time (Jabczyński, “Statystyka miasta Poznania w roku 1780,” pp. 93–95).
41 Mika, ed., Opisy i lustracje Poznania, p. 244.
42 See Kulejewska-Topolska, Struktura prawna aglomeracji, p. 79. Mieczysław Kędelski of-
fers the social and occupational structure of the Jewish population registered in 1789 (Kędelski,
Rozwój demograficzny Poznania, p. 114).
43 See Goldberg, “Pierwszy ruch polityczny.” The documents mention the following Jewish
plenipotentiaries from Poznań: Symcha Hakohen, Józef Lewkowicz and Josek (Eisenbach, Michal-
ski et al., eds., Materiały do dziejów Sejmu Czteroletniego, pp. 377–379, 383). Another Poznań Jew,
At the turn of the 18th century, after the Partitions, Wielkopolska came under
Prussian rule.44 After the First Partition, the Prussian authorities issued a regula-
tion on March 1, 1773, whereby all Jews whose assets were worth less than 1000
thalers were ordered to leave the territory of Prussia by May 1 of the same year.
The regulation concerned land owners, because expulsion of so many people
would result in the depopulation of towns and a decline in trade. Restrictions were
also imposed on Jewish marriages, which now required a permit from the Prussian
authorities.
In May 1793, Prussian authorities launched a survey on the status of towns,
and 251 towns situated within the territories annexed as a result of the Second
Partition were sent questionnaires asking about a town’s location and develop-
ment, town authorities’ organizational structure, finances, the religious and occu-
pational structure of its population, crafts and trade, educational and health sys-
tems. The survey produced a population census45 according to which Jews lived
in 92 towns of the former Poznań and Kalisz voievodships. In Swarzędz 1373
Jews were recorded, accounting for 54.7% of all residents. Poznań was then prob-
ably a major Jewish center in Wielkopolska as evidenced by a high number of
Jewish craftsmen and vendors, even though the census does not quote the total
number of its Jewish residents. Zofia Kulejewska-Topolska offers the following
data in her work about the population of Poznań: living within the town walls were
4560 Christians and 2355 Jews, and outside the walls, 5020 people, for a total of
11,935 people.46 Accordingly, in 1793 Jews accounted for 19.73% of Poznań’s
total population.
After the Third Partition (1795), the General Judenreglement (General Jewish
Regulation) was adopted (1797), whereby only rich Jews and merchants were al-
lowed to live in towns and poor Jews (the so-called Betteljuden) were forced to
leave the country. Those Jews who had not lived in the lands annexed at the time
of the First and Second Partitions before the army marched in were ordered to
leave Prussia in six months. Jews were prohibited from engaging in crafts con-
trolled by guilds, and they were also prohibited from door-to-door selling and
practicing usury. Without a permit issued by the authorities, Jews could not change
their domicile or job. The jurisdiction of rabbis was revoked and Hebrew was
banned from community and merchant books. Jewish self-government was con-
fined mainly to its religious functions.
Moszko Józefowicz, was the author of a draft revenue reform of 1791 (ibidem, “Projekt pomnażający
skarb” [Project Describing how to Increase the Treasury’s Revenues], pp. 518–519).
44 On changes that affected the life of the Wielkopolska Jews under Prussian rule, see the fol-
lowing: Bruer, Geschichte der Juden in Preussen; Jacobson, “Die Stellung der Juden;” Wąsicki,
Ziemie polskie pod zaborem pruskim; Wojtkowski, “Polityka rządu pruskiego wobec Żydów.”
45 Wąsicki, ed., Opisy miast polskich.
46 Kulejewska-Topolska, Struktura prawna aglomeracji, p. 79. Mieczysław Jabczyński writes
that the Prussian census of 1794 reported 3021 Jews (Jabczyński, “Statystyka miasta Poznania w ro-
ku 1780,” p. 93).
CHAPTER TWO
SOURCE MATERIALS USED IN THE STUDY

OF THE WIELKOPOLSKA JEWISH COMMUNITIES
IN EARLY MODERN TIMES
This study is based on two types of source materials: “internal” sources that
were produced by Jewish institutions and “external” sources that were generated
by the Commonwealth’s administration and revenue services, as well as owners of
towns.
Handwritten books with entries which were kept by the institutions of Jewish
self-government are known as pinkasim (pinkas). Smaller communities kept one
type of pinkasim where all important community matters were recorded. Such
books included, e.g., election minutes of community authorities (including lists of
elected officials), regulations issued by the authorities, entries regarding taxes
(squaring the accounts with officials in charge of finances and their inspections,
tax apportionment and collection), economic transactions, judicial records (ap-
pointment of dayanim, testimonies of witnesses and court verdicts), and many
other documents related to a community’s social and religious life.
Larger and richer communities with more complex administrative systems
kept several or more than a dozen books, each to record a different type of issues.
Thus, separate books were kept to file records of community elections and deci-
sions of community authorities; there were separate accounting books (listing col-
lected taxes and records of the community revenues and expenditures), books
registering the community’s debts, books kept by synagogue administrators. Sim-
ilarly, every major institution, e.g., a brotherhood or a guild, kept its own pinkas.
In his introduction to the Tykocin pinkas, Mordekhai Nadav, its editor, refers
to other pinkasim which were kept in Tykocin, whose existence is also mentioned
in the kahal’s pinkas. They were the following: a special pinkas (pinkas ha-
meyuḥ ad) to record regulations; a small pinkas (pinkas katan) used by the month-
ly parnas to record all major issues before they were finally entered in the kahal’s
pinkas; a pinkas of nominations (pinkas hitmanuyot) to register and comment on
the process and results of elections to community authorities, as well as decisions
regarding elections; a pinkas of trustees (pinkas ha-ne’emanim) used by the trust-
ees to record taxes, debts, etc., they had collected; the rabbi’s pinkas (pinkas ha-
rav) to record cases in which the rabbi acted as the guarantor and the guarantees
24 SOURCE MATERIALS
to which he had agreed; a pinkas of dayanim (pinkas ha-dayanim) to record court

proceedings and sentences; a townsmen’s pinkas (pinkas ha-ironim) to enter civil
cases between Jews and townsmen. A kahal would use these pinkasim whenever
necessary. Sometimes their extracts were copied to the kahal’s pinkas.1
Pinkasim were a fair copy of minutes and notes made at the time of the meet-
ings of the community’s authorities, courts, guilds and brotherhoods. Sometimes
a space was left for the signatures of witnesses, which, however, were not always
affixed.
The books of all Jewish institutions were kept in Hebrew.2 Some entries in-
cluded individual Polish words, whenever it was particularly hard for the writer to
find a Hebrew equivalent. Those were mainly the Polish names of taxes and state
officials, and they were most probably used in everyday language. The simplest
solution adopted in such an event was to write the Polish word with the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet (e.g., voievodi, komisar, vozni, grod, seymik, arenda, akcize,
czopovi, targovi, poglovne, podimne or dimovi, poziv, kvit, aprobati, asignacye),
but, frequently, these names were transcribed phonetically or in a Yiddish-like
form. Attempts were also made to translate them into Hebrew. This approach was
taken with regard to monetary units (zahav – złoty, gadol – grosz, zakuk – grzy-
wna, tefil – szeląg) or in the case of such words as: pogłówne (poll tax) – gulgolet;
pan (Mr./Lord) – adon; Sejm Rzeczypospolitej (the Commonwealth’s Diet) – vaad;
kamień (stone – a weight unit) – even. One may also come across interesting
examples of linguistic calques such as czerwony złoty (dukat, floren) – zahav
adom; podymne (a hearth tax or a poll tax levied on houses) – gulgolet batim; hi-
berna (or winter bread) – leḥ em ḥ oref.
There were also entries made in Yiddish. These individual Yiddish words usu-
ally refer to everyday life, goods, occupations, clothes, meals, etc. There are also
translations of Polish words into Yiddish, e.g., zeksir – szóstak (a six-grosz coin)
or kop gelt – pogłówne (poll tax). Sometimes, entire documents included would be
written in the original Yiddish, such as texts of announcements read to the public
in synagogues or texts of vows and pledges and witness testimonies before
courts.
Entries were usually made in cursive in a neat handwriting. Numerous and
sometimes quite discretionary abbreviations, depending on the writer’s prefer-
ences, are the source of problems today. They are particularly hard to decipher
especially when titles and names are abbreviated. Entries were dated according to
the Jewish calendar.
All the community books coming from the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, of which only remnants have survived, are unique and priceless.
1 Nadav, ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin, vol. 1, pp. XX–XXII.

2The language of the source materials related to the Jewish self-government of the Common-
wealth is discussed by Moshe Altbauer (see Altbauer, “O języku dokumentów”).
SOURCE MATERIALS 25
Against this background, the source materials coming from the Wielkopolska
region are relatively numerous. They were produced by the communities of
Poznań, Swarzędz, Kórnik,3 Wolsztyn,4 Rawicz,5 Krotoszyn,6 Grodzisk,7 Wieleń
nad Notecią (Wieleń on the Noteć River)8 and Leszno.9 Their manuscripts are
stored in the archives of Jerusalem, New York, and Poznań. Only a fraction of
them have been published.
This study focuses on two Jewish communities, Poznań and Swarzędz. The
source materials regarding these communities are relatively profuse and diversi-
fied. They include documents produced by electors, kahal authorities, synagogue
administrators, charity brotherhoods (ḥevrah kadishah) as well as accounting
books. They allow us to follow many different aspects of these communities’
lives.
The following source materials of the Poznań and Swarzędz communities
have survived until today:
POZNAŃ
• the kahal’s pinkas (1592–1689) (sefer ha-zikhronot), most of which was
published (arranged according to subject matter) by Bernard D. Weinryb,10
• electors’ pinkas (1621–1835), published by Dov Avron, fragments from
1621–37 with Polish translation published by Franciszek Kupfer,11
• the Old Synagogue’s pinkas (1672–1857), a fragment published by Shmuel
K. Mirski,12
• synagogue gabaim’s pinkas (1605–1789),
• register of the community’s debts over 1772–93,
• accounts of 1775–93,
• court documents.
3 The kahal’s pinkas (1698–1758). Its short excerpt was published by Mordekhai Nadav (Na-
dav, “Ktav rabanut”). Fragments (including translation into Polish) can be found in Michałowska,
ed., Gminy żydowskie. Preserved are also the pinkas of tailors’ guild (1754–1819) and accounts
covering the period 1781–1824.
4 The community’s accounting books from the years 1757–97, 1769–1808, 1775–1820, 1778–
1835, 1780–1808 and the accounts of the synagogue’s gabaim (1792–99).

5 Accounts, entries confirming the community elections (1705–1849), court records, accounts
(1718–1835).
6 A fragment of the kahal’s pinkas dated 1777, the pinkas of the burial brotherhood (ḥevrah
kadishah) of 1686–1831.
7 Accounts from 1779/80, 1780/81, 1781/82, 1788–89, 1794/95.
8 The pinkas of the charity brotherhood (ḥevrah kadishah) of 1724–1838.
9 Debt register (1755–85).
10 See Weinryb, Texts and Studies; fragments (including translation into Polish) were published
by Anna Michałowska (Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie).

11 Avron, ed., Pinkas ha-ksherim; Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim.” There is also a manuscript
of a German translation of the electors’ pinkas made by Wolf Feilchenfeld, a Poznań rabbi, at the
beginning of the 20th century (CAHJP, PL/Po 2).
12 Mirski, ed., “Takanot gaonei pozna.”
26 SOURCE MATERIALS
SWARZĘDZ
• the kahal’s pinkas (1698–1758),13
• the kahal’s pinkas (1758–1828),
• the kahal’s pinkas (1734–1830),14
• pinkas of charity brotherhood (ḥevrah kadishah) covering 1732–1818,
• pinkas of charity brotherhood (ḥevrah kadishah) covering 1772–1809,
• pinkas of gabaim’s accounts (1749–92),
• pinkasim of bardon from 1775, 1777/78, 1779/80,
• accounts from 1730–1861,
• register of debts to the Church from the period 1793–1804.
The surviving source materials are naturally only a fraction of documents
produced by the communities of Poznań and Swarzędz; it was especially the for-
mer community that kept numerous and highly specialist books. It follows from
those which have survived that there were also other pinkasim: books recording
nominees, books kept by dayanim, tax estimators, account supervisors, overseers
of regulations and slaughterhouses, pinkasim of guilds or recording collections of
individual types of taxes, accounting books, and books with fair expenditures.
Pinkasim were also kept by higher level institutions of Jewish self-govern-
ment, such as district or provincial (ziemstwo) councils or the councils of the
Crown and Lithuanian Jews. In the 14th and 15th centuries, the Jewish communities
living in the vicinity of Poznań and Kalisz established the Wielkopolska district
with its capital in Poznań. Due to their rivalry, the capital community and the
other communities split in 1519, and from then on the Poznań rabbi was the only
link between Poznań and the district. He continued to act as the district rabbi until
the end of the 18th century exercising spiritual and judicial authority. This is why
the Poznań rabbi was elected by the delegates of the major Wielkopolska com-
munities.15 Source materials regarding the operation of the Wielkopolska district’s
local council were published by Louis Lewin.16
Another “internal” source material available today is the pinkas of the Coun-
cil of Four Lands or the Crown Vaad (vaad arba aratsot), a central institution of
Jewish self-government in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Council of
Four Lands was established in the second half of the 16th century after a lump-sum
tax had been levied on the Jewish population. In time, its authority, which initially
boiled down to tax apportionment and collection, was enlarged to cover all areas
of Jewish life. The Council was convened twice a year and recognized by the
Commonwealth’s authorities. In 1623, the Lithuanian Vaad separated from the
13 Fragments (with Polish translation) published by Anna Michałowska (Michałowska, ed.,
Gminy żydowskie).
14 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego. Fragments (with Polish transla-
tion) are also published in Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie.

15 Bałaban, Z zagadnień ustrojowych, p. 2.
16 Lewin, Louis, Die Landessynode.
SOURCE MATERIALS 27
Council. It operated for nearly two hundred years until it was dissolved in 1764
under the administrative and revenue reform program that had been launched by
the convocation Parliament.
Both Jewish Councils, the Crown and the Lithuanian one, kept their pinkasim.
The pinkas of the Council of Four Lands is lost and only some fragments have
survived. The only original fragment of the pinkas includes entries from 1671–72.
Luckily, other source materials allowed us to reconstruct the entries made in the
original. This monumental job was done by Israel Halperin based on numerous
source materials, manuscripts and prints, both Jewish and non-Jewish, regarding
the Council’s revenue, judicial and administrative activities. He put the materials
he had compiled in chronological order (the first regulation comes from 1581).
Halperin’s work, published in Jerusalem in 1945,17 is of exceptional value, and it
is the basic source in studies of the history of Jews living in Eastern Europe in the
16th–18th centuries. The pinkas includes entries regarding the Wielkopolska com-
munities, especially relations between them, e.g., a dispute between the Swarzędz
and Poznań communities.
The pinkas of the Lithuanian Vaad, comprising its decisions of 1623–1761, is
available in its original form and in a few copies. Entries were simultaneously
made in three books and each of them was stored by each of the three major
Lithuanian communities. Its text was published by Simon Dubnow in 1925.18
Apart from the Jewish sources, there are also several types of “external” doc-
uments produced by non-Jewish institutions.
The life of Jewish communities established in royal estates was regulated by
royal privileges, while in private estates, the life of Jewish communities was gov-
erned by the owners’ privileges. The privileges the communities had been granted
were stored by them with great care. Some privileges vested in Jewish communi-
ties, including those of Poznań and Swarzędz, were published by Jacob Goldberg.19
But it also happened, usually due to internal community disputes and complaints
lodged as a result, that non-Jewish authorities had to intervene and issue regula-
tions regarding the operation of the community institutions. Such edicts were is-
sued for the royal towns by voievodes and for private towns by their owners.
Traces of measures taken by Polish authorities may also, though to a small
extent, be found in the Jewish sources. In the second half of the 18th century it
became a widespread practice that community authorities were controlled by the
area’s owner, usually via a commissionaire he would appoint to that end. This is
why in the community pinkasim there are short Polish or German notes under the
election protocols confirming that the election was valid and approving newly
17 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot; out of the revised and expanded second edition of
that pinkas, prepared by Israel Bartal, only a section covering Hebrew materials has been published
(vol. 1: 1580–1792, Jerusalem 1989).
18 Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah.
19 Goldberg, ed., Jewish Privileges.
28 SOURCE MATERIALS
elected officials. Corroborations of this kind may be sometimes found under more
vital resolutions adopted by the community authorities, as well as under financial
settlements, records of repaid debts or fees, etc.
Such institutions of the democracy of nobles as the diet (sejm) and dietines
(sejmiki) were also interested in Jews. In the period that is the focus of this study,
the dietines of the Poznań and Kalisz voievodships were convened in the town of
Środa. They did not have a permanent chancellery and whatever was to be pub-
lished by them was formulated by each consecutive speaker and put down by the
scribe. The most important acts published by the dietines were deputies’ instruc-
tions and resolutions (the so-called lauda). The acts regarded many walks of life,
but taxes, which were to be collected to finance military needs, predominated.
From time to time, and to meet the army’s needs, the acts mentioned Jews who, as
they claimed, should accept the same regulations as the Christian population rath-
er than be the subject of exemptions they may be entitled to under the resolutions
adopted by previous diets or granted by individuals.20
Various starosta office chancelleries, and later on, also civil and military com-
missions, served the chancellery of the lesser diet and continued its work when the
dietine was no longer in session. This is why these documents may be found in the
books kept by those bodies.21 Filed also in starosta office books were various in-
disputably Jewish documents, as many important documents were filed with sta-
rosta office chancelleries.22
The judiciary produced other source materials. In major royal towns Jews fell
under the jurisdiction of the voievode’s courts. In smaller royal towns they were
under the jurisdiction of starosta, and in private towns, of their owners. In disputes
between Jews, all the foregoing institutions acted as appeals courts, because, as in
the first instance, Jews were under the jurisdiction of Jewish courts. Voievode
courts were usually presided over by undervoievodes (Polish podwojewodzi) as-
sisted by a judge and a scribe appointed by the voievode. Because the person who
administered justice over Jews was the undervoievode, the courts are most fre-
quently referred to in the files, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, as under-
voievode’s courts (podwojewodzi courts). Apart from their powers to adjudicate,
the voievode and the undervoievode had also an authority to issue regulations re-
garding Jewish communities (more important ones were issued by the former and
less important ones by the latter). The voievode’s chancellery, like the starosta’s,
also kept its own records of undisputable Jewish deeds in-between the court’s ses-
sions. Today, we have access to the Poznań voievode’s books dating from the
20 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Sejmy i sejmiki koronne wobec Żydów, pp. 233–254 (nos.
160–226).
21 Bielecka, Inwentarze ksiąg archiwów grodzkich i ziemskich Wielkopolski, p. 183.
22 Entered in the starosta office books were also privileges granted to Jewish communities,
guarantees of safe passage, moratoria granted to individual Jews, and various kinds of agreements,
contracts, and receipts. See Kaźmierczyk, Materiały źródłowe do dziejów Żydów.
SOURCE MATERIALS 29
middle of the 17th century,23 as the earlier ones were most probably destroyed dur-
ing the Swedish war. The ones that have survived, and which cover 1659–1790,
fall into three types: inscriptiones, relationes, and decreta. All of them include
entries regarding Jewish population, i.a., appeals from rulings of Jewish courts,
and some of them regard disputes between Jews and their authorities.24
23 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie [Books of the Poznań voievode] W.1–W.14.

24 Bielecka, Inwentarze ksiąg archiwów grodzkich i ziemskich Wielkopolski, p. 114.
CHAPTER THREE
COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
Individual Jewish communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

adopted various systems of power. The most important, and at the same time
unique, statute that defined a community’s system was that of the Kraków com-
munity adopted in 1595.1 In 93 points, the statute regulated all aspects of the
community’s life, outlining the responsibilities of its officials and their hierarchy,
as well as elections. It is this statute that became a model for many communities
in Poland and Lithuania. Other community statutes of the 17th century (of the
Lwów, Żółkiew, Dubno, and Ostróg communities) were not as comprehensive and
specific as the Kraków one.2
The Poznań and Swarzędz statutes have not survived, but the existing pinka-
sim are a valuable source of information about the way the community authorities
were appointed and how they operated. There were many similarities between the
systems of power that existed in both communities. This was due to one very
simple reason: the Swarzędz community was established by settlers coming from
the crammed Jewish quarter of Poznań. Apart from that, the Swarzędz community
was a branch of the Poznań community. This is why the organization of the latter
became a model and a bench mark for the Swarzędz Jews, the more so that in those
days its shape was final.
1. COMMUNITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES
In this study people working for the community have been divided into two
groups. The first one consists of officials elected in annual elections who held their
posts gratuitously, for no compensation in return for their work. The second group
comprised functionaries whose salaries were paid by the kahal.
Each community was headed by parnasim, less frequently referred to as
roshim, and known in Polish as senior, starszy or zawiadowca. Sometimes, the
sources refer to them, by analogy to town authorities, as kahal mayors (Polish
1 Bałaban, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595.”
2 Idem, “Ustrój gminy,” 1 (1937), p. 7.
COMMUNITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES 31
burmistrz, Latin consul). Jewish communities of the Commonwealth would have

from three to five parnasim. The community of Poznań elected five of them,
Swarzędz, three, sometimes four. Their names were always put at the head of
elected officials’ lists, sometimes their hierarchy was offered in a form of a note
attached to their names indicating who was number one, two or three. From time
to time one parnas was designated as most important (parnas rishon). In 1772, the
Swarzędz parnasim did not want to assume their functions due to the war, but they
eventually agreed on the condition that Efraim Lesla would be the first parnas.
They argued that he was well known by the nobility and knew how to talk to army
commanders.3
Parnasim took turns every month, and the one who exercised power at the
time was labeled as a monthly parnas (parnas (ha-)ḥ odesh, Latin senior mensis).
When he was running the community, the other parnasim were obliged to assist
him. A practice was adopted by some Lithuanian communities that each parnas
would exercise power for three months.4
Parnasim vowed in the presence of the entire kahal that they would run the
community honestly, with its well-being in mind.5 The Poznań electors imposed
an obligation on their parnasim to carry into life all regulations, both new and old,
that were recorded in all pinkasim.6 They also instructed them that a monthly par-
nas should get acquainted with elector regulations at the time he assumed his
monthly duties.7
Parnasim represented a community in its external relations and were the only
ones responsible for it before the state authorities or the owner. A monthly parnas
was obliged to act for the benefit of the community (sometimes side by side with
the shtadlan) both within and outside the town’s limits. In 1659, the Poznań elec-
tors recorded that such missions should be carried out after the consent had been
3 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 26v (Swarzędz, 5532/1772); entries in the Poznań electors’ pinkas are
evidence that the first parnas was also elected in Poznań (AEP no. 1519, Passover 5445/1685).
4 Adelson, Elita kahalna, p. 25. Three-month (quarterly) terms in office of parnasim were also
practiced in Krotoszyn, in the order issued by the town’s owner in 1728, which practice must have
been followed earlier by the community (Michałowska, ed., “Porządek synagodze krotoskiej dany,”
p. 226). Majer Bałaban is of the opinion that the actual practice, especially in the 18th century, was
that power was handed over every two or three months, and even once a year or once in a few years.
This was due to the dictatorial inclinations of some parnasim who did not want to share their powers
and sometimes prevented staging of new elections for some years (Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938),
p. 204). I have come across no entries in the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim indicating that such
practices were followed.
5 The text of the oath taken by the community leaders at the time of Passover 5455/1695 is
recorded in the Tykocin pinkas (Nadav, ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin, vol. 1, pp. 92–93). The text and its
Polish translation: Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, p. 23–24.
6 AEP no. 2019 (Passover 5477/1717).
7 AEP no. 967 (Passover 5423/1663), AEP no. 1134 (5430/1670), AEP no. 2039 (Passover
5479/1719).
32 COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
granted by the entire kahal.8 But should the parnas suffer any misfortunes on his
mission for the benefit of the community, then the entire kahal and the community
had to help him and save him from the hands of his persecutor.9 The monthly par-
nas was also allowed to appoint another official, to set out with a mission on his
own or to accompany a shtadlan, and then such an official would have to obey his
every order at any time. The parnas was also allowed to charge this duty to a com-
munity resident who was not a member of the authorities that would have to obey
him.10 The monthly parnas was also obliged to help a community resident should
he have any problems, such as a pending court case or a need for the intervention
of non-Jewish authorities. In such cases, the parnas would accompany the resident
or send a shtadlan in his place.11
Parnasim made decisions about the most vital community matters. The month-
ly parnas convened the kahal and other meetings, depending on the need and the
subject matter to be discussed.
Many projects required the monthly parnas’s approval which he granted by
affixing his signature. He signed a list of guests invited to a feast; without his sig-
nature, the shames would not be allowed to invite them.12 He also issued the final
engagement permit prior to which a permission had to be granted by all parnasim
or the kahal, and only then the synagogue shames was allowed to announce it to
the public or write down the terms of engagement. It follows from an entry in the
Swarzędz pinkas that the monthly parnas would also attend the conclusion of an
engagement contract, but he would do that only after a bridegroom had paid a tax
levied on the dowry.13
A permission of the monthly parnas was required in order for the shames to
announce anything to the public in the synagogue. It had to be sought when, e.g.,
any transaction of sale or purchase14 was to be announced, or when a ḥerem was
cast on someone. The monthly parnas also signed (along with the monthly gabai)
a letter that was required if one wanted to collect money door-to-door.15
The monthly parnas collected and spent the community’s funds. He was to
record them all in a special pinkas (but not on loose sheets of paper!) at the very
8 AEP no. 861 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).

9 JTS 3652, pp. 116–116v (Swarzędz, 5485/1725).
10 AEP no. 2029 (Passover 5478/1718).
11 AEP no. 922 (Passover 5420/1660).
12 AEP no. 1643 (Passover 5453/1693); JTS 3652, pp. 157–157v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5491 /
May 1, 1731); Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 235 (Lublin, 5419/1659).
13 JTS 3652, p. 105 (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan 5467 / April 20, 1707).
14 AEP no. 1561 (Passover 5448/1688), AEP no. 1575 (Passover 5449/1689), AEP no. 1583
(Passover 5450/1690), AEP no. 1610 (Passover 5451/1691), AEP no. 1643 (Passover 5453/1693):
the monthly parnas signed a slip of paper confirming that a tax levied on the purchase of a house or
land had been paid, and the buyer, frequently accompanied by the seller, delivered it to the synagogue
shames who then was allowed to announce the transaction to the public.
15 AEP no. 873 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).
moment when any sums were paid in or out. He signed receipts confirming the
community’s expenses. Without them, a trustee would not be allowed to spend any
money, even the smallest amount. The tax collector, too, was not allowed to make
any payments, e.g., to the kahal’s creditors, without a slip issued by the monthly
parnas, which he was supposed to store until Passover, i.e., when the accounts
were closed.16 Sometimes a trustee, another parnas or tovi, or even two parnasim
or tovim would be required to affix their signatures on such a slip.17 On some elec-
tion lists of Swarzędz it is sometimes noted which parnas had to sign the receipts
during his monthly term in office.18 When the monthly parnas needed money, he
had to deliver a bill for a specific amount either to the trustee or the tax collector,
and on such occasions he was sometimes reminded that he was prohibited to take
any money from individual community residents.
There was a limit to the expenses that the monthly parnas was allowed to in-
cur. In the community of Poznań, electors set a limit on how much money the
parnas would be allowed to spend. In 1659, the limit was half a złoty (15 gr.); in
1663, 45 gr. When the parnas wanted to spend a higher amount, he had to seek
permission of two or three parnasim.19 The Poznań electors nominated three men
to control taxes and expenses, and no monthly parnas was allowed to spend more
than 3 or 4 złoty (zł.) during his monthly term without their permission.20 In
Swarzędz, a parnas was prohibited in 1717 to sign off a receipt for the amounts in
excess of 3 zł. without notifying the trustee, and in 1734, the authorities had to
invoke an earlier regulation that the parnas was not allowed to sign a slip of more
than 3 zł., unless he did it with two other parnasim.21
The monthly parnas was either prohibited from incurring various expenses or
a collective decision had first to be made. He was not allowed to present a gift to
anyone, unless he informed another parnas or tovi about his intention.22 There was
also a maximum limit of alms which the parnas was allowed to give a beggar of
another community. He could support a learned beggar who wanted to preach
a sermon to the public, provided all parnasim were informed about it.23 A decision
to invite a cantor from another community to lead the prayers in the synagogue on
16 AEP no. 1424 (5440/1680).

17 AEP no. 1829 (Passover 5464/1704); JTS 3652, pp. 158v–159 (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5492 /
April 20, 1732).
18 JTS 3652, p. 206v (the election list from 5511/1751).
19 AEP no. 863 (1 Iyar 5419/1659), like in AEP no. 912 (Passover 5420/1660); AEP no. 959
(Passover 5423/1663).
20 AEP no. 2226 (14 Sivan 5527 / June 11, 1767).
21 JTS 3652, pp. 109–109v (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5477 / April 12, 1717); JTS 3652, p. 168v
(Swarzędz, 5494/1734). As in JTS 3652, p. 170 (Swarzędz 5495/1735): for expenses higher than
3 zł., the receipt had to be signed by 2 parnasim or a parnas and a tovi.
22 JTS 3652, p. 170 (Swarzędz 5495/1735).
23 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 241 (Poznań, no date).
the Sabbath was not taken by the monthly parnas alone, but by the whole kahal.24
The monthly parnas was also not allowed to grant any extra sums to a bride if they
were to exceed what she had already been paid out of a special dowry fund.25 He
was also prohibited from giving any financial support for circumcision or a wed-
ding to anyone but a kahal functionary.26
It follows from the Swarzędz pinkas that sometimes the monthly parnas cov-
ered a necessary expense out of his own pocket, and then he would be refunded
by the kahal after his term in office was over from the income tax which had
been collected in that month. But refunding more than 100 zł. a month was pro-
hibited.27
Parnasim were personally liable for the debts contracted by the community
and they were authorized to sign bills of exchange. This was probably the main
reason why some citizens did not want to accept the position of parnas. The records
also identify the kahal, i.e., the parnasim and tovim, as the debtor. In Poznań, the
monthly parnas was obligated to report on the community’s debts to the kahal
before he would step down from his office. There are also entries reading that
a specific parnas paid money to the community’s creditors, either to repay the
principal or interest.28 The Poznań electors instructed that on St. John’s Feast,
which was the day on which the interest accrued on debts would usually be paid,
all five parnasim should be present in the kahal house to assist the monthly par-
nas.29 There is a record dating from 1653 that on that day both parnasim and tovim
were to get together in one group and contact nobility for the common benefit.
Those who refused would have to pay a very high fine.30
Before leaving for a fair, the monthly parnas would have to call all parnasim
and tovim who were to check and count how much money they would need at the
fair to cover the necessary expenses and to pay interest or, as appropriate, set fair
taxes. Their collection was the duty of officials who went to the fair.31 After the
fair was over, parnasim and tovim were to approve the fair revenues and expenses,
the accounts were recorded in the pinkas and undersigned by the monthly parnas
and one tovi.32
The parnas was also responsible for controlling the accounts. Parnasim were
obliged, especially the monthly parnas, to check every week and month all the
24 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 26–27 (Swarzędz, 24 Av
5508 / August 18, 1748).

25 AEP no. 1409 (Passover 5439/1679).
26 AEP no. 1058 (Passover 5427/1667).
27 JTS 3652, p. 113 (Swarzędz, Passover 5484/1724).
28 JTS 3652, p. 62v (Swarzędz, 27 Tamuz 5461 / August 2, 1701).
29 AEP no. 634 (Passover 5410/1650), AEP no. 672 (Passover 5411/1651).
30 AEP no. 729 (Passover 5413/1653), like in AEP no. 934 (Passover 5420/1660): parnasim
were told to be present in town at the time of the fair held on St. John’s Feast.
31 AEP no. 1860 (Passover 5465/1705).
32 AEP no. 1768 (Passover 5460/1700).
accounts kept by the trustee and to approve them with their own signatures. They
also signed the trustee’s pinkas. All receipts delivered by him were to be kept by
parnasim until Passover when the annual accounts were squared.
In 1700, a trustee was committed in Poznań to show the monthly parnas a reg-
ister of revenues and expenses every day. The latter was to examine them and sum
them up every day, and when working on weekly sums, he had to be in the com-
pany of three tovim, who were account supervisors, and to square the weekly
accounts together with them. They were signed by the monthly parnas and one tovi
(each month a different tovi would do it).33 In 1704, the Poznań electors recorded
that the monthly parnas was charged with too many duties and had no time to
square the weekly accounts regularly. For that reason, the electors appointed eight
account supervisors who took turns, two of them every week, squaring the ac-
counts with the trustee.34
A similar procedure was followed in Swarzędz, although for different reasons:
there is an entry from 1726 that parnasim were lazy and careless about their ac-
counts which resulted in numerous errors. This is why three account supervisors
were appointed who were to check and sum up all of the trustee’s revenues and
expenses on the eve of every month (erev rosh ḥ odesh).35
It was also a responsibility of parnasim to see to it that taxes were collected
appropriately and that no high arrears in tax payment accrued. Each week the
monthly parnas would be delivered a list of property taxes assessed by tax estima-
tors and taxes collected by tax collectors. This kind of procedure had to be fol-
lowed as the monthly parnas was prohibited to accept money directly from tax-
payers. During his term in office, the monthly parnas squared the accounts with
the tax collector and entered appropriate sums into the pinkas. Tax collectors were
obligated to provide the monthly parnas with a monthly register of people who
failed to pay their taxes. The Swarzędz parnasim were committed to taking ap-
propriate coercive measures every two months, fining those who lagged in tax
payments, justified because of the need to protect the well-being of the commu-
nity and the individual, who would later find it difficult to pay all the dues at
once.36
The monthly parnas had a duty to help tax collectors. The Poznań electors
prescribed that each Sunday one parnas would meet together with the trustees –
collectors of the income tax – and see if the tax was properly collected.37 The same
procedure was followed in 1703 due to problems with tax collection: the monthly
parnas had to attend tax collection at least once a week “in order to implant fear
33 AEP no. 1767 (Passover 5460/1700), as in AEP no. 1792 (Passover 5461/1701).
34 AEP no. 1832 (Passover 5464/1704).
35 JTS 3652, p. 119 (Swarzędz, 29 Tamuz 5486 / July 28, 1726).
36 JTS 3652, pp. 220v–221v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5517 / May 29, 1757); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3,
pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

37 AEP no. 975 (5424/1664), AEP no. 1095 (Passover 5428/1668).
and to reprimand those who refused [to pay].”38 In 1712, the Poznań electors re-
corded that the monthly parnas had been charged with too many duties to be able
to oversee tax collection, and therefore they ordered the kahal to appoint two tax-
payers who would attend tax collection in turn.39 A reservation was made some-
where else that neither the monthly parnas nor any other parnas was allowed to
exempt anyone from tax payment for some time, unless three parnasim knew
about it.40
In Swarzędz, the monthly parnas was obliged to spend every Friday, the eve
of the Sabbath, of his term in office with the trustee, and he was also authorized to
call in one of the kahal members and two taxpayers, who were not members of the
community authorities (yeḥ idei sgulah) and were chosen by a draw, so that they
would see to it that the tax collection was conducted appropriately and no favors
were given to anybody.41
One can read in the Swarzędz pinkas that ritual slaughter receipts are to be
signed by three parnasim, and interestingly enough, the same entry also specifies
the order in which they should affix their signatures after the monthly parnas. This
was due to an earlier dispute between two parnasim, Avraham, son of reb N., and
Avraham Kats, who of the two should have precedence.42
Each monthly parnas was obliged to make, usually together with the trustee,
a list of revenues and expenses made in his month in office not only in cash but
also in goods. The Poznań electors wrote down that the monthly parnas had to be
accompanied by three taxpayers in order to accept the accounts from trustees and
tax collectors, and before he handed his office over to his successor he would have
to square the accounts in a clear and transparent way.43
In 1652, the Poznań electors ordered the monthly parnas to hand over the ac-
counts for his month in office to account supervisors within 24 hours after his term
was over.44 In 1706, they ordered that his account squaring should be assisted by
38 AEP no. 1817 (Passover 5463/1703).

39 AEP no. 1955 (Passover 5472/1712).
40 AEP no. 1267 (Passover 5434/1674).
41 JTS 3652, pp. 220v–221v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5517 / May 29, 1757); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3,
pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

42 JTS 3652, p. 204v (Swarzędz, no date). A similar dispute, examined by the undervoievode’s
court in Lwów in 1763, is described by Zbigniew Pazdro. When a note was written by parnasim to
secure a loan granted by the Jesuits, a dispute broke out between Lewko Bałaban and Zelman Pinkas
about who of them should affix his signature first. The document was torn to pieces and Bałaban took
Pinkas to the undervoievode’s court. The court punished him with a fine and ruled that in the future
Pinkas would be the first to affix his signature, as he was the first to be appointed to the community’s
authorities (Pazdro, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodzińskich, pp. 46–47).
44 AEP no. 695 (Passover 5412/1652), like in AEP no. 1210 (Passover 5432/1672): monthly
accounts were to be squared in the presence of two account supervisors.

one more parnas or tovi, and from 1761 his month’s accounts were also to be
signed, apart from himself, by another parnas.45
In 1705 a decision was made in Swarzędz that on the eve of a new month the
monthly parnas would convene the kahal and account to it for his term of office,
and should any member of the kahal be absent, then he would be replaced by out-
standing people. The latter were called yeḥ idei sgulah and the term stood for peo-
ple of means, with outstanding knowledge and other virtues, who did not hold any
community positions.46 Should the monthly parnas contravene the foregoing or-
der, then he would be obliged to cover all expenses that he had made in his month
in office out of his own pocket.47 It was also prescribed on several occasions that
the squaring of accounts should be attended by account supervisors.48
The outgoing parnas had to square his accounts clearly so that the following
one could assume his post for another monthly term. The Poznań electors warned
in 1655 that the outgoing and incoming parnas would be fined if the post were
handed over without the required squaring of accounts.49 The outgoing parnas was
also supposed to hand over to his successor all pledges and notes he had in his
possession.
Before Passover, the parnasim squared annual accounts and then handed them
over to electors.
The parnasim and the kahal also examined court cases, which will be dis-
cussed in the chapter devoted to judiciary. Every trial in the undervoievode’s court
had to be held in the presence of a parnas or an appointee of the monthly parnas,
in Polish, a kahalnik.50 The latter was sent copies of court sentences ruled by
other courts that operated in the community (e.g., a guild court51) and he was the
one to authorize the community’s shames to carry the ruling into life by means of
coercive measures or penalties.
46 Gershon David Hundert writes that the term yeḥ idei sgulah, with its Polish equivalent of
pospólstwo (commoners), stands for people who met the affluence criteria (the taxes they paid were
sufficiently high) to become kahal members, but they did not hold any positions. They were usually
gathered when it was necessary to decide about matters regarding the entire community; they also
participated in the election of delegates to the Council of Four Lands (Hundert, The Jews in a Polish
Private Town, p. 87). According to Majer Bałaban, the name yeḥ idei sgulah means “chosen” and
stands for lower-ranking positions of the so-called kahalniks, i.e., council members or members of
various committees of the kahal (Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 1 (1937), p. 82).
48 JTS 3652, p. 122–122v (Swarzędz, 5489/1729): it was also added that account supervisors
should have no family ties with parnasim; JTS 3652, pp. 220v–221v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5517 / May
29, 1757); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).
49 AEP no. 799 (Passover 5415/1655).
50 AEP no. 724 (Passover 5413/1653).
51 AEP no. 2157 (5497/1737).
A parnas who had a seat in the synagogue would confer synagogue honors
side by side with its gabaim and keep a register of those appointed to the reading
of the Torah or to ascend to the Torah on the holiday of Simḥat Torah. When no
parnas had his seat in a synagogue, those duties were discharged by a tovi or ka-
halnik. But the kahal was prohibited from making its own list of those without
gabaim, as had once happened.52
It was also the monthly parnas’ responsibility to receive important guests,
mainly scholars, and he had a duty to host them in his own house and at his table.
Should more guests of honor visit the community, then they were hosted by other
parnasim and tovim.53 One can read in the Swarzędz pinkas that another solution
was also adopted: the monthly parnas would host several guests visiting the com-
munity at the same time, and the other kahal members would pay him money,
according to a rate set per every day of their stay.54
Many entries limited the authority vested in the parnasim or instructed to
control them, an indication that they may have sometimes abused their position.
Accordingly, parnasim were prohibited from changing regulations adopted by an
assembly, and they were reminded that only the assembly was permitted to amend
the regulations.55 They were also prohibited from changing the decrees issued by
electors.56 The monthly parnas was not allowed to change the way official posi-
tions were filled and the way prayers were assigned on the High Holidays, which
was the prerogative of the kahal.57
The Poznań electors also prescribed that no parnas should interfere with any
business charged to officials, tax estimators (e.g., change the property tax they had
assessed58), dayanim or the three men appointed by the electors to exercise super-
vision over trade agents.59 He was also not allowed to change any regulations
which had been adopted at the meetings of officials and attended by people repre-
senting the kahal.60 He was also prohibited from waiving any fines imposed by
other officials.61
In Poznań, the nine men, who had been elected to collect money for interest
to be paid on the community debts on St. John’s Feast, were prohibited from

53 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 34 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5511
/ April 19, 1751). As in AEP no. 1762 (Passover 5459/1699).
54 JTS 3652, p. 155v (Swarzędz, no date).
56 For example, AEP no. 2251 (Passover 5547/1787).
57 AEP no. 1862 (Passover 5465/1705).
58 AEP no. 983 (5424/1664). Majer Bałaban is of the opinion that parnasim exerted significant
influence on tax estimators, anyway, as they were the ones who chose them (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału
w Polsce,” p. 26).
59 AEP no. 1838 (Passover 5464/1704).
60 AEP no. 1329 (Passover 5436/1676).
61 AEP no. 1229 (Passover 5433/1673).
spending that money on other needs of the kahal, even if ordered to do so by the
monthly parnas.62 The Poznań electors did not allow the parnasim to use for their
own purposes the money they had collected to furnish the synagogue.63
They were not allowed to reduce the assessed tax and they were not supposed
to listen to any tax-related requests or laments. And the five men appointed to su-
pervise tax collection were told not to pay any heed should parnasim intercede.64
Parnasim had an obligation to incur some expenses, e.g., the ones for charity,
which money they were to hand to gabaim. No parnas was permitted to prevent or
delay such payments, and the trustee was to pay them out every week, paying no
heed to the parnas.65 When a parnas paid cash at the fair or when a debt was repaid,
he was not allowed to go to the merchant on his own, but he had to be in the com-
pany of one kahal member or one of the yeḥidei sgulah.66 Such a procedure must
have been put in place either for control or security reasons.
The Poznań electors forbade the monthly parnas to attend any feast during his
month in office, both during the day and at night.67 This ban would only be lifted
as an exception when the feast was held by his relative.68 The ban must have been
introduced to protect the monthly parnas from any pressures that guests might
exert or to be sure that he would stay sober and alert throughout his term.
Parnasim were forbidden to reap any profits from their position. The Swarzędz
electors made their parnasim take a vow that they would exempt neither them-
selves nor their relatives from taxes. They were forbidden to use any of the goods
they had in their own stores to satisfy community needs, and should they do it, they
would not be allowed to charge for them. This ban was lifted later on and an entry
was made that should a parnas provide the community with any goods to from his
own store, then he would have to check their size and weight carefully and to sell
them at the price they were sold to others. Parnasim and other kahal members were
prohibited from buying salt and flax delivered by the town’s owner; they were to
inform community members about their sale at the synagogue two or three times
and sell those products to other people. Parnasim were also forbidden to take even
a grosz of the kahal’s money, as it was to be stashed in the kahal’s cash box. It was
kept locked and entrusted to the trustee, and the key to the box was to be kept by
the monthly parnas. But no monthly parnas was allowed to spend even a single
62 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 253v (Poznań, 8 Sivan 5438 / May 29, 1678).
63 AEP no. 1102 (Passover 5428/1668).
64 AEP no. 2244 (Passover 5543/1783); as in AEP no. 2234 (Passover 5534/1774): tax collec-
tors were told to ignore the monthly parnas should he try to protect anyone from tax collection and
to collect all the dues fairly and honestly.
65 JTS 3652, p. 103 (Swarzędz, 9 Iyar 5460 / April 28, 1700).
66 AEP no. 1208 (Passover 5432/1672).
67 AEP no. 849 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659), AEP no. 947 (Passover 5423/1663), AEP no. 1332
(Passover 5436/1676).
68 AEP no. 1066 (Passover 5427/1667).
grosz of that money all by himself except via the trustee, and three other parnasim
had to be informed about it.69
Like other officials, the parnasim discharged their duties gratuitously. It is
likely, however, that sometimes they demanded some compensation for their work
from the kahal, as the Poznań electors wrote down that no matter how “fair and
justified his arguments were,” no parnas would be paid any remuneration.70
Parnasim were assisted by tovim,71 which term is translated as good men
(Latin boni viri). These officials were also sometimes referred to as ławnicy (Lat-
in scabini) by analogy to the town authorities. In the Jewish communities of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there were usually from three to five tovim. In
Poznań, three tovim were chosen, in Swarzędz, two or sometimes three. During
elections, tovim were listed in the second place, immediately after the parnasim.
In many source documents parnasim and tovim are mentioned side by side as they
constituted top community authorities which were referred to as alufei kahal. In
the 1755 election lists of Swarzędz the names of parnasim and tovim are entered
in one column identified as “alufim kahal,” and it is specified which function each
of them assumed.72
Majer Bałaban observed that the powers vested in tovim basically did not dif-
fer much from those of the elders, and it also happened that the same people held
both positions in turn. In larger communities (e.g., Kraków or Opatów) this was
considered as a natural arrangement, the more so that two relatives were not al-
lowed to hold the same post at the same time and this is why one of them would
be a senior, and the other one, a councilor.73
Tovim and parnasim handled the most important community matters. Tovim
supervised what the parnasim, especially the monthly parnas, did and they at-
tended the kahal’s meetings. It was their responsibility to assist parnasim when
they paid interest accrued on the community debts on St. John’s Feast.74 In Poznań,
tovim were appointed as supervisors of accounts and together with the parnas
checked and signed the bills at the end of each week.75 In 1706, the Poznań elec-
tors resolved that one tovi would assist the monthly parnas at the time monthly
accounts were squared.76 Tovim were also to accompany a tax collector to control
tax collection.77 Sometimes a signature of one or two tovim was required on the
69 JTS 3652, p. 170 (Swarzędz, 5495/1735); JTS 3652, pp. 220v–221v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan
5517 / May 29, 1757); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).
70 AEP no. 1861 (Passover 5465/1705).
71 Majer Bałaban writes that this name, coming from the Talmudic period, stood for the seven
good men of the town, shivah tovei ha-ir /Megillah 27/ (Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 1 (1937), p. 82).
72 JTS 3652, p. 213v (Swarzędz, the election list dating from 5515/1755).
73 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 1 (1937), p. 103; idem, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” p. 27.
74 AEP no. 729 (Passover 5413/1653).
76 AEP no. 1879 (Passover 5466/1706).
77 AEP no. 2234 (Passover 5534/1774).
receipt next to the one affixed by the monthly parnas, so that it could be accepted
by the trustee or tax collector.
Tovim also participated in the bestowing of honors in synagogues, hosted the
community’s guests of honor, and collected donations for the construction of syn-
agogues.78 They were also members of the kahal courts.79
Majer Bałaban is of the opinion that the very name of town judges (ławnicy)
indicates that tovim acted as assessors in voievode’s courts. He writes:
This proposition is corroborated by the fact that nowhere in the kahal’s statutes or on lists
of elected officials can we find a reference to assessors of the voievode’s courts, while this
function was discharged by higher-ranking kahal members pursuant to royal privileges and
voievode orders.80
This argument does not appeal to me: the very name of town judges was most
probably adopted by analogy to town authorities and it does not mean that they
acted as assessors in courts. It follows from the entries in the pinkas of the Poznań
electors that it was parnasim who were obliged to sit in non-Jewish courts, a natu-
ral consequence of their duty to represent the community outside and assist its
residents in contacts with external authorities. In 1653, the Poznań electors pre-
scribed that each trial held in the undervoievode’s court had to be conducted in the
presence of a parnas or kahalnik ordered to be present by the monthly parnas.81 It
is also likely that the duty was vested with tovim.
Another important position in the community’s authorities was that of a gabai
or gabai tsdakah, i.e., supervisor of charity (prowizor or szpitalnik).
In a community’s hierarchy, the position of gabaim was very high, because
charity played a very important role in Jewish life. This was so not only for practi-
cal reasons; the charity was also to ensure the world’s harmony, help the souls of
the dead, which was a religious act that ensured favors, prosperity, and the arrival
of the Messiah. Apart from its main objective to “pacify the outcry of the poor,”
the Poznań electors also offered other reasons for their interest in charity. It was
viewed as “the right thing for God;”82 it was to “help the spirits of our forefa-
thers,”83 bring long life to donors and their offspring84 and ensure God’s mercy.85
At the end of another regulation issued by electors one can read: “And owing to
78 AEP no. 1037 (5426/1666); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego,
p. 34 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5511 / April 19, 1751); AEP no. 1312 (Passover 5436/1676).
79 JTS 3652, p. 113v (Swarzędz, Passover 5484/1724).
80 Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” p. 27. This is similar to Baron, The Jewish Community,
vol. 2, p. 60, and Schiper, “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów,” p. 96.

81 AEP no. 724 (Passover 5413/1653).
82 AEP no. 2047 (Passover 5480/1720).
83 AEP no. 1815 (Passover 5463/1703).
84 AEP no. 623 (Passover 5410/1650).
85 AEP no. 2176 (Passover 5506/1746).
charity our redemption becomes closer, it will happen promptly – within our life-
time.”86
The Poznań community elected nine gabaim and they were to serve in three
major synagogues (the Old, New, and High one), three gabaim for each syna-
gogue. The electors were not supposed to appoint a gabai to another synagogue
than the one in which he had his seat.87 Lists of elected officials, which will be
discussed in more detail in the following chapter, show that sometimes there were
eight of them for each of the above-mentioned synagogues. Sporadically, gabaim
were also elected to serve smaller synagogues.
The community of Swarzędz elected from three to six gabaim each year, and
in 1733 a decision was made to elect a deputy who would oversee charity when
they were absent from the town so that charity was not left “like a ship without the
captain.”88
Like parnasim, gabaim held their office for one month; the one who was to
oversee charity was called the monthly gabai (gabai ḥ odesh). Gabaim were warned
that a gabai who refused to accept this function would not be allowed to attend all
meetings and would be excluded from the company of gabaim.89 It was the duty
of the monthly gabai to gather three gabaim every Sunday; each case had to be
examined in the presence of the majority of gabaim.90 In order for any announce-
ment to be made in the synagogue, permission had to be granted by all gabaim.
Gabaim also employed their own shames.
On the lists of the members of the Swarzędz community authorities, one can
spot female counterparts of gabaim (gabatot or gabaot nashim). In some studies
they are referred to as charity collectors (kwestarki). They were involved in char-
ity work among women and they collected donations from single women (in
Poznań they were allowed to collect donations only on Mondays91). The charity
collectors mentioned on the Swarzędz list of 1728 were all widows or wives of the
most eminent officials: parnasim, gabaim, or dayanim.
Charity work consisted of providing for the poor, orphans, and widows, taking
care of those who were poor and sick, supporting poor schoolchildren and stu-
dents, providing poor girls with trousseaus and dowries, hosting wanderers, etc. It
was the main responsibility of gabaim to take care of the poor, to verify lists of
86 AEP no. 1490 (5444/1684).
87 AEP no. 1126 (5430/1670).
89 AEP no. 2176 (Passover 5506/1746) – it was possible to exempt only an “old or frail man”
from the duty to perform the function of the monthly gabai and then it would be added that ones
raḥ amana petaryah (a person who sinned under the use of force would be exempted from the punish-
ment by God); AEP no. 2192 (5517/1757) – the only exception was made for gabai Yakov, a wise
and old man, who was relieved from that responsibility, the same way as his son gabai Shmuel, be-
cause of his other duties; AEP no. 2195 (Passover 5519/1759).
90 AEP no. 649 (Passover 5410/1650).
91 AEP no. 639 (Passover 5410/1650).
those in need, and to strike out names of those who earned an income or a profit,
and to replace them by other people in need.92 Sometimes charity was addressed
to Jews from outside the community, e.g., funds were raised to help the poor living
in the Land of Israel or to pay ransom for captives, but the usual focus of the
gabaim’s attention were local residents in need. Moreover, gabaim exercised su-
pervision over synagogues, the bath and butchers, and they sometimes attended
various community meetings (in 1660 the electors agreed that the composition of
the kahal would be supplemented only from among dayanim and gabaim93).
The charity fund (kupat ha-tsdakah or kupah shel tsdakah) was kept separate
from the community accounts.94 Its proceeds mainly came from payments for
synagogue honors and sale or lease of the synagogue seats,95 donations collected
in synagogue boxes (gabaim were to open them on the eve of every new month96),
fines, a percentage of court charges (usually a half), but also donations by indi-
vidual community members. Sometimes gabaim were handed notes signed by
officials as guaranties for liabilities which had not been paid.97 The sums that
gabaim were to collect were not subject to exemptions; every single grosz had to
be collected. Gabaim were also expected to contribute to charity, especially if they
were wealthy; the Poznań electors once wrote that those monthly gabaim who
could afford a donation should provide for the poor during their month in office.98
A portion of charity funds were raised by collections. In order to carry such
a collection, one had to have a letter signed by the monthly parnas and the month-
ly gabai. The gabaim of Poznań were ordered by electors to take special care that
passed around was none other but the collection box of the community’s gabaim.99
In their regulations, the electors prohibited the poor to beg door-to-door, arguing
that they could embarrass heads of household.100 At the same time, the gabaim
were reminded of an old custom of going from house to house and collecting con-
tributions for the poor. Money was collected that way from 3 to 6 times a year
(at Hanukkah, the Shabat Naḥamu, the night of the Fast of Esther, Purim, and the
93 AEP no. 921 (Passover 5420/1660).
94 The sums paid in and out of the charity fund are listed in the surviving pinkas of Swarzędz
gabaim covering 1749–92 (APP, Gmina żydowska Swarzędz 2). It is interesting that, contrary to the
complaints of the gabaim, their balance was positive almost every year (i.e., the revenues were
higher than the expenses).
95 The pinkas of the Poznań synagogue’s gabaim (CAHJP, PL/Po 9) records many transactions
of this kind.
96 AEP no. 2195 (Passover 5519/1759).
97 AEP no. 694 (Passover 5412/1652): a gabai was to receive notes written by tax collectors,
just in case they would fail to assess the property tax in time.
98 AEP no. 758 (Passover 5414/1654).
99 AEP no. 873 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659), AEP no. 1551b (Passover 5447/1687).
100 A Hebrew term baal bait is translated here as the “head of household,” but perhaps it should
be translated as the “head of family.”

Feast of Weeks).101 Collections by women gabaim were subject to some con-

straints. In Poznań they turned to the kahal for its financial support to help provide
for the poor at the time of three pilgrimage feasts (the Passover, the Feast of
Tabernacles, and the Feast of Weeks) and asked to be allowed to collect money
personally by going from house to house. Only the first of their requests was
granted, but they were strictly prohibited from going door-to-door to collect con-
tributions.102 Such institutionalization and centralization of charity must have
stemmed from the kahal’s intention to control charity work. One may suspect that
this approach resulted in a gradual “shrinking” of individual and private charity.
Charity collections were also arranged at the time of religious feasts that were
given on the occasion of a circumcision or wedding, etc.
The Poznań kahal contributed a fixed amount to charity (12 zł. a week). De-
spite that, one could frequently hear in the Poznań community, and it is likely in
the Swarzędz one as well, gabaim complain to the electors or parnasim that their
charity coffers were empty. Usually, as a result of such complaints, gabaim were
allotted a portion of community taxes or were allowed to collect some charges.
The Poznań electors provided them with a percentage of income and property
taxes, ritual slaughter fees, a tax levied on meat sold in the streets, salt, herring,
and also court charges.103 But gabaim were also reminded sometimes that they
were to collect those sums themselves.104
It follows from an entry made in 1695 that the charity fund failed to satisfy
even a half of the community’s needs and that the number of the poor and needy
continued to grow. This is why gabaim were forced to contract loans and even to
pawn synagogue utensils and furnishings.105
Dayanim, community judges, apart from their judiciary responsibilities,
which will be discussed in a separate chapter, also attended various meetings of
community authorities or were supposed to replace those kahal members who were
absent (the Poznań electors insisted that they could only be substituted by gabaim
or dayanim).106 The Poznań electors also prescribed on a few occasions that each
section of tax estimators should have one dayan.107 In Poznań, dayanim were also
members of various bodies that were elected to handle finances and which mainly
(Passover 5496/1736).
102 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 254v (Poznań, no date).
103 AEP no. 623 (Passover 5410/1650), AEP no. 1342 (5437/1677), AEP no. 1490 (5444/1684),
AEP no. 1508 (Passover 5445/1685), AEP no. 1661 (Passover 5455/1695), AEP no. 1766 (Passover
5460/1700), AEP no. 1815 (Passover 5463/1703), AEP no. 1981 (Passover 5475/1715), AEP no. 2068
(Passover 5482/1722), AEP no. 2075 (Passover 5483/1723).
104 For example, the bardon levied on salt and herring: AEP no. 1766 (Passover 5460/1700).
106 AEP no. 921 (Passover 5420/1660).

dealt with debt and interest payments.108 Poznań had three dayanim among the ten
men appointed to exchange coins109 in 1670, and in 1688 all seven dayanim were
to take care of the community’s revenues until a new rabbi would be hired.110 In-
dividual dayanim were also appointed to perform other specific duties.
It was the responsibility of dayanim to visit a woman in childbirth on the
Sabbath, no matter if she gave birth to a boy or a girl. When a girl would be
born, dayanim were the ones to announce her name.111 Another area reserved for
dayanim in which parnasim were not allowed to interfere was the execution
of the contract of marriage (ketubah).112
Dayanim were held in high esteem by each community. It was because of their
wisdom, experience (they were frequently old, as evidenced by the election lists
on which their names appeared for many years) or their knowledge of Talmudic
law which was indispensable to issue court verdicts. Dayanim were frequently
mentioned among scholars who were obliged to attend the yeshivah meetings or
were appointed to study at beit midrash.113 The study of Halakhah, Rashi’s com-
mentaries, or tosafot, which was the duty of the yeshivah students (bnei yeshivah),
also had to be pursued by dayanim and other scholars studying the Torah.114
Elected officials also included judges (senzis, tsenzis, a Polish word sędzia/
sędziowie written down according to the orthographic rules of Yiddish) who adju-
dicated in disputes between Jews and Christians. Their number in Poznań ranged
from one to eleven.115 The Swarzędz community elected two or three of them, but
from 1770 they were no longer listed among elected officials.
Tax estimators (shamaim), called symplarze (from ‘sympla’) in Polish, were
to assess a tax payable by each community inhabitant. They will be discussed in
detail in the chapter about community taxes. It follows from the electors’ pinkas
that in Poznań there were from seven to seventeen of them.116
Electors also elected officials who were supposed to oversee income tax (bar-
don) collection. There were from five to seven of them in Poznań and five in
Swarzędz, and this why they were referred to as either the five men (ḥ amishah
108 AEP no. 749 (Passover 5414/1654), AEP no. 766 (Passover 5414/1654), CAHJP, PL/Po 1a,
p. 267 (Poznań, 25 Adar 5446 / March 21, 1686).

109 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223v (Poznań, 7? Iyar 5430 / April 27, 1670).
110 AEP no. 1566 (Passover 5448/1688).
111 AEP no. 1164 (5431/1671).
112 AEP no. 881 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).
113 AEP no. 2175 (Passover 5506/1746).
(Passover 5474/1714).
115 On the lists of elected officials included in the Poznań electors’ pinkas, there are from one
to eleven judges. Wolf Feilchenfeld writes that in 1700 Poznań had three judges who were the kahal
members; in 1739 there were five judges who were not members of the kahal, and in 1757, ten
judges (Feilchenfeld, “Die innere Verfassung,” p. 131).
116 AEP no. 1934 (Passover 5471/1711) and election lists in CAHJP, PL/Po 1.
anashim) or the seven men (shivah anashim). Non-Jewish documents referred to

bardon as krupka, and its overseers or collectors were labeled as krupkarze. The
pinkas of the Poznań electors has an entry that the seven men for bardon were
elected by the kahal once every three years. There is a record dating from 1711 that
the kahal would elect eleven men who would then nominate the officials dealing
with bardon.117 The Swarzędz electors wrote that, since in a few communities one
of the five men was a dayan and one a kahal member, they decided to follow the
same rule in 1739.118 Overseers of bardon were obliged to meet once a week to
control the trustee and the bardon’s collector and to work on the accounts once
a month. In 1677, the Poznań electors prescribed that each of the five men should
in turn spend one Saturday evening and Sunday with the trustee of bardon and
oversee tax collection.119 Some overseers of bardon also attended meetings of
community authorities.
The other officials fall into the following groups:
The first group consisted of officials handling community finances. Trustees
(ne’emanim, vierniks), who are frequently included on the election lists of Poznań
and Swarzędz, were usually paid for their work; they will be discussed in the
chapter devoted to community functionaries. Community accounts were under the
control of account supervisors (roei ḥ eshbonot or baalei ḥ eshbonot, Polish rach-
mistrze). In Poznań they were appointed by the electors or the kahal. There is an
entry dating from 1673 reading that the permanent supervisor of accounts was to
sit with his pinkas everyday and record revenues and expenses, while two addi-
tional supervisors were to help him and check daily accounts.120 In 1682, four
account supervisors were elected, two among the kahal members, and two “from
the street,”121 who were to take turns every month. Their responsibility was to sit
together with the trustee at the tax collector’s office and book the accounts, and at
the month’s end, to bring their notes to the monthly parnas. It follows from the
records that those supervisors were appointed to help the monthly parnas.122 It was
exactly for the same reason that in 1704 eight account supervisors were elected in
Poznań who were to take turns every week working in pairs on the accounts with
the trustee.123 Entries in the electors’ pinkas also refer to the trustees-account su-
pervisors, i.e., functionaries who combined those two functions. They were to
118 JTS 3652, p. 177 (Swarzędz, 2 Iyar 5499 / May 10, 1739).
119 AEP no. 1358 (5437/1677).
120 AEP no. 1247 (5433/1673).
121 The term “from the street” (me-ha-reḥ ov or min ha-reḥ ov) identified a social status; it was
used to refer to the people who were not members of the community authorities because they did not
meet affluence criteria (they did not pay sufficiently high taxes). Those who were not members of
the community authorities but did meet the affluence criteria were labeled as yeḥ idei sgulah (cf.
footnote 46).
122 AEP no. 1452 (Passover 5442/1682).
123 AEP no. 1832 (Passover 5464/1704).
collect taxes from taxpayers every month and enter them into the pinkas, and it
was to them that the monthly parnas would hand over the accounts after his month
in office was over.
Swarzędz elected from two to four account supervisors. They helped the
monthly parnas in calculations, and they were present when he settled his month
and signed the accounts. Account supervisors could not be in any way related to
parnasim.124
The second group of officials was to take care of the order in the Jewish quar-
ter. In this group the most important of all were memunim, which term may be
translated as overseers of the order or street supervisors. The Poznań election lists
include from seven to twelve memunim. Initially there was a practice to appoint
memunim for individual streets, but this practice was abandoned later on.125 It
follows from the entries that memunim took turns every month and the memun
currently in charge was labeled as the monthly memun. The Swarzędz community
had from one to seven memunim, but usually there were four or five of them. It
was a memunim’s responsibility to see to it that garbage was removed from the
streets, to which end a special tax was levied (meot ashpah) whose collection was
recorded in the memunim’s pinkas. In 1704, the Poznań electors complained that
memunim were lazy and slow and that, even more important, they did not see to
it that the shames they had employed would collect the special tax from all the
community residents.126 Memunim were also to take care of the water supply to
the Jewish quarter, supervise pipes, wells, latrines and chimney sweeping. It was
also their responsibility to oversee night guards. They were also to see to it that
measures and weights were accurate and that wine, cheese, and butter were ko-
sher.127 Memunim, like other officials, were sworn in after their election and signed
bills of exchange to guarantee that they would discharge their duties appropriately.
The most important of their responsibilities was collection of the garbage tax from
all residents. Should parnasim find out at the end of the year, when the accounts
were squared, that a memun exempted anyone from the tax, then this amount
would be deducted from his bill of exchange.128 The Poznań electors instructed
memunim to remove rubble from the streets, to clean the synagogue’s yard, to
repair the fencing, etc. They were to estimate the cost of those works and divide it
among all residents. In 1719, the Poznań electors ordered memunim to pay atten-
124 Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 156–159 (Swarzędz, 5489/1729).

125 From 1633 to 1670, the Poznań community appointed memunim to oversee individual
streets, but the election lists covering the same years refer to them jointly. Memunim were appointed
to oversee 3–4 streets. These included the following streets: Bożnicza, Drewniana, Średnia, and the
streets named after such leaders as parnas Eliezer, Leib Zelig, parnas Mendel, Abush, parnas I., and
parnas P.
126 AEP no. 1835 (Passover 5464/1704).
127 Schorr, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce, p. 22.
128 AEP no. 1282 (Nisan 5434/1674), AEP no. 1335 (Passover 5436/1676).
tion to the people who broke the law and opened their stores on holidays, and the
shamesim of the kahal were to listen to the orders of the monthly memun when
those offenders were punished. The monthly memunim who failed to discharge
this duty were fined.129 In Poznań, the memunim were obliged to see to it that dress
code regulations were observed and in Swarzędz that women after childbirth did
not send any gifts, as this practice was prohibited.130
Law and order were also the responsibility of market supervisors (parnasei
ha-shuk, mark parnasim). They were to walk in the marketplace and streets to see
if any people started quarrels, if the ban on door-to-door selling was observed, and
to reconcile parties and settle disputes between them. In 1786, the market supervi-
sors in Swarzędz, in order to relieve the kahal, were also charged with the task of
adjudicating all the quarrels among Jews. The kahal was only to approve the ver-
dicts they had issued.131
Law and order were also the responsibility of tovei (ha-)ir. They were also to
take care of buildings in the Jewish quarter and their repairs. The election lists
recorded in the pinkas of the Poznań electors mention from five to seventeen tovei
ir, and they are frequently divided into two sections. In 1721, the Poznań electors
recorded that two sections of tovei ir, each of more than five people, were to ex-
amine disputes over land and real estate, and shamesim were prohibited to take the
disputing parties to other courts. Each section could incorporate one or two
dayanim, as appropriate.132 The Swarzędz pinkasim make no reference to tovei ir.
The third group of officials was elected to supervise crafts and artisans.
Slaughterhouse supervisors (parnasei/memunei kotel hoif ) were to oversee rit-
ual slaughter and collection of the related tax. Their duties also included, as pre-
scribed by the Poznań electors, visits to butchers’ stalls each Thursday and Friday
to supervise meat selling.133 Poznań had from three to fourteen slaughterhouse
supervisors, and Swarzędz from one to eight (usually four). They would employ
a shames and trustee to help them (frequently the latter is also entered on the elec-
tion lists) with quarterly settlement of the slaughterhouse’s revenues and expenses
which were then entered in a special pinkas. Slaughterhouse supervisors also act-
ed as the dayanim of slaughterhouses, as they ruled in court cases related to slaugh-
ter, except that they were not allowed to impose either high fines or to imprison
a butcher without a permission of the monthly parnas or the kahal.134
This group of officials also included supervisors of artisans and guilds.
Although Majer Bałaban writes that in time the offices that exercised control over
129 AEP no. 2036 (Passover 5479/1719).

130 AEP no. 1620 (Passover 5452/1692), Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 156–159
(Swarzędz, 5489/1729).
131 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 49v (Swarzędz, 2 Iyar 5546 / April 30, 1786).
132 AEP no. 2065 (Passover 5481/1721).
133 AEP no. 1040 (5426/1666).
134 AEP no. 1895 (Passover 5467/1707).
crafts and trade became extinct due to the independent status of guilds,135 his claim
is not corroborated by the source materials.
The Poznań election lists refer to the supervisors of the following crafts: tai-
lors (parnasei/memunei ḥeytim), furriers (parnasei/memunei kirshner), loop mak-
ers (parnasei/memunei petlitser), stall-keepers (parnasei/memunei kremir), wool
vendors (parnasei/memunei tsemer), fur traders (parnasei/memunei roykhvarg),
bull hide vendors (parnasei/memunei yokhtin), dress sellers (parnasei/memunei
mokhrei begadim) and intermediaries (parnasei/memunei faktorin). There were
also supervisors of merchants from other communities (parnasei/memunei
(anshei) medinah). The Swarzędz election lists mention supervisors of butchers
(parnasei zvaḥim) and tailors. The foregoing officials were elected by the kahal.
Their main task was to see to it that taxes were paid.136 It was also their responsi-
bility to pass verdicts in occupation-related court cases.137
The fourth group consisted of officials whose responsibility was fairs. They
were an extension of the kahal’s authority over the community’s inhabitants at the
site of a fair. The fair officials (manhigei ha-yarid) were appointed by the Poznań
community on the occasion of major fairs that were held in Wrocław, Gniezno,
Toruń, and Gdańsk. For each fair, the kahal appointed one parnas (parnas ha-
yarid), one dayan (dayan ha-yarid), one shames, and sometimes a cantor.138 The
Poznań electors prescribed that the fair parnas should be appointed in advance of
two weeks or eight days before each fair.139 It was the responsibility of fair offi-
cials to collect taxes from the community residents present at the fair, to pay the
community’s debts or interest accrued on them, which usually happened at fairs.
The fair parnas was obliged to take along with him two people that he knew well
who would collect and pay out money, and he was to make fair expenses in the
same way, also in somebody’s presence.140 The fair parnas was to be delivered
bills by the fair shames before they left the fair, and only in exceptional cases the
accounts could be squared in Poznań. The fair parnas was allowed three days from
his coming back from the fair to deliver the accounts to the kahal. Fair dayanim
(Mojżesz Schorr refers to them as provincial judges141) also attended court ses-
135 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 53. Further discussion in Chapter 4.

136 Hundert, “On the Jewish Community,” p. 360.
137 AEP no. 1551 (Passover 5447/1687): supervisors of slaughterhouses, tailors, fur makers,
stall-keepers, and loop makers, as well as tovei ir were to hand half of the court charges they had
collected to dayanim.
138 AEP no. 1244 (Passover 5433/1673): the Poznań electors prohibited the kahal from dis-
patching two shamesim to the fair, and, to cut fair expenses, only one of them was to be sent; CAHJP,
PL/Po 1a, p. 257v (Poznań, 12 Av 5442 / August 16, 1682): electors were prohibited from nominat-
ing fair officials.
5427/1667).
140 AEP no. 1224b (Passover 5433/1673).
sions held at fairs. There is an entry in the pinkas of the Council of Four Lands that
at the Toruń and Gdańsk fairs there was a custom that one dayan would represent
the sacred community of Poznań and one dayan would represent the Wielkopolska
district.142
Pinkasim also refer to fair officials who were charged with a duty, i.a., to keep
an eye on people and punish those who bought stolen things and could thus expose
the community to danger. The Poznań electors recorded in 1683 that fair officials,
who had not been nominated by the electors but by the kahal, were allowed to hold
their positions only at the time of the fair and that their nomination would be void
after the fair was over.143
The final, fifth, group consisted of officials who were to see to religious and
charity matters. They were administrators (gabaim) of synagogues or beit midrash.
The latter were to draw up the appropriate schedule of Torah studies so that they
could go on day and night. It was their duty to manage the beit midrash’s income,
and the kahal was not allowed to interfere with their decisions.144 There were also
other officials who took care of the school (parnasei/gabaei talmud-torah), Eternal
Light (gabaei ner tamid), girls’ dowry (parnasei/memunei meot betulot) or or-
phans’ brotherhoods (avei yetumim), ransom brotherhood (gabaei pidion shvuim)
or a brotherhood to support the poor of the Land of Israel (gabaei erets yisrael).
Their activity will be discussed in a chapter devoted to brotherhoods.
In emergency situations, to resolve a specific problem or to accomplish some-
thing, the kahal or the thirty-two men would also appoint special “task” groups.
They frequently comprised people who held community positions and who were
additionally charged with a special duty. The name of such a group usually de-
pended on the number of its members (most frequently, two, three, or five). For
example, they would be charged with rebuilding the synagogue or houses after
a fire, making payments on debt or interest to a specific creditor, taking care of
orphans or widows, controlling trade agents, fighting excessive luxury, collecting
money for etrogim, or storing pledges.
2. FUNCTIONARIES
Community officials, excluding dayanim who were paid a portion of court

charges, discharged their functions gratuitously. Apart from these officials, a com-
munity, especially a large and prosperous one, would also employ a group of
functionaries who were salaried officials, referred to as mi-she-oved. The most
142 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 552 (Jarosław, 27 Tishri 5473 / October 6,
1712).
143 AEP no. 1478 (Passover 5443/1683).
144 AEP no. 1824 (Passover 5464/1704).
FUNCTIONARIES 51
important of them was the rabbi who will be discussed in a separate chapter be-
cause of his very special position.
A darshan (sometimes also labeled as magid), or the preacher, was the rab-
bi’s assistant, but sometimes the functions of the rabbi and darshan would be
combined.145 When the office of the rabbi was vacant, then the darshan performed
all his duties. In Poznań, where this situation occurred on several occasions and
persisted for a long time after 1736, the rabbi’s office continued to be vacant for
about 40 years. In 1655, the Poznań electors recalled that it was the rabbi’s duty to
examine young men studying Gemarah, Rashi’s commentaries, and tosafot every
Friday. When the rabbi was tired or otherwise indisposed, his duties were to be
discharged by the darshan, so that there would be no break in the exams held on
Friday.146 In 1714, the kahal was ordered to quickly hire a permanent darshan “so
that he preaches justice in the community and explains the word of the living God
to the public on every Sabbath.”147 Darshanim also presided over courts.148 When
in 1652 the Poznań kahal was short of money to repay its debts, the kahal sent
Ḥenokh, son of Avraham, to German lands hopeful that he would collect donations
to “save the souls.” In return for his mission he was promised the function of
a darshan in the Poznań community that he would hold for three years from the
day of his coming back. He was also promised the position of a dayan which could
be a source of an additional income for him.149
A cantor (ḥ azan, but the name of sheliyaḥ tsibur was also used) said prayers
and led the service in the synagogue. In practice, prayers were actually sung rath-
er than said, so in order to hold this function one had to have a musical ear and
beautiful voice. In the Poznań and Swarzędz communities, each synagogue would
have two cantors, referred to as the first and the second or the higher (ḥ azan
eliyon) and the lower (ḥ azan taḥ ton, unter ḥ azan), which names reflected their
remuneration. The Poznań kahal paid salaries to the cantors of the three main
synagogues (Old, New, and High), and the cantors of smaller synagogues were
remunerated out of the charges and donations collected in those synagogues.150 In
1748, the Swarzędz parnasim decreed that each year the first cantor should pay the
second cantor a specific portion of his own remuneration to compensate him for
145 Majer Bałaban writes that a custom prevailed in many communities, such as Lwów or Vil-
nius, that the darshan held the position of the deputy rabbi, and when there were two communities
in one town, then he would hold the position of the rabbi in the smaller community, as happened in
Lwów in the 18th century (Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 103).
146 AEP no. 772 (5415/1655).
147 AEP no. 1974 (Passover 5474/1714).
148 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 245v (Poznań, 10 Sivan 5434 / June 14, 1674); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a,
p. 251v (Poznań, 7 Adar II 5437 / March 11, 1677): a copy of the verdict signed by Yosef the
darshan.
149 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 204 (Poznań, 1 Elul 5412 / August 5, 1652).
150 AEP no. 1846 (Passover 5465/1705).
his efforts.151 In the same year the Swarzędz pinkas mentions the local cantor
(ḥ azan de-mata) and other cantors of the town (ḥ azanei ha-ir), most probably re-
ferring to the cantor who was paid by the kahal and other cantors working in the
town but not remunerated by the kahal.152
In Poznań, cantors were assigned prayers that were to be said on individual
Sabbath days. When the second cantor was hired in 1687 (in the absence of the
first one) to work in the New Synagogue, he was told to say prayers on the first
two Sabbaths of the month, and the remaining Sabbaths were to be assigned by the
kahal to a cantor whom “they will find to be good.” After the first cantor had been
hired, the second one was not allowed to say prayers even on those two initial
Sabbath days.153 In 1699, the Poznań electors reiterated an earlier regulation that
the local cantor was to pray on every fourth Sabbath of the month in the High
Synagogue.154
Cantors performed a wide range of duties. In Swarzędz, the cantor was re-
minded that he was not supposed to pray for a child on his circumcision day until
his father paid the kahal what was due.155 On numerous occasions cantors were
reprimanded, sometimes even threatened with ḥerem, and asked to invite to the
Torah reading only those people who met specific criteria.156 The same applied to
those for whom the Mi she-borakh prayer was said by the cantor.157 It follows from
pinkas records that cantors were the ones who wrote down engagement agree-
ments and announced the kahal’s decisions in synagogues,158 and it may be con-
cluded from the bans issued by the Poznań electors that singing during feasts was
an additional source of their income.159
It was for financial reasons that communities tried to limit the influx of wan-
dering darshanim and cantors. When in 1748 a growing number of cantors were
coming to Swarzędz on every Sabbath from other towns, they were prohibited
from singing in the synagogue; the only exception was made for those acclaimed
for their piety and beautiful singing, but even they were to get a permit that had to
151 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 26 (Swarzędz, 7 Iyar 5508
/ May 5, 1748).
152 Ibidem, pp. 25–26 (Swarzędz, 5 Iyar 5505 / May 7, 1745).
153 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 269 (Poznań, 15 Ḥeshvan 5448 / October 22, 1687).
154 AEP no. 1763 (Passover 5459/1699).
155 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 64 (Swarzędz, 29 Adar 5540
/ March 6, 1780).
156 Ibidem, p. 52 (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan 5523 / April 1, 1763).
157 AEP no. 1480 (5444/1684); AEP no. 2021 (Passover 5477/1717); JTS 3652, p. 102 (Swa-
rzędz, 23 Nisan 5466 / April 7, 1706); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego,
pp. 25–26 (Swarzędz, 5 Iyar 5505 / May 7, 1745).
158 JTS 3652, p. 117v (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5485 / April 11, 1725); AEP no. 756 (Passover
5414/1654).
159 AEP no. 1156 (14 Kislev 5431 / November 27, 1670): they were only allowed to sing bless-
ings after the meal (birkhat ha-mazon) and at weddings (sheva berakhot).
FUNCTIONARIES 53
be approved by the whole kahal.160 In 1786, the kahal agreed on the remuneration
that such outstanding cantors would be paid, with the proviso that they were not
supposed to demand even a grosz more.161
Originally, a shames (shamash, ‘servant,’ ‘beadle’) stood for an individual
who was taking care of the synagogue, which was called the school, hence the
Polish name of that function, szkolnik. Non-Jewish source materials refer to him
as woźny, mainly by analogy to the court crier. The shames carried out a variety of
the kahal’s instructions, especially those issued by the monthly parnas: he called
upon residents to appear before the kahal or tax estimators; he summoned the ka-
hal members to come to meetings; he supervised tax payment and adherence to the
kahal’s regulations; he collected pledges, delivered receipts, made purchases on
behalf of the kahal, summoned people to court, wrote down engagement contracts
and transaction documents,162 and invited people to feasts. The shames was warned
that as he fulfilled those latter duties he should check if appropriate permits of the
kahal had been earlier granted and if the required charges had been paid. A shames
who contravened the regulations and, for example, accepted a list of feast guests
devoid of the required signature of the monthly parnas or who invited to the feast
even one person more than he was allowed to ran the risk of being deprived of his
function. The Poznań electors also prohibited the shames to accept tax payments
and instructed household heads to pay them directly to tax collectors,163 although
in other entries of the same pinkas a reference is made to a shames who was col-
lecting taxes.164 In 1682, the Poznań electors ordered the kahal not to approve
relatives for the position of the tax collector and shames.165
A shames announced the kahal’s decisions and notices to community resi-
dents, which he had to do within a specific time limit without any delays. The
shames affixed his signature on documents as the second witness, next to the
scribe, or two shamesim could act as witnesses. An oath was taken in the syna-
gogue in the presence of two shamesim. People moving out of a community would
be issued a letter by the shames certifying that all taxes and dues were paid, as such
a document was required to settle in another community.
In Poznań, shamesim were hired not only by the kahal. Gabaim, dayanim or
memunim would also employ them. In addition, they also worked for the syna-
160 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 26–27 (Swarzędz, 24 Av
5508 / August 18, 1748).

161 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 47 (Swarzędz, 8 Adar 5546 / February 6, 1786).
162 AEP no. 965 (Passover 5423/1663): the right to execute transaction documents (regarding
houses and synagogue seats) was vested in two shamesim, who charged money for this service, and
no one would be allowed to sign a wedding contract if the betrothal contract had been executed by
them.
163 AEP no. 947b (Passover 5423/1663), AEP no. 1401 (Passover 5439/1679).

165 AEP no. 1456 (Passover 5442/1682).
gogues and beit midrash. The Swarzędz kahal employed two shamesim. When the
second shames was hired, it was recorded that he had to render his services every
evening and morning and summon people to the synagogue by banging on shut-
ters, as was then customary. His other duties were also defined: he was to keep an
eye on poor visitors who had no permits to stay in the community; he collected
charges from visitors who stopped for the night at the kahal’s house and provided
them with straw; he was supposed to avoid dishonest people, to attend the syna-
gogue during morning and evening prayers, and to light or extinguish, as appropri-
ate, the candles; and he had to be ready to discharge the kahal’s instructions.166
Shamesim were also appointed on the occasion of fairs to help fair officials.
It was, however, prohibited to assign one person to more than one fair a year, the
same way as it was prohibited to hold the function of the shames at the Gdańsk fair
for two consecutive years.167 The Poznań electors also demanded that the function
was to be discharged personally and it was forbidden to sell the function of the
shames to someone else.168
The office of a shtadlan, a syndic, evolved from that of the shames, as ini-
tially the shames was also sent by the community on various missions outside its
limits. In time, this duty was exceedingly more often charged to a separate func-
tionary. The first documented information about a shtadlan employed by the
Poznań community comes from the beginning of the 17th century.169 Due to his
contacts with non-Jewish authorities, a shtadlan’s function was very important and
this is why a recommendation was issued to nominate wise and responsible people
for that position. The Poznań community employed a shtadlan, while Swarzędz
did not have one and it is likely that the Poznań shtadlan also acted on behalf of
the Swarzędz Jews, who were dependant on Poznań.170 A shtadlan was to be con-
stantly available in town; it was an exception, due to his poor financial standing,
that he was allowed to discharge the function of shames at the Gdańsk fair.171
166 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 92–93 (Swarzędz, 20 Ta-
muz 5549 / July 15, 1789) and p. 93 (Swarzędz, 2 Adar 5550 / February 17, 1790).
167 AEP no. 1455 (Passover 5442/1682); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 269v (Poznań, 6 Av 5448 / Au-
gust 2, 1688); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 259v (Poznań, 7 Av 5442 / August 11, 1682); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a,
p. 248 (Poznań, no date).
168 AEP no. 1596 (Passover 5450/1690).
169 See Lewin, Louis, “Der Schtadlan im Posener Ghetto,” p. 31. The author lists consecutive
shtadlanim of Poznań until the first half of the 19th century.

170 As evidenced by the fact that the privilege granted to the Swarzędz Jews (1715) was brought
by the Poznań shtadlan (Vice Syndicus Synagogae Posnaniensis) Israel Lewkowicz to be recorded
in the books of the local starosta’s office (CAHJP, PL/Sw 1). It follows from the entries in the books
kept by the voievode office that the Poznań shtadlan acted on behalf of Jews from other communities
of Wielkopolska. For example, the Poznań shtadlan, Salomon Jakubowicz, brought a privilege grant-
ed to the Jews of Pniewy by the town owners for it to be recorded in the books in 1670 (APP, Księgi
wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 3, pp. 160–162).
FUNCTIONARIES 55
At the kahal’s request, a shtadlan would contact noblemen, the voievode,

clergy, or town authorities. Sometimes he was accompanied on his missions by
one of the kahal’s members or by a person appointed by the monthly parnas, espe-
cially when a gift was to be presented.172 A shtadlan also arranged loans for the
community and sometimes signed bills of exchange.173 But he was prohibited to
do it on behalf of individuals.174 In 1699, before shtadlan Borukh departed for
Warsaw, he had been sworn in so that he would see to the Poznań community’s
business in the first place and would not unnecessarily waste his time on the busi-
ness of the Council of Four Lands or other communities.175 In 1679, the Poznań
electors commanded the kahal to urge the shtadlan to do something about a plot
adjoining the cemetery so that it could be either bought or leased.176 A shtadlan
was also obliged to help every community resident should he have a dispute with
a non-Jew. The Poznań electors ordered the shtadlan to take part in all trials at the
starosta’s court and to keep track of the cases it examined.177
In 1674 the Poznań electors recorded that it was necessary to help the shtadlan
to find lodging as the one he had had so far was not appropriate. It was located next
to the synagogue and it was feared that people who came to visit him, representa-
tives of the nobility, non-Jewish students or soldiers, could cause trouble.178
A scribe (sofer, safra de-mata), or the secretary, was the only person entitled
to execute documents: bills of exchange, agreements, or bills. He was also to act
as one of the witnesses who affixed their signatures on such documents. Or other-
wise, the document would be null and void, “as a broken vessel,” and it had no
value before the court, of which community residents were warned in synagogues.
For the execution of transaction documents and engagement or marriage contracts
a scribe would get half of the payable fee, while the other half would go to the
second witness.179 In 1680, this remuneration was defined in Poznań as relative to
the worth of the transaction.180
In order to perform the function of a scribe, one had to be familiar with He-
brew and appropriate document formats. Pinkas entries reflect the level of a scribe’s
education. Better educated scribes used more sophisticated language and embel-
lished them with Biblical or Talmudic quotations. As Majer Bałaban observed,
172 AEP no. 1461 (Passover 5442/1682).
173 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 248 (Poznań, 21 Tamuz 5435 / July 15, 1675).
175 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 519 ([Poznań], 22 Tamuz 5459 / July 19,
1699).
176 AEP no. 1389 (Passover 5439/1679).
177 AEP no. 1984 (Passover 5475/1715).
178 AEP no. 1254 (Passover 5434/1674).
179 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 262v (Poznań, 20 Kislev 5445 / November 27, 1684): the way fees
charged for the execution of transaction documents and contracts were to be split was a matter of
disputes between cantors, shamesim, and scribes.
180 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 255v (Poznań, 5 Tamuz 5440 / July 2, 1680).
a kahal scribe who would write in Polish was hard to find in the first half of the
18th century.181
A trustee (ne’eman, viernik) was a community’s cashier. It follows from the
entries in the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim that trustees could either be officials
(elected in elections or nominated by the kahal) or functionaries paid by the ka-
hal.182 Trustees may be found on several election lists of the Swarzędz com-
munity.
A trustee kept money, bills of exchange, contracts, and other community se-
curities. He was to receive all community revenues and to pay out all community
expenses. He had to keep exact records of them in his pinkas. Trustees also made
monthly accounts and signed them. As Majer Bałaban observes, numerous condi-
tional clauses in the contracts concluded with trustees indicate that they did not
always discharge their duties diligently.183
The duty to collect taxes and dues was sometimes vested in the trustee or
shames, but usually it was the responsibility of a special functionary, a tax collec-
tor (goveh). He was employed to collect all community taxes or only bardon, and
he was remunerated by the kahal for this job.184 The tax collector was obligated to
perform his function honestly, give no favors to anyone, especially to his relatives.
The amounts he had collected were to be deposited in the kahal’s cash box in the
presence of a trustee, which fact was confirmed by an appropriate receipt. The tax
collector also kept a special pinkas.
Communities also employed a teacher of children (melamed). Entries that
regard teachers are also enclosed with notes that the teaching of the Torah is above
everything else, that this world rests on pupils and it cannot even exist without
them, and once there are no pupils, there will be no scholars. The Poznań electors
noted in 1651 that since the kahal had stopped paying the teachers of beit midrash
their salaries, they began to leave the community. So an order was issued to pay
them immediately what they had been due, and the thirty-two men were told to
think where to get the cash they were to be paid.185 In 1654, the kahalniks were
ordered to hire two teachers who would teach boys in beit midrash, and they were
to be paid two units of the property tax, one in summer and the other one in win-
181 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 103.
182 AEP no. 850 (Poznań, 1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 27 (Swarzędz,
5532/1772); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 30–31 (Swarzędz, 23
Nisan 5510 / April 29, 1750): the cantor and tax collector are to be paid an allowance on top of their
salaries for discharging the function of community trustees. Dov Avron mentions Poznań trustees
along with other functionaries (cantor, shtadlan, darshan, shames) hired by the thirty-two men (Av-
ron, “Ha-brirah,” p. 62).
184 AEP no. 1046 (5426/1666): as people complained that the trustees were lazy, parnas Yoel
agreed to perform the duties of the bardon collector in return for a weekly remuneration of two and
a half zł.
185 AEP no. 661 (Passover 5411/1651).
FUNCTIONARIES 57
ter.186 There are a few pinkas entries reflecting the complaints against teachers and
that they had to be put under control to ensure that they performed their “holy
craft” with integrity. In 1685, the Poznań electors issued a very critical opinion
about teachers:
We have observed something wrong: all teachers are similar, both the teachers in beit ha-
midrash, and those who teach in their own homes. They are lazy in how they practice their
craft, a holy craft, they do not do their job with honesty, but fraudulently. Especially on the
Sabbath, holidays and other days of summer holidays, children and adolescents are left
without anything to do […] and they hang around in the streets, and their shouting and
scandals reverberate all over the town – in marketplaces and in the streets – and many sins
and miseries come out of that. And the reason of all that is that there is no teacher […] who
would teach them every week how to behave.
This negligence was due to the shortage of money in gabaim’s coffers that
could be spent on student exams, and, in effect, teachers discharged their duties
without due diligence.187 In 1705, the yeshivah students were asked to select
scholars who would regularly, i.e., every week, examine children and boys, and all
teachers, under pain of a fine, were obliged to send schoolchildren to that
exam.188
A community’s functionary was also a shoḥḥet, a ritual slaughterer who slaugh-
tered animals according to kosher rules. Poznań and Swarzędz had two shoḥetim
who were remunerated by the community. Apart from a regular salary paid every
week, their compensation also depended on the number of animals they would
slaughter.
It follows from pinkasim entries that shoḥetim were under scrutiny, which
might have been due to suspicions that they were the followers of the Sabbatean
movement and offered non-kosher meat. It could be for those reasons that in 1683
shoḥet Ḥana was prohibited from performing his function and was under surveil-
lance for four weeks.189 Another Poznań shoḥet, Moshe, was found to cheat with
slaughter receipts, but the community was merciful and did not dismiss him. He
was warned that in the event of any future suspicion he would be immediately
deprived of his function.190 Charges brought against the Swarzędz shoḥet Abram
186 AEP no. 743 (Passover 5414/1654).

187 AEP no. 1447 (Passover 5442/1682).
188 AEP no. 1842 (Passover 5465/1705); reiterated in 1707: AEP no. 1885 (Passover
5467/1707).
189 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 260v (Poznań, 9 Adar 5443 / March 7, 1683): eventually, in reaction
to the pleas of Ḥana and his family, he was checked and allowed to perform ritual slaughter, and the
final decision was put off until the rabbi’s arrival in the community.
190 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 224 (Poznań, 6 Ḥeshvan 5431 / October 20, 1670): a shoḥet could
slaughter an animal after he had received a receipt signed by parnasim, and animals were divided
into big (gasa), small (daka), and poultry, which affected the fee that the shoḥet charged and the re-
muneration that the shoḥet was paid.
must have been more serious since he was irrevocably fired in 1736 on account of
unspecified misconduct and an order was issued that the following parnasim would
take an oath not to reverse that verdict, “so that the divisions existing in our com-
munity do not spread.”191 A few years later the Swarzędz shoḥetim were commit-
ted under an oath never to slaughter animals on their own, but that two of them
would always be present.192 A diary by Moses Waserzug reflects the difficulties
that shoḥetim, including the author, came to face when performing their function,
i.a., when it comes to the vindication of their dues from butchers. Waserzug also
wrote that in many communities butchers exerted pressure on shoḥetim. He de-
scribed what once had happened in Poznań where a butcher with an ax in his hand
threatened the shoḥet at the time he was examining the slaughtered animal’s lungs,
to make him say that the meat was kosher. The terrified shoḥet declared the meat
to be kosher, but the moment the butcher had left he called out “Trefa! trefa!”,
which made the butcher chase after him.193
Communities also hired medical personnel: physicians, midwives, surgeons,
bandagers, nurses, and male and female bath attendants. The physician was to take
care of the sick who either were treated in the kahal’s house or went there for ex-
amination. He also had to visit the poor sick immediately after he had been called.
His duty to attend to the poor was strongly emphasized, as a few entries evidence
that poor patients were neglected by physicians.194 In 1675 Yakov, son of Yehudah,
made a commitment when he assumed his duties as the physician of the Poznań
community that he would try to persuade pharmacists to sell cheap medicines both
to the poor and the rich.195 Because of numerous contacts that physicians had by
virtue of their profession, they were frequently asked to represent the community
in various matters involving non-Jews and non-Jewish authorities.
After the salary of Yentil, the wife of Henokh, one of the Poznań midwives,
was raised, it was with the proviso that she was not allowed to leave the town to
attend to noblewomen in childbirth and that she would not even ask the kahal to
191 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 36–37 (Swarzędz, 15 Sivan
5496 / May 25, 1736).
192 JTS 3652, pp. 147–147v (Swarzędz, 27 Kislev 5505 / December 2, 1744).
193 Loewe, ed., “Memoiren eines polnischen Juden,” p. 104.
194 For example, AEP no. 714a (Passover 5413/1653).
195 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 252 (Poznań, 5? Ḥeshvan 5436 / October 25, 1675). It was Jakob
Winkler who was awarded a title of doctor of philosophy and medicine in Padua in 1669. According
to Philipp Bloch, in 1671 Winkler came from Vienna to Poznań, where he married a daughter of
Moses, the community physician, and was nominated the community physician in 1673. He died in
1710 or 1711, and then the position of the community physician was posted by his son, Wolf, who had
also graduated from Padua University (Bloch, “Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Aerzte,” pp. 112–113).
Evidently, the contract concluded with Yakov in 1675 prolonged the first contract concluded for the
term of two years.
FUNCTIONARIES 59
be allowed to do that.196 The Poznań electors ordered midwives to hand to gabaim

what they had been paid by women in childbirth.197
A community also employed guards or sentries, chimney sweepers, people
who woke others up (for morning prayers), and a variety of manual workers. In
1660, the Poznań electors decided that in order to curb the community spending,
guards would not be paid by the kahal and their functions were to be discharged
by household heads who did not pay any taxes to the community. Like chimney
sweepers who from then on were to be remunerated by the memunim.198
Functionaries were usually hired by the kahal, except Poznań, where they
were employed by the thirty-two men.199 Term contracts were concluded with
them, usually for one or three years (e.g., a darshan, physician, and synagogue
shames were hired for three years). Terms of contract were put down in a special
document, called ktav kabalah.200 When functionaries assumed their positions,
they had to take an oath. They pledged to discharge their functions appropriately,
to pay taxes, and not to ask for pay raises and tax cuts. Sometimes they were for-
bidden to get involved in any other activity, e.g., trade, both personally or in part-
nerships with others. Breach of this ban was punished with a fine or dismissal.201
An oath was also taken by women, e.g., midwives.202
It follows from an entry in the Swarzędz pinkas that those who had been dis-
missed were handed a letter of dismissal, referred to as ktav peturim.203 It would
usually include a clause that the kahal had no claims against them.
The functionaries were paid for their work by the kahal and their remunera-
tion could also include lodgings (or money to rent one), firewood, or some objects
usually related to the discharged function.
It follows from pinkasim entries that communities usually had a few tene-
ments to accommodate functionaries. Sometimes they would be moved to new
196 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250v (Poznań, 29 Tevet 5437 / January 3, 1677).
197 AEP no. 1551b (Passover 5447/1687).
198 AEP no. 920 (Passover 5420/1660).
199 For example, AEP no. 652 (Passover 5411/1651): the thirty-two men were to choose
a shtadlan, shamesim of the kahal, and synagogues; AEP no. 744 (Passover 5414/1654): the thirty-
two men were to discuss all community functionaries and choose cantors and shamesim for small
synagogues; AEP no. 1179 (5431/1671): the electors decided that the officials hired by the thirty-two
men for a definite term could not be rehired by the kahal after the lapse of that term without a meet-
ing by the thirty-two men; AEP no. 1470 (Passover 5443/1683): the electors ordered the thirty-two
men to hire a shames; AEP no. 1263 (Passover 5434/1674): the kahal was to convene the thirty-
two men so that they would hire a cantor.
200 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 82–83 (Swarzędz, 22 Elul
5547 / September 5, 1787).

201 Ibidem, pp. 30–31 (Swarzędz, 23 Nisan 5510 / April 29, 1750); AEP no. 1908 (Passover
5468/1708); AEP no. 2229 (Passover 5528/1768).

202 AEP no. 1304 (29 Sivan 5435 / June 23, 1675).
5496 / May 25, 1736).

lodgings, like in Poznań, where a new midwife was offered the dwelling once oc-
cupied by a shtadlan.204 When a house was rented by a cantor in Poznań, a pro-
viso was made that over his term in office he would be exempt from rent pay-
ments.205 When the salaries of the Swarzędz functionaries were set, an entry was
made in 1731 that each of the two shamesim would get a pair of shoes every year,
a midwife would get a place to live, and each household head would pay the can-
tor the equivalent of 3 gr. in the form of 3 candles in the evening of the Day of
Atonement and of 3 gr. in flour before Passover.206
With savings in mind, Swarzędz reduced the number of functionaries in 1791,
leaving only the six most indispensable positions (rabbi, the trustee and first
shames in the synagogue and in the court, the first shoḥet and the second cantor,
the first cantor, the shames in beit midrash, and the second shames). They were to
be paid only a weekly pay by the kahal, without any additional allowances in the
form of rent, shoes, or money for the flour and wine for the Passover.207
It was an accepted practice that a functionary would retain a portion of money
he was to collect. As Salo Wittmayer Baron observed, the majority of community
functionaries derived their main income from various charges rather than their
pay.208 When in 1651 a decision was made in Poznań about salaries paid to cantors
of the main three synagogues, it was agreed that they would get a share of the
charges they had collected, e.g., for weddings or transactions, or taxes paid by
household heads who had their seats in their synagogue.209 Shifting of their remu-
neration burden to residents, which was justified by the community’s difficult fi-
nancial standing, occurred on several occasions as evidenced by an entry that in
Swarzędz the cantor’s salary would not be raised, but instead every household
head would be obliged to pay him 1 gr. a week.210
Remuneration could also be in the form of tax exemptions. A Poznań physi-
cian was to be paid a remuneration of 40 zł. in 1673, of which 20 zł. in the form
of exemption from bardon and the outstanding 20 zł. was to come from the mitzva
charges collected by gabaim.211 Another physician, who was hired in 1675 for
a term of 3 years, was to be paid a remuneration of 120 zł. a year in the initial two
years and was to be exempted from all taxes except for bardon and garbage col-
204 AEP no. 1254 (Passover 5434/1674).

205 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 211 (Poznań, 23 Adar II 5415 / April 1, 1655).
206 JTS 3652, pp. 156v–157 (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5491 / May 1, 1731).
207 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 58v–59 (Swarzędz, 27 Tamuz 5551 / July 29, 1791).
208 Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, p. 117; Baron writes that only the salaries of teachers,
both the community and private ones, had been set in specific amounts.
209 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 201 (Poznań, 26 Sivan 5411 / June 15, 1651), similarly CAHJP, PL/Po
1a, p. 262v (Poznań, 20 Kislev 5445 / November 27, 1684).

210 JTS 3652, p. 165v (Swarzędz, no date); the same as in Poznań, AEP no. 1151 (Kislev
5431/1670).
211 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 242 (Poznań, 20 Tamuz 5433 / July 4, 1673).
FUNCTIONARIES 61
lection charges.212 The Poznań electors issued an order in 1680 to the effect that
garbage collection charges should be paid by everyone apart from the rabbi, dar-
shan, cantor, and shames.213 Only the rabbi and darshan were exempted from an-
other tax, a bardon paid on food and drinks.214 In 1687, the Poznań electors pre-
scribed that all community functionaries would be exempt from charges for wheat
grinding for the Passover, in order to dispel any doubts as to whether the three
shamesim of the major synagogues would be included in that group.215 When they
recommended the hiring of teachers, they instructed that a remuneration should be
set for them and that they should be exempt from taxes “so that the voice of Yakov
resounds in synagogues and the houses of learning.”216
But it also happened that some functionaries would unlawfully usurp the right
to tax exemptions. It follows from an entry made by the Poznań electors in 1696
that bardon collected on the meat sold by the slaughterhouse dropped due to the
fact that many people tried to evade its payment, adding:
Accordingly, we hereby reiterate firmly that shamesim, cantors, shtadlanim, tax collectors,
and all other functionaries are not exempt from tax payment. They all should pay 3 gr. per
1 złoty of the worth of meat they buy.217
It was very common to nominate one person who would discharge two, and
sometimes, although less frequently, three functions.218 Such a practice was even
recommended by the Poznań electors when they realized that it would be an op-
portunity to cut the kahal’s expenses. An entry dating from 1669 reads that the
kahal would have to select a scribe and shames and “if there is one candidate that
could act as both, it will be good and fine.”219 In another entry the electors pre-
scribed that the question whether one person could combine both the functions of
the trustee and tax collector required consultation with the thirty-two men, adding:
Why should we run up higher expenses, if they are not indispensable and could be cut,
especially that much more could be spent on other needs?220
212 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 252 (Poznań, 5? Ḥeshvan 5436 / October 25, 1675).
213 AEP no. 1428 (5440/1680).
214 AEP no. 1358 (5437/1677).
215 AEP no. 1548 (Passover 5447/1687).
216 AEP no. 2010 (Passover 5477/1717).
217 AEP no. 1666 (Passover 5456/1696).
218 Functions were frequently combined in the communities of both Wielkopolska and Ger-
many. Moses Waserzug wrote in his memoirs that in Gryfin (Western Pomerania), he discharged the
function of a shoḥet, cantor, teacher, scribe, and shtadlan and that he also supervised the collection
of taxes for synagogue construction. When he lived in Kórnik, he was a shoḥet and trustee, addition-
ally charged with the duties of a shtadlan. In Płock, Waserzug was a scribe and shtadlan (Loewe, ed.,
“Memoiren eines polnischen Juden,” pp. 87–114).
219 AEP no. 1104 (5429/1669).
220 AEP no. 1509 (Passover 5445/1685). In 1704, they also prescribed reducing the number of
functionaries, and accordingly, the expenses related to them – AEP no. 1834 (Passover 5464/1704).
This is why functions were combined by many communities, and their com-
binations largely varied: darshan and shtadlan, cantor and teacher, cantor and
shoḥet, physician and trustee, physician and shtadlan, shames and shtadlan, cantor
and shtadlan, trustee and shames, scribe and shames, etc. Majer Bałaban writes
that a rule was followed in Poznań that shtadlanim would combine their function
with that of the cantor or shames in one of the two main synagogues.221 Sometimes
a function would be entrusted to a person holding an honorary position, e.g.,
a dayan or a gabai of beit midrash.
The main reason for the foregoing practice was savings; a remuneration paid
to one person discharging two functions was lower than when two people had to
be hired. The salary paid to a Swarzędz cantor Tsvi was raised to 3 zł. in 1735, but
he was also paid 1 zł. extra to perform the function of a trustee and to assist the
main trustee with tax collection.222 A Samson, who was the second cantor and the
second shoḥet in 1750, complained to the Swarzędz kahal about the amount of
work he had to do compared to the remuneration that he was paid, which was too
low. It was recorded on that occasion that the kahal would pay him 2 zł. a week,
which was what the second cantor used to be paid before.223
It was also with a view to cutting the kahal’s expenses that community resi-
dents or functionaries were charged with specific tasks without being hired for
good. The Poznań pinkas refers to an interesting example of such a commission.
In 1659, physician Moshe approached the thirty-two men offering his services and
saying that he was very influential and respected by those local noblemen who
were the community’s creditors. He said he could help in many ways, also with
the debts that the community had contracted from the nobility, or that he could act
as an intermediary, emphasizing that his offer was beneficial to the community.
But he made one condition, namely, that his nephew, Yosef son of Shlomo, would
preach to the community every Sabbath for which he would be paid only the
money collected in the collection boxes every week. Should his offer be turned
down, warned Moshe, he would no longer be of any assistance and he would not
go anywhere on community business. After some thinking, the thirty-two men ac-
cepted his offer but emphasized that their decision was prompted by the circum-
stances, as they were not able to employ a shtadlan and pay him a salary. The
agreement was cemented by an oath which Moshe administered before the thirty-
two men and the kahal. He pledged to go wherever he would be sent by the kahal,
both to creditors and to the authorities.224

222 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 7–9 (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan
5495 / April 20, 1735).
223 Ibidem, pp. 33–34 (Swarzędz, 29 Kislev 5511 / December 27, 1750).
224 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 204v (Poznań, Iyar 5419 / April–May 1659).
GOVERNING ASSEMBLIES 63
3. GOVERNING ASSEMBLIES
Representative bodies played a very important role in the running of each

community. Entries in the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim show it was a wide-
spread view that collective decisions were more valuable than those made by in-
dividuals. This is why many regulations curbed the authority of individuals, espe-
cially of the monthly parnas, and their aim was to insure that the most important
community matters would be decided by an assembly. The rationale for that ap-
proach was, e.g., that “the main rescue is in large numbers, and the opinion of
many is better” or that “the law laid down in our Torah recommends hearing an
opinion of the majority.” When a regulation was recorded, it was frequently em-
phasized that it had been adopted unanimously (sometimes with a paraphrase of
a fragment of the Book of Genesis 11,1: Be-safah eḥ at u-dvarim aḥ adim).
In the source documents, the term assembly (edah), sometimes also referred
to as the holy one (edah kedoshah), is used to designate a meeting of the kahal
enlarged to include officials or stands only for officials that attend such a meeting
(then the kahal and the assembly are offered side by side). But a meeting as such
would rather be referred to with other terms, such as, i.a., davar she-be-kedoshah,
that denote a non-religious public activity.
In a community, the kahal would stand for the least numerous collective body
including parnasim and tovim. The Poznań electors charged the monthly parnas
with a duty to convoke the kahal every Sunday and on the days of Christian
feasts.225 At the same time the parnasim were prohibited from convening at the
time of prayers, unless it was absolutely necessary.226 In Swarzędz, parnasim took
an oath that each monthly parnas would assemble the parnasim twice a week and
invite the trustee to come and report on every expense he had made.227
Should anyone refuse to attend the kahal meeting, he would not be invited
again in the following two weeks.228 If any of the kahal members was absent, he
was replaced by someone else. However, in 1660, the Poznań electors prohibited
the replacement of an absent kahal member by anyone else but the dayan or gabai,
under pain of a fine for charity.229 When a meeting was attended by ordinary peo-
ple or by dayanim, the monthly parnas had to enter their names into the pinkas and
225 AEP no. 788 (5415/1655), AEP no. 860 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659). Also, in other com-
munities such as Kraków, assemblies were convoked on Sundays, “when one does not go to town”
(Bałaban, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595,” p. 318).
226 AEP no. 938 (Passover 5423/1663).
227 JTS 3652, pp. 220v–221v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5517 / May 29, 1757), CAHJP, PL/Sw 3,
pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

228 AEP no. 860 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).
229 AEP no. 921 (Passover 5420/1660).
they had to take an oath. The kahal was prescribed by the electors to do the
same.230
Apart from parnasim and tovim, meetings of the Poznań kahal were also at-
tended by kahalniks (manhig) in the number of five. As Mojżesz Schorr observed,
the kahalniks were not vested with executive powers, but their duty was to control
the community’s revenues and expenses and to implement resolutions.231 The
Poznań kahalniks were commissioned a variety of duties: they were to attend to
tax collection,232 to act for the benefit of the community, or to accompany the
shtadlan on his missions. The Swarzędz kahalniks were not listed among the elect-
ed officials, but they are mentioned in the entries of the Swarzędz pinkasim.233
The meetings of the Poznań kahal were labeled as shulḥ an ha-tahor, which
may be translated as a “clean table.”234 They were attended by parnasim and tovim,
but the electors’ pinkasim also mention kahalniks and taxpayers (baalei
skhumot).235 A few entries read that at its meeting the kahal sits at the “clean
table.”236 This is how the Poznań electors describe the assembly and its functions:
Here is a table, right in front of God, it is a “clean table” ready for the kahal to convene to
judge the sons of Israel, to fill the holes [legal gaps] and to rule about failures, especially
in these days and in these times when we are drowning in massive worries.237
The “clean table” played the role of a court: it punished those who broke the
rules, e.g., people who were not authorized to arrange engagements,238 but it also

231 Schorr, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce, p. 22. Schorr translates their name manhig as
a “manager.”
232 Such as AEP no. 2234 (Passover 5534/1774): faced with tax collection frauds, the Poznań
electors decided that tovim and kahalniks were to sit together with the tax collector and keep an eye
on what he did.
233 Such as JTS 3652, p. 102 (Swarzędz, 23 Nisan 5466 / April 7, 1706); JTS 3652, p. 140
(Poznań/Swarzędz, 4 Iyar 5466 / June 18, 1706); JTS 3652, p. 194v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan [5506] /
April 15, 1746); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 25–26 (Swarzędz,
5 Iyar 5505 / May 7, 1745), pp. 49–50 (Swarzędz, 1 Ḥeshvan 5522 / October 29, 1761), p. 51
(Swarzędz, 1 Adar 5523 / February 14, 1763); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 49v (Swarzędz, 2 Iyar 5546 /
April 30, 1786). These entries frequently mention kahalniks next to parnasim (“parnasim and
kahalniks”).
234 Lev. 24,5. Wolf Feilchenfeld translates the name of the Poznań shulḥ an ha-tahor as the
“golden table” (Feilchenfeld, “Die innere Verfassung,” p. 126). The term shulḥ an ha-tahor was also
used by the Tykocin community (Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 59). In the Poznań com-
munity, the term shulḥ an ha-tahor arba aratsot was reserved for the meetings of the Council of Four
Lands; see AEP no. 1356 (5437/1677).
237 AEP no. 742 (Passover 5414/1654).
238 AEP no. 1778 (Passover 5460/1700); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 259 (8 Kislev 5442 / November
19, 1681).
adjudicated in offenses committed by its own members.239 It received petitions

sent by the Jews of Swarzędz about any abuses of power by the community au-
thorities, e.g., the parnasim or tax collectors.240 The “table” also performed func-
tions outside of the court: it elected electors, issued regulations, and assigned posi-
tions and prayers on the High Holidays. Its members were sent by the kahal on
missions in various community matters (sometimes to accompany the shtadlan) or
discharged the function of account supervisors or tax collectors. This assembly
was held in high esteem, as evidenced by the decision of the Poznań electors
whereby nobody was exempt from the garbage collection tax, even the people sit-
ting at the “clean table.”241
The kahal was authorized to co-opt new members and to invite other people
to attend its meetings. There is an entry reading that the Swarzędz kahal was en-
larged to a total of eleven men,242 while in Poznań it usually consisted of thirteen
men.243 The total of kahal members included five parnasim, three tovim, and five
kahalniks, but, according to the sources, apart from parnasim and tovim, other
people were also invited. They were usually selected from among dayanim,
gabaim, yeshivah students, the five men, taxpayers (especially representing the top
tax brackets), and yeḥidei sgulah. They were also invited by the monthly parnas
when the kahal was squaring monthly accounts or when one of the kahal members
was not at home.244
The Poznań kahal was enlarged to either 21 or 32 men.245 Once, an assembly
of 21 men was convened at Swarzędz.246
The Swarzędz electors warned that should the kahal decide to convoke or
increase the number of its members and send for a household head, be it a dayan,
gabai or another important person, and should that person refuse to attend, then he
would be punished with dismissal from his position and a fine.247
When an assembly was to be enlarged, the problem of kinship had to be ad-
dressed. It was prohibited as a rule for relatives to attend one assembly.248 That
relations between people were interpreted broadly, far beyond the family ties, is
239 AEP no. 2029 (Passover 5478/1718).

240 JTS 3652, p. 140 (Swarzędz, 4 Iyar 5466 / June 18, 1706).
241 AEP no. 1428 (5440/1680).
242 JTS 3652, p. 196 (Swarzędz, 24 Sivan 5506 / June 12, 1746).
243 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 205 (Poznań, 15 Tamuz 5419 / July 6, 1659); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 215
(Poznań, no date).
245 AEP no. 1189 (5431/1671), AEP no. 1481 (5444/1684).
246 JTS 3652, pp. 116–116v (Swarzędz, 5485/1725).
247 JTS 3652, p. 168v (Swarzędz, 5494/1734).
248 JTS 3652, p. 196 (Swarzędz, 24 Sivan 5506 / June 12, 1746); JTS 3652, p. 113v (Swarzędz,
25 Nisan 5484 / April 18, 1724): the Swarzędz kahal was told to check in the regulations in the
Poznań community pinkasim how the problem of consanguinity of assembly members was re-
solved.
best evidenced by the regulation of 1672 which prohibited a household head that
kept a private yeshivah at home and a scholar studying there to sit at the “clean
table.”249 People who could be co-opted had to meet specific criteria. In 1738, the
Swarzędz electors prohibited the kahal from co-opting gabaim and dayanim or
a household head who had been married for less than ten years.250 There were also
situations when someone would be excluded from community meetings on the
grounds of misdemeanors, which, e.g., happened to Zalman, son of reb I., who
imported and weighed meat without the kahal’s permit.251
Sometimes specific people were appointed to join assemblies. The Poznań
electors nominated a physician several times, and in 1698 they also chose two
other individuals who “would be the first to attend each assembly or to supplement
it, joining either the kahal’s alufim, or other meetings and assemblies.”252
There were also other assemblies whose composition had to be supplemented
or enlarged. Pinkasim mention the fourteen and the fifteen men (five kahal mem-
bers, five yeshivah students, and five people “from the street”253), and the twenty-
three men (which was to be an assembly of thirteen men whose number was in-
creased by ten affluent people254). In 1712, the Poznań electors instructed that in
order to collect more than 100 units of property tax annually, the kahal had to
consist of 17 or 20 or even 32 men, at its discretion.255 One entry in the same
pinkas is signed by 35 attendees.256 It follows from many other entries listing at-
tendees that their number was quite high, with one assembly reaching a record
attendance of 75 men. It convened in Poznań in 1700 to hear a case of a dishonest
individual, shtadlan Borukh Halevi, who inflicted damage on the community:
Crowds gathered, all the important people in our community, dignitaries (pnei ha-ir), tax-
payers, headed by the assembly leaders – the alufim of the kahal.257
The Poznań kahal was advised by a body of the thirty-two men. Its election
and composition will be discussed in the chapter about elections of community
249 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 234v (Poznań, 19 Nisan 5432 / April 16, 1672).
251 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 68–69 (Swarzędz, 25 Shvat
5532 / January 30, 1772). A few months later the decision was repealed.
252 AEP no. 1129 (5430/1670) and AEP no. 1188 (5431/1671): physician Moshe; AEP no. 1720
(Passover 5457/1697): physician Yakov; AEP no. 1741 (Passover 5458/1698): physician Yakov plus
two people.
253 AEP no. 727 (Passover 5413/1653): these fifteen men were to include the rich, middle rich,
and poor people.

254 AEP no. 664 (Passover 5411/1651): the electors also wrote that since the kahal had chosen
such people who would obey it whenever it wanted to enlarge its composition, a decision was taken
that the kahal could co-opt up to 13 people at its discretion, but in order to enlarge its composition
to 23 men, it had to select nominees from among rich residents and to choose 10 of them by
a draw.
255 AEP no. 1951 (Passover 5472/1712).
256 AEP no. 2223 (1 Iyar 5523 / April 14, 1763).
257 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 530 (Poznań, 5460/1700).
authorities.258 The kahal would convene the assembly of the thirty-two men and
ask them to examine specific matters or regulations.259 The order of precedence
according to which the thirty-two men were seated is described in a record dating
from 1650. The electors instructed that after the thirty-two men had been elected
at the first session, the kahal members would not take their seats in accordance
with the established order and the law, but its members should intermingle with
the thirty-two men. Only the rabbi and the monthly parnas were to take their
usual seats. The electors also recorded that the kahal refused to take an oath ap-
proving that decision.260 It is interesting that several times an order was issued that
the thirty-two men should be split up. In 1651 a decision was taken that the eleven
men who were to elect the thirty-two men would divide them into three groups.
Each group was first to deliberate separately, and only later on, all the thirty-two
men were to sit together.261 In 1659, the Poznań electors observed that whenever
the thirty-two men had been seated together in one place, there was usually a hav-
oc, and this is why they were ordered to assemble in three groups joined by four
kahal members each.262
The assembly of the thirty-two men dealt with a community’s most vital mat-
ters. They had the authority to confirm that old regulations continued to be valid,
and accordingly, they were the ones to decide whether the kahal could take oaths
on them. They also enacted new regulations: e.g., in 1676 they were to decide
whether dayanim and gabaim could stand for electors of the kahal. The decisions
entered in the pinkas of regulation supervisors could be declared null and void
only if the thirty-two men had granted their consent, while no parnas or kahalnik
was allowed to nullify a single word.263
It was also their responsibility to supervise the kahal, e.g., in 1676 they were
to see to it that the kahal provided the poor with money. The problems faced by
gabaim and the needs of the poor were discussed at some of their meetings. They
would also set a limit on engagements and the amount of dowry, issue regulations
about allowed attire, and cast a ḥerem for begging.
But tax and financial issues were the most common items on their agenda. The
kahal was not allowed to collect more than 50 units of property tax without the
permission of the thirty-two men,264 it was not authorized to levy any other taxes
but the property tax without their approval, either.265 The thirty-two men would
258 Dov Avron writes that the term of the thirty-two men in office ranged from one to three
years, and it was defined in their nomination documents (see entry “Poznań” in Encyclopaedia Ju-
daica, vol. 13, p. 948).
(Passover 5433/1673), AEP no. 1286 (5435/1675).

260 AEP no. 643 (Passover 5410/1650).
261 AEP no. 686 (Passover 5411/1651).
262 AEP no. 852 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).
263 AEP no. 1114 (5430/1670), like AEP no. 1106 (5430/1670).
264 AEP no. 642 (Passover 5410/1650).
265 AEP no. 707 (Passover 5412/1652).
also take decisions about extraordinary expenses, e.g., about an allowance for the
rabbi’s widow or about water supply to the Jewish quarter. Their debate frequently
focused on the collection of taxes, especially those which were to be the source of
debt or interest payment. They assessed the property tax paid by visitors. In 1663,
they were to take a decision whether tax collectors would assess the property tax
payable over the entire year or rather every month, the way they used to do it in
previous years,266 and in 1711 they were charged with a task of selecting five or
seven men to oversee bardon collection.267 The Swarzędz community turned to the
thirty-two men in matters related to the taxes it paid the Poznań community.268
The thirty-two men also followed track of a variety of “offenders,” especially
if their misdemeanors had financial consequences for the community. It was their
duty, i.a., to keep an eye on people who borrowed from nobility more than they
were able to repay and then did not pay their taxes as they were short of money.
This is why the thirty-two men were allowed to decide how much others could
borrow, so that their debts did not give rise to further problems. They were also to
keep an eye on people who misbehaved, did not pay taxes, entered into partner-
ships with other than the community residents, or settled in the community without
citizenship. They were to “remove thorns, sinners and rebels from the community
and prosecute them until they are destroyed.”269
An additional responsibility vested in the thirty-two men was to hire function-
aries and take decisions in matters that regarded them. Functionaries turned to the
thirty-two men with requests for higher pay. In 1652, the thirty-two men were
asked by electors to examine the rabbi’s request.270
Regulations issued by the thirty-two men were binding on the kahal. Some-
times, a regulation that was adopted by a body other than the thirty-two men, or
by the people they had nominated, ended with the information that it was enacted
“with a power of an act by the thirty-two men,” which meant that it was valid and
binding on everyone.
In Poznań, and in Swarzędz which followed its example, there were standing
elector bodies. That arrangement was quite exceptional compared to other com-
munities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where it was customary for
electors to conclude their activity after elections were over. Poznań had seven elec-
tors, and Swarzędz five. Sometimes an elector would be replaced or the elector
body would be enlarged. In 1699, the Poznań electors invited two people to join
them with the proviso that the arrangement was for only one year.271 The main
266 AEP no. 940 (Passover 5423/1663).

267 AEP no. 1927 (Passover 5471/1711).
268 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 198v (Poznań, Passover 5411/1651).
269 AEP no. 689 (Passover 5412/1652).
270 AEP no. 693 (Passover 5412/1652).
271 AEP no. 1745 (Passover 5459/1699). On the election list dating from 1699 there are names
of eleven electors (CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 226).

duty of electors was to issue regulations,272 except that the kahal was bound by
only those of them which had been issued during elections and which the kahal
members were committed to observe under an oath. Their regulations were to be
put up by the scribe on a board situated in the kahal house, so that the kahal re-
membered them.273 Electors were also authorized to confer one title of ḥaver and
morenu every year and to grant one community citizenship, which, as it was duly
emphasized, was their privilege in all holy communities.274 Sometimes, however,
the kahal tried to deprive them of that right.275
Electors performed a variety of functions, e.g., they assessed the property tax
to be paid by parnasim and tovim, stored bills of exchange or attended oath tak-
ing.276 They also took part in various meetings of community authorities or in
debates of the kahal, or of the kahal enlarged by other officials.277
Along with the kahal and the thirty-two men, electors were a body to which
one could turn with various complaints, grievances, and requests. It is to them that
functionaries turned to have their pay raised.278 It is recorded in the Poznań pinkas
dating from 1674 that the darshan was not allowed to ask for a raise for either the
kahal, or the electors, or the thirty-two men.279
Various community assemblies, especially those that were to discuss the most
vital matters of the community life, were attended by the rabbi. That fact was al-
ways recorded. Sometimes he is also mentioned as attending the meetings of the
thirty-two men.280
Assemblies were usually convoked by the monthly parnas, either on his own
initiative or at a request of the majority of the other parnasim. It was also possible
to hold a meeting on an initiative of a community resident who was not the mem-
ber of the community authorities. In such an event he would have to contact
a shames and pay a security deposit. The shames would then refer the case to the
monthly parnas, who convened a meeting. Should it turn out that the problem was
272 Dov Avron wrote that the regulations issued by the Poznań electors, both those that were
published and kept secret, accounted for about 85% of all regulations (see the entry “Poznań” in
Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 13, p. 949).
273 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” p. 65 (an undated regulation).
274 JTS 3652, p. 197 (Swarzędz, 5 Iyar 5508 / May 3, 1748): it was also recorded that in previ-
ous years, the electors failed to observe that limit and conferred a few of those titles.
276 AEP no. 1853 (Passover 5465/1705); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 253v (Poznań, 3 Sivan 5438 /
May 29, 1678); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 43 (Swarzędz, 30

Nisan 5516 / April 30, 1756).
277 For example, JTS 3652, pp. 116–116v (Swarzędz, 5485/1725); JTS 3652, p. 191 (Swarzędz,
28 Nisan 5505 / April 30, 1745).

278 For example, Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 26 (Swarzędz,
7 Iyar 5508 / May 5, 1748).

279 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 245v (Poznań, 10 Sivan 5434 / June 14, 1674).
280 AEP no. 1217 (Passover 5432/1672), AEP no. 1302 (Passover 5435?/1675).
really important and had to be examined by the assembly, then the security de-
posit was refunded in full, but otherwise it would not be reimbursed and it would
partly go to charity and partly remunerate the shames.281
Meetings were mainly held on Sundays. In Poznań, they were convened in the
male section of the synagogue or in the kahal house (beit ha-kahal, beit vaad ha-
kahal).282 In Swarzędz, the monthly parnas was ordered to convene the kahal only
in the kahal room (beit ha-horef ) next to beit midrash, where the fire would be lit
in the stove in winter, and it was the responsibility of the shames to close the win-
dows after the meeting was over.283
Members of the authorities were frequently admonished to attend meetings.
One can frequently read in pinkas entries that the meeting was conducted in the
presence of all the community leaders, with all attendees present and that nobody
was absent. On such occasions the wording rov minyan ve-rov binyan was used,
which may be translated as the required majority or quorum.284 Members of the
Poznań kahal deposited bills of exchange with electors as a guaranty for their
punctuality. Every kahal member was obligated to arrive no later than half an hour
after he had been summoned by the shames; even if he was short of time, he was
supposed to come and inform the kahal about it. Bills of exchange also served as
a guaranty for proper behavior at meetings and were to prevent disputes and quar-
rels. Should this rule be broken, the monthly parnas would notify the trustee who
delivered the bill to gabaim to use it for charity purposes.285 The monthly parnas
was also authorized to charge a fine for charity from the kahal members who failed
to attend a meeting.286

283 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 85 (Swarzędz, 6 Adar I 5554
/ February 6, 1794). The settlements of accounts made by the parnasim of the Działoszyn kahal in-
clude expenses on mead and vodka drunk at the meetings of elders or the kahal (Goldberg, Wein,
eds., “Księga kahału w Działoszynie,” part 2, pp. 63–66, 73). It is likely that the authority members
of the Poznań and Swarzędz communities whiled away their meetings in the same way.
284 According to Israel Abrahams, community decisions were taken by “the majority of votes
and major property owners” (rov minyan ve-rov binyan or rov hamon ve-rov mamon), which was
a compromise to reconcile wealth and population, i.e., the wealthy people representing other affluent
groups in the community. The author also observes that it was an ideal system which in reality
never functioned without disputes (Abrahams, Życie codzienne Żydów, pp. 41, 49).
285 AEP no. 636 (Passover 5410/1650). Regulations that imposed penal sanctions for coming
late to the meetings of town authorities or absence may also be found in the Poznań town regulations
– Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 1, no. 79 (1527), no. 134 (1626), no. 137 (1631), no. 155
(1672).
286 AEP no. 663 (Passover 5411/1651): it was also emphasized that the problem was addressed
by forefathers who had issued appropriate regulations. The Poznań electors wrote in 1652 that the
majority of parnasim did not come when summoned and they reminded them of fines, instructing to
punish the monthly parnas who would neglect to punish the “culprit” – AEP no. 697 (Passover
5412/1652), also see AEP no. 788 (5415/1655).
Pinkasim reflect dissatisfaction with attendance at the “clean table.” There is

an entry made by the Poznań electors in 1699 that, on many occasions, when full
attendance of the “clean table” was required, only the parnasim convened without
the tovim. That was firmly prohibited in the future and every monthly parnas
would pay a fine should he fail to convene the entire assembly, especially if it were
to discuss financial issues or problems of grave significance to the community.287
The Poznań electors lamented absenteeism at the meetings of the thirteen men and
noted that in one year they convened in full complement no more than ten
times.288
Another problem with meetings was that they were notorious for quarrels and
invectives, which, as recorded by the Poznań electors, even required intervention.
It is frequently emphasized that meetings should be held “in love, friendship and
peace,” and that at the time of the discussion everyone should be allowed to ex-
press his view and that a decision should be taken by majority vote. In 1651, two
attendees were appointed to handle quarrels, and should the kahal fail to punish
the culprit, they were to notify the rabbi. In later records one can come across
references to such marshals on several occasions. And a quarrelsome attendee was
to be punished with a fine and banned from meetings for 30 days.289
Meeting attendees, and especially the “clean table” members, were ordered to
“hold their mouth and tongue,” so that the subjects discussed there would not get
to the wider public. In 1667, the Poznań electors wrote:
We noticed that when the kahal had its meeting and conferred in secret, before [the kahal
members] got home, the subject of their deliberations was already known in the streets and
in the marketplace, and even pupils knew what had been discussed at the kahal.290
This is why the kahal was ordered to find out who was responsible for the
leaks. A culprit accused of the breach of official secrets was to be punished by
a fine, banned from meetings for the following eight weeks and excluded from any
official nominations in the coming four years.291 Punished with fines were also
those who were co-opted into the kahal and who disclosed the subject matter dis-
287 AEP no. 1756 (Passover 5459/1699).

288 AEP no. 787 (5415/1655).
289 AEP no. 662 (Passover 5411/1651); also about quarrels at meetings: AEP no. 742 (Passover
5414/1654); AEP no. 1026 (5425/1665); AEP no. 1051 (5426/1666): the electors ordered to send off
anyone who would be the first to start the quarrel at the “clean table” and forbid him to attend it for
four weeks; AEP no. 1059 (Passover 5427/1667).
290 AEP no. 1076 (Passover 5427/1667).
291 AEP no. 1500 (17 Nisan 5445 / April 21, 1685), AEP no. 2017 (Passover 5477/1717):
tougher penalties were imposed. An order was issued that people who disclosed the subjects dis-
cussed at meetings of the “clean table,” or when electors were chosen, as well as at other meetings,
would be forbidden to attend all meetings and would not be eligible for any nominations until the
end of their term in office. In addition, they would pay a fine of 100 thalers (the thaler, also referred
to by the source documents as the German thaler, was the equivalent of 6 zł.).
cussed at its meetings. Apart from the fine, their names were to be entered in the
pinkas so that they would not be co-opted again in the following year.292 When the
meeting was already under way, especially when elections were held or nomina-
tions were discussed, no one was allowed to enter it, except for the shames. The
Poznań shamesim were committed under an oath in 1671 not to enter a meeting of
the “clean table” unless they were specifically asked to do that.293
A very important rule was followed when regulations were enacted: regula-
tions could be repealed only by the assembly with the same composition (natu-
rally as an institution and not consisting of specific people). On such occasions
either the formula kol davar she-nitkin (kol davar ha-ne’esar) be-minyan tsarikh
minyan aḥ ar le-hatiro (a thing decided (prohibited) by a quorum needs the same
quorum to be nullified) was used or, a more poetic one, ha-pe she-asur hu ha-pe
she-hitir (the same lips that prohibit may permit).294 It was an instrument to con-
trol the parnasim and the kahal, as pinkas entries indicate that parnasim tried to
amend adopted regulations on several occasions. This is why they were frequent-
ly reminded that no parnas or kahalnik was allowed to change “even a dot in the
letter yod” of those regulations, but was obliged to carry them into life without any
alterations. Parnasim were also criticized for failure to implement the decisions
taken at meetings and, sometimes, for a failure to read them.295
4. DEMONSTRATION OF SOCIAL POSITION
Basically two factors determined that one was viewed as a member of the
community elite: affluence and education (as well as family ties with people who
had such assets). A position of an official evidently entailed a certain degree of
affluence, as only people with an appropriate income could afford working for the
community gratuitously. And this is why those who turned down official positions
(this topic will be discussed further on) argued that their financial situation was
hard and that they had problems supporting their family.
An office was viewed as an honor and nominations for positions by the kahal
are referred to in pinkasim as conferring of honors (ḥ alukat kavod). Such honors
entailed some responsibilities, sometimes even of a financial nature, and this could
have been the reason why some people would turn down a nomination. A few
pinkasim entries shed some light on the burdens that officials were encumbered
292 AEP no. 944 (Passover 5423/1663).

293 AEP no. 1183 (5431/1671).
294 That principle (Latin omnis res, per quascunque causas nascitur, per easdem dissolvitur)
applied not only in the Jewish law.

295 AEP no. 1732 (Passover 5458/1698); AEP no. 1757 (Passover 5459/1699) – parnasim were
criticized for repealing the regulations passed by the twenty-one or thirty-two men by deleting them
from the pinkas; AEP no. 1892 (Passover 5467/1707).
DEMONSTRATION OF SOCIAL POSITION 73
with. The Poznań electors ruled in 1696 that due to dwindling donations offered
at synagogues on the Sabbath and holidays, it would be necessary to tax respected
community members. So an order was issued to collect money from the people
who were handed nominations either by the electors or the kahal, especially from
the nominees to the three top positions who were appointed by the kahal.296 In
1724, the electors instructed to tax all offices (the kahal, gabaim, five men for
bardon collection, as well as all other positions) to support the synagogue.297
People in high positions were exposed to a “risk” that they would have to lend
their own money to cover community expenses. The Poznań electors made it clear
that should kahalniks include a wealthy person, he would be obliged to lend up to
200 zł. at the kahal’s request in the case of an urgent expense. The same applied to
gabaim; the more affluent of them were obliged to lend up to 100 zł.298
Some offices and functions could be held only by educated people. They had
to be well read in the Torah and the provisions of Talmudic law; this was required
of such functionaries as the rabbi, darshan, cantor, melamed, or shoḥet. A dayan
also had to be familiar with the law. Another required type of education was the
practical knowledge of physicians, pharmacists, or midwives.
A function would also entail certain privileges, such as, e.g., inviting the func-
tionary to various feats. This privilege was enjoyed by a rabbi, cantor, and shames,
as well as darshan. Sometimes they were included as the allowed guests; other
times they were invited outside the prescribed limit.299 Public prestige that such
people enjoyed would also manifest itself by their exemption from sumptuary
laws, usually regarding clothing. The Poznań electors decided that such regula-
tions would not cover the rabbi, his wife, and family members, or the physician
(along with his wife).300 The rabbi’s wife and the midwife were among those
whom a woman in confinement was allowed to send presents.
Apart from offices and functions, there were also other factors that decided
that a person would be a member of the community elite. Honorary titles were
a very important token of one’s position.
Affluent or influential people, members of the community authorities, were
conferred the title of aluf (‘dignitary,’ ‘confidant’). The title was used in the period
of the Gaonate to designate a man who was teaching, and in time it began to stand
for someone educated and rich.301 The title of katsin (‘dignitary,’ ‘dignified gentle-
man’) had a similar meaning, and alufim ketsinim was an honorary designate of
296 AEP no. 1682 (Passover 5456/1696). They were memunim, tovei ir, and slaughterhouse
parnasim, see Chapter 4.
297 AEP no. 2090 (Passover 5484/1724).
298 AEP no. 635 (Passover 5410/1650).
299 For example, AEP no. 931 (Passover 5420/1660), JTS 3652, p. 110 (Swarzędz, Passover
5480/1720), and Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 235 (Lublin, 5419/1659).
301 Hońdo, Stary Żydowski Cmentarz w Krakowie, p. 133.
influential and affluent people.302 In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim they fre-
quently precede the name of a specific office (e.g., alufei parnasim or alufei
dayanim, which are translated as ‘gentlemen parnasim’ or ‘gentlemen dayanim’).
There is also an epithet of alufei roznei ketsinei manhigei ha-kehilah, which is
a very elaborate way of referring to the community leaders.
Less commonly used was the title of nagid (‘leader’), usually to refer to the
most important community officials. Other honorary titles that were used with
names were torani (‘learned’), merumam (‘honorary’), and muflag (‘outstanding’).
The attribute of kadosh (‘holy’) was used with the names of martyrs, people who
lost their lives for their faith.
The title of rabenu (‘our teacher’) was conferred on the most outstanding
scholars from the 11th century onwards. In early modern times it usually referred
to rabbis.
In the period discussed here, the titles of ḥaver and morenu were by far the
most valued ones.303 The title of ḥ aver (‘partner in learning’) was used to refer to
a scholar who was acclaimed for abiding by the commandments. It was bestowed
on people who really deserved it. From the 14th century onwards this title was used
in Germany to designate officially and unequivocally a scholar who was not au-
thorized to perform the function of the rabbi and did not qualify for the title of
morenu.304
The title of morenu (‘our teacher’) was initially used to refer to the position
of the rabbi, due to the fact that the word rabi took on a wider meaning and began
to stand for ‘sir.’ The title of morenu was coined by a Vienna rabbi, Meir ben
Barukh ha-Levi (1320–90), with his students in mind and it meant that one had the
required qualifications to perform the function of the rabbi. However, when in the
15th century a rabbi had to sit an exam to get a morenu diploma, the title no long-
er denoted the office of the rabbi, but only the qualifications needed to become
a rabbi. Its holder was able to perform rabbinic rituals and take Halakhic decisions
in the rabbi’s absence. In time, the title of morenu was increasingly used to refer
to important people. But it continued to denote people preoccupied with Talmud
who were called to read the Torah.305
In time, the most affluent residents began to buy the titles of ḥaver and morenu
for their sons and sons-in-law, and thus they ceased to reflect someone’s educa-
tion.306 During the period discussed here, these terms denoted rich and influential
people, scholars, too, but to a lesser extent.
302 Ibidem.
303 According to Majer Bałaban, only three of the honorary titles were significant: ḥaver,
morenu, and kadosh (Bałaban, Dzielnica żydowska, reprint: pp. 28–29).
304 Hońdo, Stary Żydowski Cmentarz w Krakowie, p. 132.
305 Ibidem, pp. 130–131.
306 Natan Hanower noted in his chronicle that in a community of 50 residents, 20 would have
the title of ḥaver or morenu (Hanower, Jewen Mecula, vol. 4, p. 405).

It follows from the entries in the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim that the titles
of ḥaver and morenu were bestowed by electors, the kahal, dayanim, or the rabbi.
The title of ḥaver could also be conferred by yeshivah students, but first the rabbi’s
consent had to be sought. An entry in the Poznań pinkas reads:
So in the case of someone who as a young man was studying at the yeshivah before his
marriage, should the time come, as is customary here, to confer [the title of] ḥaver in the
absence of the honorable rabbi, the gentlemen being the yeshivah students are not allowed
to bestow [the title of] ḥaver, even if he is eligible for one.307
In an entry in the Swarzędz pinkas dating from 1747, one can read that elec-
tors had no right to confer the title of ḥaver. The shames and cantor were prohib-
ited from calling to the reading of the Torah a man with the title of ḥaver once the
title had been conferred by electors.308 In the following year a regulation that had
been adopted by the forefathers was reiterated whereby the electors had a right to
bestow one title of ḥaver and one of morenu, which, it was added, was a practice
followed by every community. It was noted that in recent years electors used to
exceed that limit and confer a few titles a year, which was the reason why the said
ban was imposed. Eventually, a decision was taken to return to what the ancestors
had once decreed.309
When a title was to be granted, the nominee had to meet certain criteria. In
Swarzędz a decision, invoking an earlier regulation, was taken not to confer any
title of ḥaver at the time of the wedding ceremony, but two years later, for the sake
(as it was written down) of the Torah’s glory. Electors and parnasim, as well as the
rabbi, were prohibited from circumventing that rule.310 This regulation was made
even tougher in 1745, when the period was prolonged to three years after the wed-
ding and when the limit of titles was set at two annually, with the exception of
those who taught at the synagogue.311
There was a fee that had to be paid for the title of ḥaver, but the sources are
silent about any charges paid for the morenu title.312 There were also cases when
307 Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 / March 29,
1677).
310 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 50 (Swarzędz, no date).
312 JTS 3652, p. 39 (Swarzędz, 29 Nisan 5482 / April 16, 1722), p. 157v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan
5505 / April 27, 1745), p. 170v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5496 / April 6, 1736) – all those fees were paid
to the kahal’s electors; AEP no. 1603 (Passover 5450/1690) – two people were appointed to collect
various fees, including the one paid for the title of ḥaver; AEP no. 1831 (Passover 5464/1704) – the
15 zł. fee for the title of ḥaver was to be handed directly to the trustee-bardon collector; AEP no. 1856
(Passover 5465/1705) – the bardon’s trustee had to record additional charges (including the fee for
the title of ḥaver) on a separate page of his pinkas, not to mix them up with bardon proceeds;
Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 / March 29, 1677) – peo-
ple on whom the title of ḥaver was conferred had to pay the rabbi, “as customary.”
someone would be deprived of the title because of bad behavior, usually quite
unspecified, or when it would be forbidden to bestow a title on the same person
again.313
One’s position could also be ostentatiously displayed at the synagogue, which
was a very convenient place to show one’s social status and where differences in
positions were especially pronounced. The first token of one’s status was the seat.
People would have permanent seats which were treated as one of their assets. It
was customary in many communities that the bride’s father would provide the
couple with synagogue seats, which frequently accounted for a major part of her
dowry.314 Seats were hereditary and they could also be transacted (bought, sold or
rented). This is why the sex of the owner did not matter, because a man could in-
herit a seat in the women’s section not in order to sit there, but to sell or rent it.
When the seat owner died without any heirs, or when the seat was bequeathed to
charity, it was taken over by the gabaim and sold or rented to someone else. It also
happened that people would sell their seats to the kahal.
Not all the seats were, of course, of equal value. The most valuable and pres-
tigious ones were situated against the eastern wall (preferably in the first row from
the eastern wall), near the aron ha-kodesh, bimah, the cantor’s pulpit, or the rabbi’s
chair. An entry in the Swarzędz pinkas reads that a community resident, Meir, son-
in-law of the diseased Israel Segal, bought a seat in the synagogue for himself
“suitable for his position” and he paid 10 zł. to charity. The pinkas further reads:
And until now it was not possible to provide him with a seat that will correspond with his
position. Indeed, since the seat that used to be taken by Israel Libush is taken, so we have
decided that the honorable aluf, gabai Wolf, son of reb Israel, will get his father’s seat and
that the above-mentioned aluf, the honorable reb Meir, will have the seat now used by
gabai Wolf, which is situated next to the menorah, all the time, until the above-mentioned
reb Israel does not return and arrive in his house.
It was also added that the “clean table” of Poznań agreed to that solution,
which means that the Swarzędz gabaim must have turned to it for help.315
Seats were also assigned at beit midrash. An entry in the Swarzędz pinkas
dating from 1769 reads that seats in beit midrash would be allotted to all residents
313 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 27 (Swarzędz, 13 Nisan
5510 / April 19, 1750): Yehoshua, son-in-law of reb A., was deprived of the title of ḥaver (that was
conferred on him two years earlier – JTS 3652, p. 197, Swarzędz, 5 Iyar 5508 / May 3, 1748). And
since he was to be called out to the Torah not by the title of ḥaver, but as “honorable Yehoshua, son-
in-law of A.;” it was also forbidden to any rabbi, dayan, parnas, kahalnik, or the kahal’s electors to
confer the title of ḥaver on him again. One can read in the Działoszyn pinkas dating from 1788 that
Yedidia, son-in-law of Yudka, was deprived of the morenu title for counterfeiting a receipt, but was
not deprived of the title of ḥaver. He was also punished with a fine and loss of election rights (Gold-
berg, Wein, eds., “Księga kahału w Działoszynie,” part 1, p. 92).
314 Glejzer, Życie Żydów w Polsce XVI i XVII wieku, p. 38.
315 JTS 3652, p. 78 (Swarzędz, 13 Adar I 5483 / February 18, 1723).
of the community, so that each of them got one seat. Parnasim or gabaim were
forbidden to sell someone’s seat to anyone else, with the exception of outstanding
individuals whom they could allot a “better” seat.316
There were also other synagogue honors such as the reading of the Torah
(aliyah le-torah) and the Mi she-borakh blessing (“The one who is blessed”) which
the cantor addressed to a person he had honored.317 A chapter of the Pentateuch
which was to be read on the Sabbath or a holiday was divided into fragments that
were to be read by individual synagogue attendees. As reading the Torah in He-
brew was not easy, the cantor assisted by the person he had called upon. The
number of people invited to assist would differ depending on the day: seven on
Sabbath morning, six on the Day of Atonement, five on other holidays, four on the
intermediate days of Passover and of the Feast of Tabernacles and at the beginning
of a new month, and three on Sabbath afternoon, during a fast, Ḥanukkah, and
Purim. Viewed as the greatest honor and the most “valued” was an invitation to
the third (in some communities, to the fourth) and seventh fragment of reading,
but the value of that honor also depended on the importance of the day in the litur-
gical calendar. Pursuant to regulations, this honor was to be conferred on people
who mattered in the social hierarchy: rabbis, scholars, and members of the com-
munity authorities, according to their status.318 Some people, however, took pre-
cedence over everyone else in access to such honors; e.g., a bridegroom whose
wedding would be in only one week’s time, a father of a newborn child, or a boy
on his bar-mitzva day. An invitation to read the Torah could also be an opportu-
nity to announce what one had accomplished in charity work, and thus to empha-
size his financial standing.319
The editor of the Poznań electors’ pinkas lists people appointed to lead prayers
(baalei tefilah) in four synagogues (the Old, New, and High Synagogues, and in
the Synagogue of Young Men) at the time of the High Holidays and on the Day of
Atonement in the month of Tishri 5441 (1680). The lists include the names of the
316 A. Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 18 (Swarzędz, 30 Tishri
5530 / October 31, 1769).

317 The Kraków community’s statute prescribes that the cantor should say the Mi she-borakh
blessing for the monthly parnas who will assume duties in his month and for what he will do for the
community (Bałaban, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595,” p. 308).
318 An entry in the Działoszyn kahal’s pinkas from 1788 reads: “Everybody knows that it has
been customary for a long time to distinguish the elders at the time of their monthly term in office as
well as their deputies and other elected officials of the kahal who should get a special compensation
for their efforts and hardships suffered for the benefit of all. And there is no greater compensation
than the honor of the Torah reading. So in the rabbi’s absence they are called on Saturdays to assist
in the reading of the third fragment of the Torah chapter, and of the fourth fragment when the rabbi
is present.” It was also emphasized that a person who was thus distinguished was not allowed to
confer this honor on anybody else (Goldberg, Wein, eds., “Księga kahału w Działoszynie,” part 1,
pp. 90–91).
319 Katz, Tradition and Crisis, New York 1993, pp. 153–154.
most important officials and functionaries, as well as other important people of the
community: parnasim, dayanim, cantors, teachers, a darshan, shtadlan, scribe,
shames, and the rabbi’s son.320
A cantor charged fees for invitations to read the Torah and he was not allowed
to give the Mi she-borakh blessing if they had not been paid.321 After the High
Synagogue’s fire, the Poznań electors decided that each person called upon to read
would have to give a donation set at a minimum of 3 gr. for the reconstruction of
the synagogue.322
When the blessing was given, a problem frequently arose who else should be
mentioned apart from the invited person. The Swarzędz cantor was bound by an
oath to mention nobody else but the rabbi in the Mi she-borakh, and then he was
supposed to refer generally to “alufei dayanim, alufei parnasim, and kahalniks,
alufei gabaim, and all those learned in the Torah.” He was also allowed to mention
the name of a person who purchased a mitzva (i.e., a synagogue honor the fee for
which went to charity), along with the name of his father, son-in-law, and son, but
nobody else.323
The same practice was adopted in Poznań. The Poznań electors decided in
1715 that at the time of the blessing only the rabbi’s name was to be mentioned,
and all others were referred to jointly as all the yeshivah students, parnasim,
kahalniks, gabaim, dayanim plus their relatives within the second degree of affin-
ity, but no one else.324
The honor of the Torah reading was frequently conferred on officials or peo-
ple with titles. In the Swarzędz pinkas of 1763 we come across a note that the
third aliyah would belong to the rabbi, but since the community had no rabbi at
the time, a decision was taken to invite morenu or a man of acclaim and learning,
for the sake of the Torah’s glory. It was also added that only a dayan or a holder
of the morenu title should be invited and that it was also possible to call upon
a parnas or gabai, should he come from a respectable family, or be a scholar or
a son or a son-in-law of someone with the morenu title. Cantors and shamesim
were prohibited from inviting anyone else, and the following community au-
thorities were ordered to observe this rule under pain of a fine “for the sake of the
glory of the holy Torah and our community.”325 Some honors were reserved for
parnasim, e.g., the reading of Jeremiah’s threnodies on the ninth day of Av or of
320 AEP, p. 476.

322 AEP no. 2011 (Passover 5477/1717).
323 JTS 3652, p. 102 (Swarzędz, 23 Nisan 5466 / April 7, 1706); like in Michałowska-Myciel-
ska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 25–26 (Swarzędz, 5 Iyar 5505 / May 7, 1745).
324 AEP no. 1991 (Passover 5475/1715). This was recalled again on several occasions: AEP
no. 2021 (Passover 5477/1717), AEP no. 2080 (Passover 5483/1723).

325 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 52 (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan
5523 / April 1, 1763).

Haftarah (a fragment of the Books of Prophets) on the first Sabbath following the
ninth of Av.326
At the same time cantors were forbidden to invite new holders of the ḥaver
and morenu titles, until they were granted a special permission by the rabbi, espe-
cially by the first three dayanim.327
Another synagogue honor consisted in the public saying of a prayer for the
dead (kaddish). This prayer was said by the family of the deceased on each anni-
versary of his/her death (yortsayt). When there were a few people in the synagogue
who were entitled to say the kaddish, one of then was designated.328
Social status was especially evident during the celebration of religious feasts,
especially at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), the Rejoicing of the
Law (Simḥat Torah), or the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Assignment of syn-
agogue functions on such holidays gave rise to controversies and violent quarrels.
The Poznań electors recorded in 1696 that at the time of the last Simḥat Torah
celebrated in the Old Synagogue, rejoicing over the Torah (a pun: Simḥat Torah
means the “rejoicing of the Torah”) turned into wrath and quarrels about who was
to have precedence in the procession with the Torah scrolls. It was then decided
that nothing of that kind should happen again and an order was issued that on the
Hoshanah Rabah day (two days before Simḥat Torah) two parnasim should sit
together with gabaim and decide on the appropriate order of precedence. It was
prescribed that yeshivah students should always take precedence over parnasim,
and parnasim over gabaim. Everyone was to line up according to his position, with
due respect for everyone who had been nominated by the kahal’s electors.329 It
follows from an entry made in Swarzędz in 1740 that at the time of the previous
Simḥat Torah all dayanim were invited to the reading of the Torah before the ka-
hal’s alufim, which had never happened before. So it was recommended to follow
the same order in the future and that dayanim should be called upon in the first
place, and should this regulation be breached, the gabaim would be punished with
a fine.330
326 Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 23. In order not to make an equation between the
Book of Prophets and the Pentateuch, a person chosen to read Haftarah first had to be invited to read
the Torah.
327 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 25–26 (Swarzędz, 5 Iyar
5505 / May 7, 1745).

328 According to Herz Glejzer, the decision who was to say the kaddish was taken by a draw, to
prevent any quarrels that could easily erupt. Residents of the community took precedence over out-
siders, and some rabbinical pundits even deprived “strangers,” e.g., children of the deceased living
in another community, of the right to say the kaddish in his community (Glejzer, Życie Żydów
w Polsce XVI i XVII wieku, pp. 36–37).
329 AEP no. 1672 (Passover 5456/1696). Recorded elsewhere is the permission granted by the
thirty-two men to distinguish the yeshivah students, parnasim, tovim, and kahalniks during Simḥat
Torah (CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 197, Poznań, no date).
330 JTS 3652, p. 180 (Swarzędz, 30 Tishri 5501 / October 21, 1740).
When synagogue honors were conferred, it was done according to a variety

of criteria: in 1670, the Poznań electors told the kahal that when it conferred hon-
ors on the poor at the time of holidays, it should give precedence to those whose
ancestors lent money to the kahal.331
One could also underscore one’s social status by financing construction of
a synagogue or beit midrash. It was also possible to furnish the synagogue’s inte-
rior or to finance liturgical objects. People funded all elements of furnishings, from
the aron ha-kodesh and the Torah scrolls to minor pieces. The founder’s or found-
ers’ names were usually inscribed on the funded object, they were clearly visible
and recalled each time the object was used at the time of the service. One could
also donate candles used to light the synagogue, which was done on the occasion
of major holidays and by the families in mourning.
The social status also manifested itself in everyday life: in the way people
dressed, the gifts they sent, but especially when important family events were
celebrated, such as circumcision, redemption of the first-born son, or marriage. On
such occasions religious feasts were staged (seudat mitzva), their size depending
on the amount of taxes paid by the family or by its affluence.
All ostentatious manifestations of one’s position described above reflected the
actual stratification of the Jewish community. On the other hand, they were a form
of social control, owing to which a well-ordered system could exist in which eve-
ryone knew where his place was. How important the place in that hierarchy was is
best evidenced by many conflicts provoked by individual “ambitions,” such as the
above-mentioned dispute between parnasim over which of them should be the first
in affixing his signature after the monthly parnas.
331 AEP no. 1132 (5430/1670).

CHAPTER FOUR
ELECTION OF COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
1. ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS
All Jewish communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth staged an-

nual elections of their authorities, mostly on the intermediate (middle) days of
Passover. It was a prevailing custom and that deadline had to be observed. Each
election stage (election of electors, election of the kahal, election of top officials
by the electors, selection of lower-ranking officials by the kahal) was held at the
time of that holiday. In an entry dating from 1699, the Swarzędz kahal was recom-
mended to elect electors on the very first intermediate days of Passover, as pre-
scribed by the above-mentioned Kraków statute, under pain of a fine in case of any
delays (if delayed, each kahal member was to pay a fine of 10 thalers).1 It is inter-
esting that another entry prohibited staging an election in advance of the prescribed
deadline, before all the constituents had gathered.2 Electors were reminded that
elections should be finalized before the seventh day of Passover, “as it was cus-
tomary in all the places where the people of Israel were dispersed.”3 The officials
appointed by the kahal were to be chosen on the day following Passover.
All elections were indirect, as first electors (borerim,4 ‘those who elect;’
ksherim, ‘worthy’ or ‘appropriate’), who were also referred to as the short-listing
committee (komisja matka), were to be elected and to nominate the community
authorities.5 The system of their appointment sometimes significantly differed
2 JTS 3652, p. 112 (Swarzędz, no date).
3 Ibidem.
4 The use of these terms is analyzed by Dov Avron in his article (Avron, “Ha-brirah,” pp. 51–52).
He observes that in Poznań the term kasher substituted for borer and that it was the same in other
Jewish communities of Wielkopolska and West German regions whose organizational structures
were affected by the Poznań community.
5 According to Majer Bałaban, it was already in the twelfth century that the authorities of Ital-
ian towns were elected in indirect elections. It is likely that the system was first adopted by the
French and German towns, and then by their Jewish communities, and as the Jews emigrated to
the East, it was also adopted by Polish communities (Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 30).
On the other hand, Ignacy Schiper does not agree with the opinion of such scholars as Bałaban,
among others, that kahals modeled their systems on the political systems of towns. He claims that
82 ELECTION OF COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
from community to community: elections could be conducted in two or three stag-

es, and the number of both electors and those selected by them would also vary.
The Kraków statute of 1595 set forth the following election procedure: having
pledged to act honestly and for the benefit of all, each member of the community’s
authorities (five parnasim, four tovim and fourteen kahalniks) would drop one card
with a name into the ballot box. The community’s authorities were not allowed to
cast a vote for the parnasim currently in office or for their own relatives, and the
statute listed all degrees of kinship and ties that were prohibited (e.g., a friend or
a partner). Out of the pool of names the shames would draw nine pre-electors who
were not supposed to be related to one another. They also took an oath in front of
the aron ha-kodesh with the scrolls of the Torah, vowing that they had entered no
agreement regarding the election. Then the pre-electors would elect five electors,
the wise men, who nominated the kahal members.6
In the town of Opatów, the outgoing kahal and top ranking taxpayers would
elect five pre-electors from among their own midst, who would then nominate five
electors to appoint the community authorities.7 In Lwów and in all of Ruthenia all
taxpayers had active voting rights and it is among them that five electors were first
elected then to appoint members of the kahal. In 1690, the provincial council of
Ruthenian Jewish communities held at Kulików increased the number of electors
to six and laid down the rules of their selection: cards with the names of parnasim,
tovim, and kahalniks were first dropped into one ballot box, cards with the names
of members of the commission, dayanim, etc. into the second box, and cards with
the names of other taxpayers into the third ballot box. Then two cards would be
drawn from the first box, and the rest of the cards were put in the second box. Two
cards would then be drawn and the rest of the cards in the box were dropped into
the third ballot box from which two cards were drawn. Thus selected electors
nominated the community authorities.8 In Leszno, seven electors were first se-
lected from among the community members who were married for at least six
years and paid at least 20 zł. in taxes.9
The election system in the Lithuanian Jewish communities was laid down by
the Lithuanian Vaad that convened in Prużany (1628): the outgoing kahal consist-
ing of fifteen members (roshim, tovim, ikurim, and dayanim, who were joined by
gabaim) would constitute a group of pre-electors. They elected five electors who
would then nominate the community authorities.10
Jews had models of their own offered by Talmudic law, and the systems are similar due to the fact
that the systems adopted by German towns were modeled on the organization of Jewish communities
(Schiper, “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów,” p. 84).
6 Bałaban, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595,” pp. 315–316.
8 Ibidem. On the elections in Żółkiew, see Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 7–9.
9 Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, p. 42.
10 Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah, nos. 160 and 161.
ELECTORS AND ELECTIONS 83
In Poznań, elections proceeded in the following way: cards with the names of
21 community members, people “well-known, distinguished and rich,” were
dropped into the ballot box by the outgoing kahal’s members. It is from among
them that seven electors (ksherim) would be selected.11 This method of elections
was labeled by the electors’ pinkas as “the right vested by our ancestors and by the
laws of our holy community.”12 The editor of this fragment of the Poznań electors’
pinkas, Franciszek Kupfer, noted that the Jewish community authorities were
elected in a similar way as the town authorities of Poznań.13
The Poznań electors’ pinkas describes two methods of elector selection. The
first, simpler one, consisted of the drawing of 7 out of 21 cards with names, and it
was referred to as the one that had been followed for a long time.14 The second
vote, which consisted of two stages, was preceded by a secret vote on elector
nominees. Each of the kahal members had “yes” and “no” cards with which they
voted for or against individual nominees. When a nominee would get a majority
of “yes” votes, the shames would write down his name and it would be dropped
into the ballot box. Further voting continued as above.15
Swarzędz had five electors who were chosen by the outgoing community
parnasim by a draw.16 A different entry in the Swarzędz pinkas confirmed an old
regulation that in order to elect electors or tax estimators, the kahal had to incor-
porate two of the five men.17
The foregoing election system provided those already in authority, and main-
ly the outgoing kahal, with a significant advantage.18 It practically ruled out the
election of new people to the kahal who would have no family or financial ties with
its members.19 But it was not an exceptional practice; in numerous Jewish com-
11 Exceptionally, there are 11 elector names on the list made in 1699 (CAHJP, PL/Po 1,
p. 226).
12 AEP no. 2181 (Passover 5513/1753).
13 As Kupfer observes, there are no documents based on which one could establish when the
election system described above was first introduced in the Poznań community. It could have hap-
pened at the end of the 16th century, i.e., at the time when also the Poznań town council was no
longer elected by all constituents (as was prescribed by King Zygmunt August in his regulation of
1566), but was nominated by heads of guilds and by the outgoing council members (Kupfer, ed.,
“Pinkas K’szejrim,” p. 67).
14 AEP no. 154 (5391/1631).
15 AEP no. 1262 (Passover 5434/1674). This was a procedure prescribed by the electors for the
forthcoming elections that were to take place at the time of Passover 5435 (1675).
16 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 65 (Swarzędz, 8 Shvat 5554 / January 9, 1794).
17 JTS 3652, p. 170 (Swarzędz, 5495 / 1734/35).
18 Dov Avron writes that it seems that the twenty-one men, who chose electors, included 13
kahal members (5 parnasim, 3 tovim, and 5 kahalniks) and 8 men representing the dayanim and
important community citizens (Avron, “Ha-brirah,” p. 54).
19 See Adelson, Elita kahalna, pp. 49–55. Józef Adelson claims that the Poznań election system
was much less democratic than the systems adopted by other communities. In his view, the most
democratic of all was the Kraków system, but he offers a wrong description, allegedly after Bałaban,
munities of the Commonwealth one could observe a gradual shrinking of the rul-
ing elite.20
In all community elections lots were usually drawn due to a belief that this
way the will of God could fully manifest itself, and thus the best individuals would
be able to perform important functions.21 Not only electors were chosen by a draw,
but also the community authorities, as well as people to fill other, less important,
and sometimes even ad hoc functions.
In Poznań and Swarzędz elections were staged in the kahal house, and elec-
tors were to lock themselves in when nominees were selected.22 In Poznań, all
those who were to choose electors were prohibited from leaving the meeting until
all electors gathered in the synagogue. The reason was that no one in the street
should discover the identity of the electors before their names were announced in
the synagogue, which, as it was emphasized, could have led to many disasters.23
The election of electors was to last one day. This rule was recalled in Poznań
in 1700 at the time of Passover. Soon after the kahal members left the synagogue
after the morning prayer, they had to convene and elect electors. The monthly
parnas, who did not have to discharge any of his usual tasks at that time, had the
responsibility of gathering all the kahal members immediately after they had left
the synagogue and finishing the election by mid day. That year an exception was
made and elections continued until the evening and the names of electors were
announced to the public in the dark of night, even though it was clear that such
a procedure could be a source of some problems, as it had been prescribed earlier
that the election should not be handled that way.24
When electors were chosen, doubts were voiced as to who could be eligible
for elector nominees. One of the problems that had to be addressed was whether
the outgoing kahal members could be nominated and their names dropped into the
ballot box. This practice had been prohibited in 1628 by the Poznań electors,25 but
of the election procedure (in fact, not all the community residents took part in the election!). He also
emphasizes the role played by the rabbi who had been handed voting cards by voters before they
were dropped into the ballot box. Adelson claims that such a procedure resulted in that people who
had family or financial ties with the rabbi were nominated in the first place.
20 See Schiper, “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów,” p. 96. Ignacy Schiper also wrote that more
affluent community members could cast 2 or even 3 votes, whereas a “common man” had only one
vote. This inequality, i.a., was a factor that resulted in the evolution of oligarchic authority in Jewish
communities. What Ignacy Schiper must have had in mind was vote buying, a phenomenon which
is mentioned by Józef Adelson in Adelson, Elita kahalna, pp. 51–52.
5505 / May 7, 1745) and pp. 35–36 (Swarzędz, no date); JTS 3652, p. 207 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5511
/ April 19, 1751). The election results, i.e., the selection of wise and honest people, were explained
as an act of Divine Providence or the Will of Heaven.
23 AEP no. 1738 (Passover 5458/1698).
24 AEP no. 1769 (Passover 5460/1700).
25 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” p. 60.
in 1675 it was decided that the problem could be resolved by the assembly of the
thirty-two men accompanied by the rabbi. They were to make a decision by a se-
cret ballot at the latest in advance of 30 days before the nearest Passover, i.e., be-
fore the election date. Should the kahal fail to convene the said thirty-two men
before that deadline, then its members would not be allowed to be nominated as
electors.26
A question arose whether the names of dayanim could be put in the ballot box.
Sometimes the number of dayanim to be nominated for electors would be limited.
In 1672, the Poznań electors ruled that no more than two dayanim were allowed
to run for that position. Each card with a dayan’s name that would be drawn in
excess of that number would be declared null and void.27 The assembly of the
thirty-two men, convened before the 1676 elections, took a decision that no
dayanim could be nominated as electors, but the future electors would have to de-
cide whether that ruling would continue to be valid.28 It was in the same year that
a decision was made that in the following elections dayanim would be allowed to
run, but that only the one of them whose name would be drawn first could become
an elector.29
Elector nominees had to meet a few other criteria: they had to live in the com-
munity for an appropriate period of time or had to be married (which entailed the
status of citizen granted by the community), pay taxes regularly, conduct them-
selves impeccably, and stand out in learning (as evidenced, e.g., by the honorary
title of ḥaver).
There are frequent reminders in pinkasim that those who had arrears in tax
payment should not be elected. All those who had failed to pay taxes in the previ-
ous year were not to be put forward as elector nominees, as recommended by the
Poznań electors.30 It was the responsibility of the kahal to check in advance of
eight days before Passover who paid the taxes and who was lagging behind in their
payment.31 In 1713, apart from the tax payment requirement, the minimal tax
amount was also imposed. Only those who paid the appropriate amount of taxes
could be nominated for the positions of electors and tax estimators.32 The same
26 AEP no. 1302 (Passover 5435/1675).

27 AEP no. 1219 (Passover 5432/1672). A reservation was made on that occasion that those
dayanim who become electors would not be allowed to fill the position of a parnas; they could only
be a tovi, kahalnik or a section member.
28 AEP no. 1307 (18 Adar 5436 / March 4, 1676).
29 AEP no. 1337 (5436/1676).
30 AEP no. 668 (Passover 5411/1651). A similar approach, as Abram Gawurin claims, was
taken in Tykocin where a person lagging behind in tax payment in the year preceding the election
had to pay the amount due or offer a pledge before turning up at the election meeting (Gawurin,
Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 39).
31 AEP no. 1084 (Passover 5428/1668).
32 AEP no. 1962 (Passover 5473/1713). Minimal tax amounts were set by many communities.
In 1761, the Lithuanian Vaad ordained that to be eligible for an elector or tax estimator one should
criterion applied in Swarzędz, but, as one can read in the records, a person whose
name was drawn in the ballot vote was allowed to cover the arrears after he had
been voted in.33
In Swarzędz, another limitation was imposed in 1736: the names of electors
and tax estimators could only be drawn by those with the title of ḥaver, unless they
had discharged some function before that regulation was issued.34 The Poznań
electors recalled that the kahal was supposed to pay attention to an individual’s
behavior, and should it be inappropriate, the “culprit” would not only be fined, but
his name would also be entered in the pinkas (in sefer ha-zikhronot), so that he
would not be taken into account when elector names were drawn or when an office
was filled.35
Similar criteria applied to those people who were later to be nominated by
electors for community positions. They, too, had to stand out in terms of personal
traits and pay taxes.
The Swarzędz pinkasim refer to a few cases of punishment by forbidding
someone to stand in elections. Yeshaya, son of Moshe Drizen, a man of violent
temper, committed a few misdeeds “which are not committed in Israel” in 1739,
which put at risk his and his family’s reputation. Apart from other punishments, he
was forbidden to run in any election in the coming six years, and an elector or
a kahal member who would like to change this rule would be fined.36 Zalman, son
of reb I., was punished in 1772 for importing and weighing meat without the re-
quired notification of the kahal by being excluded from the group of prospective
nominees and from any community meetings. This verdict was overruled only
after the town’s owner had intervened, whereby Zalman was declared to be eligi-
ble for any nomination, as before.37 One could also be forbidden to run in elections
because of a false oath or, rather, any allegation of a false oath. After the matter
had been clarified, the alleged culprit (whose name was carefully erased, he must
have been anathematized later on) recovered his election rights.38
In Poznań, the kahal members who would disclose even a fraction of what
was discussed at their meetings or any deeds of the kahal’s electors (they pledged
to keep them secret) were to be deprived of the right to put forward their nomina-
pay at least 18 gr. (and in some other communities, 15 gr.) a week; to be eligible for parnas or char-
ity gabai, at least 1 florin (30 gr.) a week. The only exception was made for dayanim and scholars
who were required to pay only 10 gr. a week. Pursuant to the regulation of 1763, the majority of
Lwów offices were reserved for people paying at least 50–75 florins in annual tax. Krotoszyn set
such a minimum at 90 florins in 1730 (Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, p. 40).
33 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 5v (Swarzędz, 13 Iyar 5519 / May 10, 1759).
34 JTS 3652, pp. 172v–173 (Swarzędz, Nisan 5496 / March–April 1736).
35 AEP no. 1324 (Passover 5436/1676).
5532 / January 30, 1772, and 11 Nisan 5532 / April 14, 1772).
38 Ibidem, p. 68 (Swarzędz, 5532/1771/72).
tions in the following four years, on top of a very high fine.39 In 1671, any man,
regardless of his position, who would intercede for a couple that had been expelled
from the community for getting married without the kahal’s knowledge and ap-
proval, would risk a fine and exclusion from elections for a period of ten years.40
When offices were filled, nominees had to meet a requirement of living in the
community for a prescribed period of time. The Poznań electors wrote down in
their pinkas in 1684 that electors were not allowed to nominate for any position,
either that of a dayan or kahalnik, a man who had not lived in the community for
a consecutive three years until a full year passed since his moving into the com-
munity. Such a person was also not allowed to act as an elector. This pertained both
to newly settled residents and to those who had already lived in the community but
left it for some reason, e.g., to assume the office of rabbi in another community.41
The Poznań electors partly changed this decision in the following year and an-
nounced that should the community resident with citizen status get a position of
rabbi in another community and then return to Poznań, he could then run for the
position of permanent dayan, even though a year would not have passed from his
return.42
In Swarzędz this requirement was of great consequence, stemming from the
fear that Poznań Jews might fill offices in the Swarzędz community (as the citizen-
ship granted in Poznań, being the principal community, covered Swarzędz,
a branch community). This is why in 1759 the authorities of the Swarzędz com-
munity decided that those of the Poznań community residents who decided to
settle in Swarzędz would be forbidden to run in elections for a period of three years
from their settlement date.43 Further on, the same entry allows the nomination of
only one person coming from Poznań for such top community positions as elec-
tors, kahal’s alufim (i.e., parnasim and tovim), gabaim, the five men, tax estimators
and account supervisors. That arrangement was justified by the community’s well-
being and its breach was punished by a curse.
It was also required that a nominee had to be married for a defined period of
time. The Poznań electors reminded in 1672 that pursuant to an earlier regulation
they were allowed to choose as nominees only those household heads that had
been married for more than ten years. But this rule was mitigated by the thirty-two
men and from then on household heads married for only eight years could run for
community positions. But it was forbidden to nominate them for the functions of
parnasim, tovim, or dayanim, and they were only allowed to run for the position
of kahalnik. Whereas a nominee married for more than ten years could run for the
39 AEP no. 1500 (17 Nisan 5445 / April 21, 1685).
40 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 242v (Poznań, 21 Tevet 5432 / December 22, 1671).
41 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 261 (Poznań, 6 Nisan 5444 / March 21, 1684), similarly to AEP no.
1774 (Passover 5460/1700).

42 AEP no. 1513 (Passover 5445/1685).
43 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 6v (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan 5519 / April 15, 1759).
office of kahalnik or dayan, the nominee could not run for the office of tovi or
parnas, because he had to hold the post of kahalnik before he could be nominated
for that office.44
When nominees for individual offices were chosen, electors were prohibited
from putting forward their own nominations. There is an entry in the Swarzędz
pinkas that electors are not allowed to nominate themselves for any office.45 How-
ever, the practice varied significantly from these rules.
It was also forbidden to nominate the same individual for two different posi-
tions. The Poznań electors noted with outrage in 1723 that the electors of the
previous year had changed the existing system (according to the editor, they were
most probably put off by the fact that one individual, namely Ayzik, son-in-law of
reb Pilta, was nominated for the office of gabai and dayan) and they threatened
electors and those running for two offices with a curse and terrible punish-
ments.46
At the time of elections the kahal would sometimes put (under oath) some
obligations on electors. One of them was to exclude from nominations those who
had committed offenses47 or had arrears in tax payments. They were also not to
nominate the same person for two offices or for the office he had already held48 or
to nullify or uphold specific regulations. Electors sometimes tried to avoid such an
oath: e.g., in 1679 the Poznań electors wrote down in their pinkas that the kahal
had no right to put them under an oath in any matter but was only authorized to
provide them with the proposals of regulations.49
In Swarzędz, too, the electors’ freedom of choice was sometimes curbed. In
1724, the assembly of the fifteen men instructed prospective electors to nominate
three specific men (mentioned by name) for the positions of dayan or charity gabai.
It was emphasized that such an arrangement would apply only in the following
year and afterwards the electors would again be free to choose their own nomi-
nees.50 Interestingly enough, it follows from a list of officials elected in 1725 that
only one of the above-mentioned three men was actually nominated (and got the
position of dayan). The names of the other two nominees for gabaim are blurred.
It is likely that they include the second of the nominees, whose name is the same,
but the following name is illegible (so probably the second blurred name is of the
third person).51
44 AEP no. 1219 (Passover 5432/1672).

45 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 71v (Swarzędz, Passover 5555/1795).
46 AEP no. 2072 (Passover 5483/1723); like in AEP no. 674 (Passover 5411/1651).
48 JTS 3652, pp. 195–195v (Swarzędz, 24 Sivan 5506 / June 12, 1746).
49 AEP no. 1391 (Passover 5439/1679); also AEP no. 1430 (Passover 5440/1680); AEP no.
1443 (Passover 5441/1681); AEP no. 1460 (Passover 5442/1682).

50 JTS 3652, p. 113v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5484 / April 18, 1724).
51 JTS 3652, p. 117 (Swarzędz, a list of officials elected in 5485/1725).
The significance of elections was reinforced by an oath: the kahal swore in the
electors that it had elected and the electors would then swear in the kahal members
they selected.52 They pledged to honestly select nominees and to perform their
functions with due diligence. In 1723, the mutual swearing in of the electors and
the kahal was enacted as a law which was not to be breached.53 This resulted in
multi-tier commitments: electors were to be sworn in so that they could, in turn,
take an oath from the kahal members.54
After the election was over, members of the community gathered in the syna-
gogue. A shames would then read the list of officials chosen by electors. It was also
then that the public was informed of the regulations that were drafted by electors
during the intermediate days of Passover.55 It happened on several occasions that
they ran out of time and were unable to address all the problems vital to the com-
munity. Then the electors would extend their deliberations by a few more days,
usually until the nearest Sabbath. It was made clear, however, that the regulations
enacted in those days would be valid and binding as if they were adopted during
Passover.56
The newly elected kahal was obliged under an oath to observe and implement
the electors’ regulations. Those vested with power were also reminded that they
were to constantly refer to the electors’ decisions. Each monthly parnas had to read
the electors’ regulations on the very same day on which he assumed his office.57
To ensure a better observance of one of the electors’ regulations, in 1778 their
contents were copied and each elector was handed one counterpart.58
52 Franciszek Kupfer explains that oath taking was to curb the competency and powers of the
other side and that the practice reflected mutual distrust. It is attributed to the different origins of
electors (rich merchants) and the kahal (customs arrendators). They represented different and some-
times contradictory interests and this is what gave rise to tensions. To support his thesis, Kupfer re-
fers to the pinkas where it is written that the electors’ decisions were not observed only when they
were not in the interest of customs arrendators (Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” p. 67). This argu-
ment is not convincing, in my opinion, and it is particularly unclear to me why then these two com-
peting groups would elect each other every year. The excerpts of the pinkas published by Kupfer may
refer to the boycott by the kahal of a regulation which was not in the interest of the customs arrenda-
tors, but the entire text of the pinkas provides numerous examples of good relations between the
electors and the kahal.
53 AEP no. 2072 (Passover 5483/1723).
5510 / April 29, 1750).

55 AEP no. 1216 (Passover 5432/1672).
56 AEP no. 1301 (5435/1675); AEP no. 1629 (Passover 5452/1692); AEP no. 1638 (Passover
5453/1693); AEP no. 1675 (Passover 5456/1696); AEP no. 1742 (Passover 5458/1698); AEP no.
1788 (Passover 5460/1700); AEP no. 1867 (Passover 5465/1705); AEP no. 1911 (Passover
5468/1708).
57 AEP no. 1134 (5430/1670).
58 AEP no. 2241 (5538/1778).
Apart from the oath, the power of nominations or regulations was strength-
ened by bills of exchange which were handed by newly elected officials to electors
or the rabbi. They were to serve as a guarantee that the office would be properly
held and that obligations would be met. Should an official fail to observe the regu-
lations, use the nomination to his own advantage, should he fail to arrive at meet-
ings in time, or in the event of any misconduct, the bill would be cashed. When the
Poznań electors prohibited any quarrels at the kahal meetings, they warned pro-
spective quarrelers that fines would be immediately deducted from their bills held
by the electors.59
The Poznań electors’ pinkas also mentions a secret letter (megilat setarim)
which would be sent by the electors to the kahal they had nominated. The letter
included regulations that were intended only for the kahal and whose contents
were not recorded by the electors in their pinkas.60 It follows from an entry made
in 1673 that the electors sent the whole set of regulations they had enacted that
year by such a secret letter.61 An entry dating from 1709 sheds some light on the
contents of such a letter: it reads that should Zelig, son-in-law of parnas Mor-
dekhai, the rabbi of Łabiszyn, come with his wife and members of his household
to live in Poznań, then the future electors could nominate him for the office of the
dayan before one year had lapsed.62 In an entry of 1690, the electors referred to
the secret letter of the previous year in which the kahal was ordered to dismiss
a tax collector mentioned by name.63 Some complications arose in 1674 because
the recommendations included in the secret letter contravened the earlier agree-
ment. The kahal concluded that electors might have been oblivious of earlier reg-
ulations and decided that instead of taking an oath from the kahal that would carry
into life the provisions included in their secret letter, the electors would need to
show it to five parnasim. Only after the latter agreed to their regulations, the elec-
tors would be authorized to swear in the entire kahal, so that it would be able to
carry into life what had been prescribed by the letter.64
The secret letter was to be given to the newly elected kahal at the same time
when electors announced a list of nominated officials and made their regulations
public in the synagogue. It was then that the newly elected kahal would be handed
the secret letter. After reading and approving the secret letter, the members would
take an oath regarding both open and secret regulations. But that procedure was
questioned in 1672, when electors asked the monthly parnas to add one thing to
59 AEP no. 704 (Passover 5412/1652).

60 Mojżesz Schorr refers to them as a secret book and writes that it was labeled that way be-
cause it included complaints about abuses and shortages that the authorities did not want to make
public (Schorr, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce, p. 26).
61 AEP no. 1251 (Passover 5433/1673).
62 AEP no. 1913 (Passover 5469/1709).
63 AEP no. 1599 (Passover 5450/ 1690).
64 AEP no. 1280 (Nisan 5434/1674).
the secret letter later on, after they had left the synagogue. The rabbi ruled that the
letter was null and void and that in the future the electors would have to inform
everybody if they wanted to add anything to the secret letter at the time they an-
nounced their regulations. Thus they would also be covered by an oath taken on
the regulations.65
In the great majority of the Commonwealth’s communities, the role of elec-
tors ended after the election was over. The Poznań electors had an exceptional
status in that their positions were of a permanent nature and they continued to
operate after the elections were over. A similar arrangement was adopted only in
Vilnius, where the short-listing committee was called asefat raḥ ash.66 The pinkas
of the Poznań electors also includes (though less frequently) regulations issued in
other months, not only at the time of the elections. It was the electors’ responsibil-
ity all year round to see to and discuss the most vital matters of the community’s
life, mainly financial problems such as tax collection and debt repayment, inspec-
tion of some accounts, etc. The outgoing kahal was obligated to hand over to elec-
tors the accounts of the entire year put in order, both regarding tax payments and
those squared with individual community residents.67 The electors supervised the
activities of the kahal, and, in the event of any transgressions of power, they were
allowed to fine its members.68 As in Poznań, electors in Swarzędz continued to
operate after the election was over, as evidenced by entries made in their pinkasim.69
They also issued regulations which included, i.a., instructions to be followed by
the newly elected kahal.70
It was clearly with a view to curbing the aspirations of the Swarzędz electors
that they were ordered to make their nominations as quickly as possible (within
65 AEP no. 1216 (Passover 5432/1672).

66 In 1720 the size of the Vilnius short-listing committee (and similar committees in other
Lithuanian communities) was set at 50 people by the Lithuanian Vaad, which also decreed that the
rules defining those eligible to be its members were to be laid down by those issuing the regulations
(baalei takanot) along with the rabbi. A proviso was introduced, however, that to exercise this right
one would need to be a parnas for three years, or a parnas for one year and a dayan for six years, not
necessarily in consecutive years (Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah, no. 935). In the second half of
the 18th century the Vilnius committee was enlarged to 120 members in 1760 and to 196 members in
1796. It is from among them that electors were selected who then elected the community authorities;
see Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 1 (1937), p. 131; 2 (1938), p. 54.
67 AEP no. 1328 (Passover 5436/1676); JTS 3652, p. 66v (Swarzędz, no date).
68 AEP no. 1381 (5438/1678). Józef Adelson points out that the statute of the Poznań commu-
nity provided for the electors committee a body exercising control over the kahal right from the
beginning and that, in other communities, e.g., Lwów, it was a result of the pressure exerted by ho-
mines novi that an office with the scope of authority similar to that of the Poznań electors was estab-
lished (Adelson, Elita kahalna, p. 60).
69 See JTS 3652, p. 67 (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5459 / April 27, 1699); p. 140 (Swarzędz, 28 Iyar
5466 / May 12, 1706); p. 124 (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5490 / April 18, 1730); Michałowska-Mycielska,
ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 49–50 (Swarzędz, 1 Ḥeshvan 5522 / October 29, 1761).
70 See JTS 3652, pp. 116–116v (Swarzędz, 5485/1725).
24 hours) and reminded that, by reference to the practices followed by the Poznań
community, until new officials were elected, the community would continue to be
run by the outgoing authorities. At the same time they were prohibited from spend-
ing any money from the kahal’s coffers, and they were only allowed to take 25 zł.,
as customary, to cover their expenses.71
Not all the community offices were filled by electors’ nominees; some were
posted by the kahal. The Poznań electors observed that nomination of officials by
the kahal should take place on the day following the end of Passover. Should any
kahal member have any ties with a nominee, then he should leave the meeting.72
When a majority vote was taken, it was to be by secret ballot, by means of cards,
and not by an open roll call.73
Electors were to fill such most important and permanent positions in the com-
munity as the office of parnas, tovi, kahalnik, gabai, or dayan, but also lower-rank-
ing and temporary positions, such as regulation supervisors (baalei takanot, from
1640), trustees (ne’emanim), bardon supervisors (anashim al ha-bardon, from
1686), or judges (senzis, from 1733).74
The offices posted by the kahal, which were labeled as amtin, were of minor
importance and usually involved management of the Jewish quarter and supervi-
sion over crafts and commerce. Dov Avron divided them into three groups:75
1. lower officials: supervisors (memunim) of, i.a., street, marketplace, wool,
stands; custodians of orphans, supervisors of girls’ dowry; tovei ir; parnasim of
guilds, slaughterhouses, furriers, fur vendors, loop-makers, tailors;
2. tax estimators (shamaim), account supervisors (roei ḥeshbonot), bardon
supervisors (until 5446/1686);
3. regulation supervisors (baalei takanot), hired temporarily.
The Poznań electors noted on several occasions in their pinkas that the kahal
should select tax estimators after it had found nominees for other offices.76 Some-
times a reverse order was recommended,77 but as it was put down in 1712, that
approach resulted in many miseries and it was to be never adopted again.78 In 1763
71 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 71v (Passover 5555/1795). When the Opatów kahal convened for elec-
tions, its members would have a glass or two of mead (Hundert, The Jews in a Polish Private Town,
p. 85), and it is likely that the same happened in Swarzędz. This is where the electors’ expenses
came from.
72 AEP no. 1264 (Passover 5434/1674).
73 AEP no. 1120 (5430/1670).
74 Avron, “Ha-brirah,” p. 62.
75 Ibidem.
76 AEP no. 1192 (5431/1671), AEP no. 1703 (Passover 5457/1697), AEP no. 1734 (Passover
5458/1698), AEP no. 1770 (Passover 5460/1700), AEP no. 1796 (Passover 5461/1701), AEP no. 1821
(Passover 5463/1703), AEP no. 1887 (Passover 5467/1707), AEP no. 1932 (Passover 5471/1711).
(Passover 5466/1706).
78 AEP no. 1950 (Passover 5472/1712).
it was prohibited from dropping the electors’ names in the ballot box when tax
estimators were elected.79 In the Poznań electors’ pinkas the names of officials
selected by the kahal are frequently accompanied by notes that they were elected
in the month of Iyar, i.e., at least ten days after the kahal had been elected.
In 1703, the Poznań electors recorded that community taxes had been falling
for some years due to the fact that many important and highly placed people did
not want to accept the function of tax estimator. Accordingly, it was necessary to
nominate people “from among the crowd” (ordinary residents) who had no idea
how to assess taxes. This is why the kahal was ordered to choose tax estimators
from among its members, dayanim, gabaim, yeshivah students (bnei yeshivah), or
other important community residents. Those who would refuse to accept that of-
fice would be punished with fines and severe penalties.80 In 1705, the Poznań
electors instructed that nominees for tax estimators should be wise and sensible,
familiar with commerce and how people earned their living in the community, and
in 1706 they ordered that each section of tax estimators should include one kahal
member, one gabai, one dayan and one person “from the street.”81
It follows from the records made in the electors’ pinkas that sometimes tax
estimators would be elected by electors, but it was then emphasized that they
would not be allowed to estimate the taxes that electors were to pay.82 A decision
was also made that should an elector’s son or son-in-law be nominated for the
function of tax estimator, then he would not be allowed to estimate taxes (total tax)
of any of the electors, nor any of his sons or sons-in-law.83 In order to avoid any
abuses, it was also prohibited that the taxes payable by electors should be assessed
by tax estimators who had been deprived of their positions or by their relatives.84
In Swarzędz, tax estimators were chosen by the kahal.85 It was done immedi-
ately after the electors had been selected, but sometimes it was also stressed that
tax estimators should be chosen in the first place.86 There is another entry in the
Swarzędz pinkas that a tax collector (goveh) should be elected jointly by the elec-
tors and the kahal.87
The three positions of the memunim, tovei ir, and slaughterhouse supervisors
that were filled by the kahal are frequently mentioned together and referred to as
the three initial positions posted by the kahal.88 It was recalled on several occa-
79AEP no. 2209 (5523/1763). Repeated in AEP no. 2230 (Passover 5528/1768), AEP no. 2233
(Passover 5534/1774).
80 AEP no. 1819 (Passover 5463/1703).
82 AEP no. 735 (Passover 5413/1653).
83 AEP no. 1485 (5444/1684).
84 AEP no. 1676 (Passover 5456/1696).
85 JTS 3652, p. 121v (Swarzędz, 5488/1728), p. 126 (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5490 / April 18, 1730).
sions that the kahal had no right to increase the number of officials it nominated,
but that everything should be according to the existing order.89 It was also forbid-
den to nominate the same individual for two different positions.90
Immediately after the Poznań kahal chose the lowest ranking officials, it also
elected the thirty-two men91 who were to oversee the community’s most important
matters and hire its functionaries. The election of the thirty-two men was indirect
and the kahal would first elect electors, eleven men (seven men before 163292),
who then nominated nineteen men. When selecting their nominees, they were
guided by the criterion that the nominees should represent three groups of the com-
munity’s residents: the rich, medium rich, and poor.93 Along with the thirteen ka-
hal members, they would then constitute the assembly of the thirty-two men.94 In
1628, the Poznań electors decided that the seven electors could not be among the
thirty-two men, and in 1676 a prohibition was issued to elect any dayanim to join
the thirty-two men.95
Elections of both electors and community authorities opened up an opportu-
nity for a variety of abuses. The pinkas of the Poznań electors mentions intrigues
and conspiracies that had been hatched in the community before electors were
selected, which means that there were some pre-election arrangements and nego-
tiations. The electors ordered the kahal to inform the public in the synagogues that
people who would resort to such practices would be cursed, condemned, severely
punished and deprived of their citizenship.96
In the same pinkas one may come across a few notes showing that people
disapproved of electors and muttered against them. Sometimes it was due to the
fact that nominations were handed to individuals who did not want to hold the of-
fices they had been offered.97 But more vocal criticism of electors was also voiced.
On several occasions electors ordered the kahal to pay attention to the people who
(Passover 5445/1685), AEP no. 1531 (Passover 5446/1686), AEP no. 1590 (Passover 5450/1690),
AEP no. 1795 (Passover 5461/1701), AEP no. 1821 (Passover 5463/1703), AEP no. 1953 (Passover
5472/1712), AEP no. 2025 (Passover 5478/1718). See the following section devoted to elected of-
ficials.
90 AEP no. 733 (Passover 5413/1653), AEP no. 878 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).
91 In 1706, an order was issued to choose the thirty-two men before all offices were assigned
– AEP no. 1869 (Passover 5466/1706).

92 Avron, “Ha-brirah,” p. 60.
93 AEP no. 736 (Passover 5413/1653).
94 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” pp. 62–63, and Avron, “Ha-brirah,” p. 62. Some entries in
the Poznań electors’ pinkas refer to the kahal and the thirty-two men, but they do not explain that the
kahal members are also members of the latter assembly. Accordingly, one may wrongly conclude
that those were two different bodies (e.g., in 1653 the kahal debated together with the thirty-two men,
AEP no. 710, Passover 5413/1653).
95 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” pp. 62–63; AEP no. 1313 (Passover 5436/1676).
96 AEP no. 1284 (5435/1675).
ELECTED OFFICIALS 95
provoked quarrels about nominations and offices or who questioned what the elec-
tors and the kahal had done. Offenders were threatened with very severe punish-
ment, including ḥerem.98 The kahal members were also forbidden to comment on
nomination decisions taken by electors.99
2. ELECTED OFFICIALS
Just as different election procedures were followed by Jewish communities of

the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so they also differed in how many and
what officials they elected. They were also sometimes differently labeled in each
community. Much would depend on its size and needs, as well as local customs
and traditions.
According to Mojżesz Schorr, the authorities of larger communities consisted
of about 40 people (in Kraków, 40; in Poznań, 37; in Vilnius, 35). Authorities of
medium sized communities consisted of 22–34 (in Przemyśl, 34), while authorities
of small ones numbered eight.100 Some communities seemed to especially favor
the figure 23, which was a symbolic reference to the composition of the small
Sanhedrin.101 There were exactly 23 members of the narrow circle of the Kraków
community authorities: 5 parnasim, 4 tovim, and 14 kahalniks. Their number
would be frequently increased by people nominated to discharge specific tasks.
In Poznań, a total of nearly 150 officials were elected.102 Majer Bałaban ob-
served that the autonomy of the Poznań community was by far greater than of the
communities situated in eastern regions, and that as early as the 17th century it had
more officials than, for example, in Kraków or Lublin. Multiple offices and numer-
ous functions, some of minor importance, served the purpose of bestowing honors
on many citizens.103
In the Poznań electors’ pinkasim there are election lists dating from 1621–
1830; only nine are missing (from 1656, 1661–62, 1673–75, 1710, 1766, and
1768).104 It follows from the electors’ pinkas that there was a special pinkas where
nominations were recorded (pinkas hitmanuyot).105
(Passover 5456/1696).
99 AEP no. 874 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659), AEP no. 1019 (5425/1665), AEP no. 1074
(Passover 5427/1667).
102 Salo Wittmayer Baron wrote that Poznań had a maximum of 109 officials (ibidem); Majer
Bałaban offers the number of 101 officials in Poznań (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahalu w Polsce,” p. 30).
104 In the Polish version of my thesis, I was wrong in writing that no lists of officials elected by
the Poznań community have survived (Avron omitted them when he published the electors’ pinkas).
This mistake was pointed out by Adam Teller, whom I would like to thank again.
105 AEP no. 2223 (1 Iyar 5523 / April 14, 1763).
In 1650–1793, the following officials were elected in Poznań:

1. parnasim 5 (exceptionally 4)
2. tovim 3
3. kahalniks (kahal) 5 (exceptionally 6)
4. gabaim of the Old Synagogue (gabaei beit kneset ha-yeshanah) 3–8
5. gabaim of the New Synagogue (gabaei beit kneset ha-ḥadashah) 3–8
6. gabaim of the High Synagogue (gabaei beit kneset ha-gvohah) 3–8
7. gabaim of the Young Men’s Synagogue (gabaei beit kneset ha-baḥurim) 3
8. gabaim of reb Mendel Abrish synagogue (gabaei beit kneset reb mendel
abrish) 2
9. dayanim 3–68
10. deputities of dayanim (bi-mkom dayanim) 1–4
11. memunim 7–12
12. tovei ir 5–17
13. supervisors of wool (vendors) (parnasei/memunei tsemer) 4–9
14. supervisors of fur (vendors) (parnasei/memunei roykhvarg) 3–10
15. supervisors of loop makers (parnasei/memunei petlitser) 3(?)–10
16. supervisors of slaughterhouses (parnasei/memunei kotel hoif) 3–14
17. trustees of slaughterhouses (ne’emanei kotel hoif) 1–2
18. supervisors of tailors (parnasei/memunei ḥeytim) 4–11
19. supervisors of furriers (parnasei/memunei kirshner) 3–9
20. supervisors of the marketplace (parnasei ha-shuk) 3–9
21. kahalniks assisting the marketplace parnasim (manhigim etsel parnasei
ha-shuk) 2
22. supervisors of stall owners (parnasei/memunei kremir) 3–10
23. supervisors of cattle hides (vendors) (parnasei/memunei yokhtin) 3–4
24. supervisors of cloth sellers (parnasei/memunei mokhrei begadim) 2
25. supervisors of (vendors) selling goods from Wrocław and Leszno (memu-
nei sḥorah mi-bresla ve-lisa) 3
26. supervisors of vodka (vendors) (memunei yain saraf) 1
27. supervisors of intermediaries (parnasei/memunei faktorin) 2
28. supervisors of merchants from outside the community (parnasei/memu-
nei (anshei) medinah) 3(?)–9
29. supervisors of maidens’ fund (parnasei/memunei meot betulot) 3
30. supervisors of orphans’ fund (avei yetumim) 3
31. supervisors of the Land of Israel fund (memunei erets yisrael) 2
32. supervisors of regulations (baalei takanot) 5–7
33. trustees (ne’emanim) 1–2
34. supervisors of accounts (roei ḥeshbonot) 3
35. tax estimators (shamaim) 16–17
36. tax collector (goveh masim) 1
37. the three men (shloshah anashim) 3
38. the five men (ḥamishah anashim) 5

39. the seven men for bardon (shivah anashim al bardon) 7
40. judges for disputes with non-Jews (senzis) 1–11
Apart from the officials mentioned above, entered on election lists were also
people assigned for specific tasks, e.g., to contact the non-Jewish authorities about
the kahal’s affairs (in 1653) or to keep the record of expenses and income in the
pinkas (in 1659).
The number of officials elected in Poznań ranged from 13 (in 1755, when only
five parnasim, three tovim, and five kahalniks were nominated) to 166 (in 1711),
but no regular pattern existed. The average was 81 officials per year, which is
a very high figure compared to other communities of the Commonwealth. The
narrowest circle of the kahal, which usually consisted of 13 people, was elected
every year, like gabaim and dayanim (the number of the latter was constantly
growing). Nominations to lower positions were more irregular, especially at the
end of the period discussed here. It follows from an entry made in the electors’
pinkas in 1718 that the offices assigned by the kahal had not been posted for sev-
eral years. That caused havoc in the town; this is why an order was issued that all
the posts were to be filled without any further delay.106
The Poznań electors reminded the kahal on several occasions that it should
not increase the number of elected officials and recommended restoring the number
set by their ancestors. This was especially true for the three initial offices that were
filled by the kahal in the first place (the usual limit was seven memunim, seven
tovei ir, and five slaughterhouse supervisors107), but it also applied to other offices
which were not to be filled by more than five people. In 1693, the electors passed
a law that was to be abided by in the future whereby the kahal was to elect no more
than five men for bardon.108 In 1779 a decision was made to cancel the position of
the marketplace supervisor (parnasei ha-shuk) and memun. It was argued that one
should not multiply offices excessively and the duties of laid off officials (supervi-
sion over street cleaning, water supply, and chimney sweeping) were to be dis-
charged by kahalniks (manhigei kahal). Court cases earlier adjudicated by market
supervisors were also vested in kahalniks.109
106 AEP no. 2025 (Passover 5478/1718). The editor, Dov Avron, informed in the footnote that
tax estimators were chosen only in 5476/1716.

107 AEP no. 1413 (Passover 5438/1679) – the kahal was ordered to nominate no more than five
people per each office, except for memunim whose number could be higher, like AEP no. 1469
AEP no. 1590 (Passover 5450/1690) – it was instructed to choose only three parnasim of the slaugh-
terhouse, AEP no. 1795 (Passover 5461/1701) – the allowed number of memunim was increased to
nine people, AEP no. 1821 (Passover 5463/1703), AEP no. 1953 (Passover 5472/1712), AEP no. 2025
(Passover 5478/1718).
108 AEP no. 1637 (Passover 5453/1693).
109 AEP no. 2243 (Passover 5539/1779).
The two surviving pinkasim of the Swarzędz community’s kahal cover 1698–
1758 and 1758–1828110 and they include, i.a., election results. The first election
results come from 1706111 and annual results are available from 1723 until the
Partitions. Owing to those documents one can see how many and what officials
were elected each year and keep track of individual careers and relations between
individuals.
The following officials were elected in Swarzędz:
1. parnasim 3 (4)
2. tovim 2 (3)
3. charity gabaim (gabaim, gabaei tsdakah) 3–6
4. the five men (ḥamishah anashim) 5 (6–7)
5. dayanim 4–23
6. supervisors of accounts (roei ḥeshbonot) 2–4
7. deputy parnasim (bi-mkom parnasim)
8. deputy gabaim (bi-mkom gabaim)
9. deputy five men (bi-mkom ḥamishah anashim)
10. deputy dayanim (bi-mkom dayanim)
11. the seven men (shivah anashim)
12. the three men (shloshah anashim)
13. memunim
14. judges for disputes with non-Jews (senzis, tsenzis)
15. trustees (ne’emanim, vierniks)
16. inspectors (mashgiḥim)
17. supervisors of the marketplace (parnasei ha-shuk)
18. supervisors of butchers (parnasei zvaḥim)
19. synagogue gabaim (gabaim be-beit ha-kneset)
20. beit midrash gabaim (gabaim be-beit midrash)
21. Talmud-Torah gabaim (gabaei talmud-torah)
22. gabaim of the Eternal Light (gabaei ner tamid)
23. gabaim for ransom of captives (gabaei pidion shvuim)
24. gabaim for the Land of Israel (gabaei erets yisrael)
25. supervisors of the slaughterhouse (parnasei kotel hoif)
26. tailor supervisors (parnasei ḥeytim)
27. women’s charity collectors (gabaot nashim)
A list of elected officials would be signed by five electors (ksherim) whose
names frequently preceded the records of election results.
110 JTS 3652 and CAHJP, PL/Sw 3. Two other pinkasim of the Swarzędz community are stored
in the State Archives in Poznań (reference name: Gmina żydowska Swarzędz 1 and 2) but do not
include the community’s election minutes.
111 The pinkas of the Poznań electors from 1668 lists the officials of the Swarzędz community,
including three parnasim, two tovim, three gabaim, and three dayanim (CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 128).
Not all the offices listed above were posted every year. Apart from electors,
there are also 27 offices on the lists of elected officials which clearly fall into two
groups. The first group consists of six major community offices which were filled
every year (or almost every year). These were the offices of parnas, tovi, gabai, the
five men, dayan, and account supervisor. Offered against each office is the number
of nominated officials. The other 21 offices were not filled every year; to some of
them, which would be the minor ones, people were nominated after quite long
intervals or even sporadically. Such offices played an ancillary and secondary role
compared to the former ones.
The number of officials elected by the Swarzędz community varied in indi-
vidual years, and there was no regular pattern. The maximum number of all nom-
inees would be 63 people in a single year. There were from ten to forty officials in
the first group. However, there was a clear trend to increase their number, mainly
because dayanim became more numerous, as the number of nominees for the
other five offices continued to be rather stable over the entire examined period.
According to the criteria proposed by Schorr, Swarzędz would rank as a medium-
sized community.
At the end of the discussed period, in the 1790s, the number of officials elect-
ed in Swarzędz plummeted. In 1791–1800, only 8–13 (including 6–9 officials of
the first group) of them were appointed for the most essential offices of a parnas,
gabai, sometimes tovi and marketplace supervisors.
Not all the community members were willing to hold an office and we may
come across a few examples of people disgruntled with their nominations or even
protesting about them. They did not view the post as a privilege or honor but as
a problem and burden that they did not want to accept. They asked for annulment
of their nominations, usually for such reasons as illness, old age or financial
problems.
In 1651, the Poznań electors chose an old and learned man, Yudah Leib
Zeligsh, for the parnas and, as they recorded, burdened him with a task that was
too hard for his advanced age, arguing that it was an emergency situation. The
nominee lamented and asked for mercy crying bitter tears, complaining that he had
problems to make a living for himself and his family. The electors had no power
to provide him with any support, as they were not in the authority either to spend
any money or to ask someone else to do it. But instead they decided that Yudah
Leib would not be nominated for any other office and that he would not be sent
outside the town on any mission. He was also relieved of the duty to spend money
and collect revenues, which every parnas was obliged to do during his monthly
term in office.112
In 1677, the Poznań electors recalled a regulation of their ancestors that should
any of the leaders (the kahal member, gabai, or dayan) refuse to assume an office,
112 AEP no. 688 (Passover 5411/1651).

then he should contact the electors personally or send them an explanatory letter.
This applied both to new nominations and dismissals from the office already held.
Similarly, should any man hear from a member of the community authorities that
he was not willing to accept the nomination, he would be obligated to notify elec-
tors. And it was the responsibility of electors to lift the burden of holding an office
from the man’s shoulders and not nominate him and also to make an appropriate
entry in the pinkas so that he would not be nominated again in the coming three
years.113 This liberal approach changed in time, most probably due to a growing
number of those who were not interested in office holding. In the second half of
the 18th century, the Poznań electors strongly opposed that attitude, threatening to
punish anyone who would refuse to accept the duty of a “shepherd of the holy
flock” and warning of coercive measures and disgrace as long as he did not suc-
cumb and accept the nomination.114
The pinkas of the Poznań electors includes an entry dating from 1763 about
an order issued by the kahal for the forthcoming elections instructing not to ap-
point a Todros, son of Itsḥak Munk, for the position of parnas until 1765. This
decision was made earlier and sent by a letter which Todros received in 1760,115
which was copied to the pinkas with nominations. It was admitted that the electors
had not done the right thing by electing Todros that year. The latter refused to ac-
cept the office and it was not possible to force him, as the law was on his side. Two
other men who were elected parnasim, Pesaḥ, son of Yeḥiel Payzrer, and Tsvi
Hirsh, son of Zalkind Kats, also did not want to accept their nominations. They
complained and whined that they had already performed that function in 1760
together with Todros and that the exemption mentioned above covered them, too.
Eventually, after many pleadings and attempts to persuade them, they agreed to
accept the position of a parnas in that year. They did it, however, on condition that
they would perform their functions for only one year until Passover of 1764 and
that they would not be nominated in the following four years. This rule was also
to be followed in the future: should any of them be nominated by electors for the
position of parnas, then he would be relieved of that duty in the following three
years. Electors who would breach that rule were to be severely punished by, i.a.,
ḥerem, ousting from the assembly and Israel’s community, and high fines would
be levied on them and paid to the voievode and undervoievode. And should any of
the three men be nominated for the office in violation of this rule, he would be
authorized to take action against the electors to the voievode’s court. The scribe
113 AEP no. 1339 (23 Nisan 5437 / April 25, 1677).
114 AEP no. 2221 (5523/1763). The regulation imposing the duty to accept the nomination for
a town office may also be found in Poznań town regulations (Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie,
part 1, no. 20, prior to 1462).
115 AEP no. 2201 (5520/1760).
was ordered to write down this regulation in the nominations pinkas so that it
would always serve as a reminder to electors.116
On special occasions, a body of elected officials was supplemented with new
people in between elections. A new parnas was elected in Swarzędz in 1794, as the
elected one was convalescent and incapable of tending to the community’s affairs.
The newly elected parnas was to hold his office until Passover, i.e., until the fol-
lowing election.117 The Poznań gabaim decided in 1654 to find someone to replace
Isaak who had grown old and was no longer able to perform his function.118
Sometimes positions were assigned in violation of the law. One can read in
the Poznań pinkas that there was a practice of office selling. In 1681 an old rule
was invoked that it was not the electors’ but the kahal’s authority to fill the post of
a fair dayan. It was also emphasized that should the kahal nominate one of its
members for that function, then the man, a dayan or parnas, would not be allowed
to sell this office to anyone from his own or another community.119
Ties between elected officials were also a problem. Many regulations tried to
prevent a situation when members of the same family, or close relatives, would be
represented in the authorities.120 Special attention was paid to family ties in such
areas as tax estimation or court hearings. The term then used was pasul de-oreyta,
and it stood for a person unfit and disqualified by the law to do something (e.g., to
testify in court) because of family ties. Less frequently used was the term pasul edut,
meaning a person who is not eligible to act as a witness because of family ties.
The allowed degrees of kinship were not strictly defined and they would
change depending on circumstances. The Poznań electors’ pinkas reads that the
kahal’s pinkas included regulations on kinship between parnasim, tovim, and ka-
halniks, and that in the future it was left to the thirty-two men to decide whether
to make the earlier regulations even stricter.121
116 AEP no. 2223 (1 Iyar 5523 / April 14, 1763). According to the entry, the three men were to
press claims against the electors to Mr. Jarozdocki (could be the misspelled name of Antoni
Jabłonowski, the Poznań voievode in 1760–82).
117 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 65 (Swarzędz, 8 Shvat 5554 / January 9, 1794).
118 AEP no. 745 ([Passover] 5414/1654).
119 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 257 (Poznań, 5441?/1681).
120 That rule was observed in many communities. In the pinkas of the Działoszyn kahal, the list
of officials elected during the Passover of 5553 (1793) is followed by a note that since the election
was carried at night and in a hurry, and the two charity gabaim are related, then they should not have
been nominated. However, the electors failed to notice it and they drew their names from the ballot
box and by mistake included their names among the elected officials. A decision was taken that the
election would not be nullified, but in the future a similar election would be considered null and void.
See Goldberg, Wein, eds., “Księga kahału w Działoszynie,” part 1, p. 99. In Tykocin, gabaim were
not allowed to be related within the sixth degree of affinity (Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie,
p. 24). Degree of affinity was determined by the number of generations relative to the common
progenitor (e.g., a man and his nephew are related in the second and third generation).
121 AEP no. 1083 (Poznań, Passover 5428/1668).
The decisions adopted in Poznań were also abided by in Swarzędz. In 1724,

the assembly of the fifteen men ordered the Swarzędz kahal to check in the Poznań
community pinkasim the decisions regarding family ties between officials, espe-
cially the kahal members (parnasim and tovim), electors and tax estimators, but
also members of the assembly and people who were co-opted to it. The solutions
adopted in Poznań were then to be implemented in Swarzędz, even if they were to
be in conflict with local customs or earlier regulations.122
The Poznań electors admonished the kahal on several occasions to fill the of-
fices with individuals who would be appropriate for the function, rather than be-
cause of their family ties (they meant appointment of own relatives).123 It was
made clear in 1685 that the degree of kinship between the officials elected by the
kahal was to be similar to the one that applied to dayanim.124 Sometimes some
community functionaries were forbidden to be in any way connected or members
of the same family,125 and sometimes this rule also applied to people sent on mis-
sions outside the community126 or appointed to discharge any ad hoc tasks.
There could also be some constraints on family ties with the rabbi.127 A rule
was followed in Poznań that the rabbi and the yeshivah rector could come from
other communities. But neither in Poznań nor in Swarzędz were there any regula-
tions that would limit access to offices or functions to anyone related to the rabbi.
On the contrary, when the rabbi was hired in Poznań in 1667, it was with the pro-
viso that his son-in-law, Naḥum, would be treated on a par with other community
residents when nominations for positions were made.128 In Swarzędz, Joḥanan, the
rabbi’s son-in-law, held the office of the dayan and tax collector in 1745, like the
Poznań rabbi’s son-in-law, Ber, who assumed the post of tax collector.129
It was also important whether people who were assembly members were in
any way related. In Poznań, a permission was granted in 1671 whereby the as-
sembly of the thirty-two men could be composed of people who were the third
122JTS 3652, p. 113v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan [5484] / April 18, 1724).
(Passover 5434/1674) – members of the kahal related to someone whose nomination was discussed
were asked to leave the meeting.
124 AEP no. 1516 (Passover 5445/1685).
125 AEP no. 1456 (Passover 5442/1682) – that ban applied to the tax collector and the shames.
Abram Gawurin writes that in Tykocin the shames could not be related to any of the gabaim (Gawurin,
Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 25).
126 AEP no. 667 (Passover 5411/1651).
127 According to Salo Wittmayer Baron, it was prohibited in Lwów for the rabbi’s relative
(within the fourth degree of affinity) to be a member of the community authorities (Baron, The Jew-
ish Community, vol. 2, p. 40). The same prohibition is included in the clauses regarding the rabbi
approved at the request of the Lwów kahal by the Ruthenian voievode, Jan Stanisław Jabłonowski,
in 1726 (Schorr, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce, pp. 90–92).
128 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 222 (Poznań, 9 Sivan 5427 / June 1, 1667).
129 JTS 3652, p. 191 (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5505 / April 30, 1745); AEP no. 918 (Passover
5420/1660).
generation relatives (sheni be-shlishi). This mitigation of earlier bans was ex-
plained by the drop in the number of residents after the turmoil of wars and that it
was impossible to elect unrelated wise men who would advise the thirty-two
men.130
The Swarzędz electors committed the kahal to take into account only one of
two brothers or two stepbrothers (cousins), or a father and son, should they attend
the same meeting. What they most probably referred to was voting. The same rule
applied when there were two stepbrothers among the gabaim.131 Another entry of
the same pinkas informs about a regulation issued by the town’s owner which
prohibited relatives to attend the same meeting.132
It also happened that the office was used for the benefit of one’s relatives. In
1677, the Poznań electors recorded that the prayers for the High Holidays had been
said by the people who were neither right for that job nor honest. It was due to the
fact that one could not freely speak out against an individual appointed for the
reading in the presence of his relative, the kahal member. So the following electors
were to see to it that those attendees whose family members were to be discussed
as nominees would leave the meeting, and that kahalniks who would not observe
this rule would be punished with dismissal from their office.133 A similar practice
was adopted when taxes were estimated134 and during court hearings: a kahal
member or dayan who was related to one of the parties was to leave the room.135
The comparison of the lists of nominated officials with tax records provides
information about the financial standing of the people who were nominated for
individual offices. Available today are a few Swarzędz records of the property tax
(skhum) calculated based on property assessment. Depending on the amount of the
tax, the community residents were divided into three groups: top, medium and low
taxpayers. The Swarzędz records list names of taxpayers arranged in alphabetical
order, offering the total tax and its weekly installments. The figures are no more
than estimates, as numerous factors could have accounted for the fact that the rich-
est did not necessarily pay the highest taxes; however, it may be accepted as a gen-
eral rule that the amount of the tax corresponded more or less with affluence. The
records allow a comparison tax censuses with the lists of officials elected in six
different years (1706, 1715, 1724, 1728, 1775, and 1778), as shown in Annex 1.
They also include a list of officials elected in 1778 and the income tax they paid,
mainly on their commercial activities. The same list features the occupations of
133 AEP no. 1345 (5437/1677).
134 See, e.g., AEP no. 1933 (Passover 5471/1711), AEP no. 1994 (Passover 5475/1715).
135 For example, JTS 3652, p. 113v (Swarzędz, Passover 5484/1724), AEP no. 1673 (Passover
5456/1696), AEP no. 1802 (Passover 5461/1701).

people who held community offices; the majority of them were merchants or peo-
ple who were additionally pursuing commercial activity.
It follows from the above-mentioned documents that there was no direct cor-
respondence between the office and affluence. As a rule, the richer used to hold
more important positions, but it would be hard to view it as a regularity. When it
comes to individual offices, the hierarchy of officials (as evidenced by their rank-
ing in election results) did not correspond with the amount of tax they paid. There
was also a group of people who paid high taxes and who were either seldom or
never listed as elected officials. As evidenced by Faibush, son of reb M., who paid
the highest income tax (500 zł.) in 1778 and was elected as an official only five
times, and not necessarily for the most important positions (three times he was the
supervisor of the slaughterhouse and twice one of the five men). This proves that
not all affluent community residents aspired to a position in the community au-
thorities.136
But those who were interested in public functions welcomed their nomina-
tions with joy. We learn from the records made in the pinkas of the Poznań electors
that it was customary to give a feast on such an occasion.137 This was strictly for-
bidden, however, in 1724. It was explained that it had been customary in Israel for
a newly elected official nominated both by electors and by the kahal to invite his
colleagues to a feast. It was referred to as the feast of love and respect (seudat
ahavah ve-ḥ ayevah).138
136 Daniel Tollet arrives at similar conclusions based on the Poznań source documents (Tollet,
“Ludzie u władzy w miastach królewskich”). He compared the names of members of the Poznań
community authorities in 1588–1662, recorded in the town files, with lists of merchants and the
number of transactions they had contracted (some caution should be exercised here, as the author
confuses offices, listing elders, town judges (tuvim) and 14 boni viri). He drew his conclusions
comparing 69 people holding 151 positions. It follows from that comparison that the richest mer-
chants (those who made more than 10 transactions) held about 25% of all functions, while 38% of
them were posted by small or medium merchants, and 37% by people who had made no recorded
deals. Based on his observations, Tollet propounds a thesis that there is a clear tendency to overesti-
mate the involvement of the most affluent residents in the community’s authorities (ibidem, p. 185)
and that the richest merchants of Poznań were less interested in community matters than Polish
historians think. Only eight out of eighteen merchants who made more than 10 transactions were
involved in the running of the community, which means that 55% of the Poznań wholesalers were
not involved in public life (ibidem, p. 186). The author also points out that it could have been due,
i.a., to the policy pursued by the richest families, which charged some of their members with business
tasks and others with the duties of public life.
137 This custom was observed not only in the Jewish communities. Jan Ptaśnik writes about
feasts given on the occasion of elections of the town authorities in Kraków. Apart from a feast given
by the town council to which all dignitaries visiting the town, whether bishops, lords, or even the
king, were invited, it was also customary for each newly elected council member to throw a feast for
his colleagues or to contribute a specific sum of money to the town council’s coffers (Ptaśnik, Miasta
i mieszczaństwo, p. 93).
138 AEP no. 2090 (Passover 5484/1724).
PROMOTIONS OF OFFICIALS 105
3. PROMOTIONS OF OFFICIALS (CURSUS HONORUM)
Both central and community Jewish authorities adopted regulations laying

down the hierarchy of community offices. In 1670, the Lithuanian Vaad defined
the tiers of their hierarchy and promotion rules. A person holding the position of
a synagogue gabai could be elected a kahalnik, he who discharged the function
of a kahalnik for two years could then become a tovi, and he who held the office
of a tovi for three years was eligible for the office of a community or land par-
nas.139 In the community of Vilnius there were the following tiers of officials’ hi-
erarchy: 1. a judge of a guild or brotherhood or a member of the court of dayanim,
2. a gabai or an independent dayan, 3. a kahalnik, 4. a tovi, 5. a parnas.140
The Poznań electors’ pinkas identified the following promotional opportuni-
ties: He who held one of the offices first posted by the kahal (of a memun, tovei ir,
slaughterhouse supervisor) for three years was eligible for a nomination that was
higher by one grade, i.e., that of a kahalnik. The kahalnik could be promoted to
a tovi, the tovi to a parnas. Each time an individual could be promoted to an im-
mediately higher rank.141 But in Swarzędz the electors were prohibited from elect-
ing to the position of a parnas someone who had not been a charity gabai, dayan,
or tovi.142
Sometimes the maximum term in office was also defined. The Swarzędz
pinkas reads that one could not hold the office of a parnas for more than three
consecutive years. The electors were obliged to record this regulation every year,
so that it would not be changed.143 In 1702, the Poznań electors invoked an earlier
regulation whereby no man was allowed to discharge the function of a parnas for
more than two years in a row.144 This regulation was also adopted in Swarzędz,
evidently in order to change what had been earlier agreed.145
It was frequently forbidden to elect the same person to the same office, and
the minimum requirement was that it should not happen for a few consecutive
years.146 The Poznań electors prescribed a few times that at least some officials
should be replaced. They recorded in their pinkas in 1651 that the kahal should
take an oath from prospective electors that they would dismiss one parnas, one
tovi, one of the kahalniks, one gabai, and one dayan from the authorities that had
139 Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah, no. 655.

141 AEP no. 1775 (Passover 5460/1700).
143 JTS 3652, p. 140v (Swarzędz, 5 Adar II 5475 / March 10, 1715).
144 AEP no. 1811 (Poznań, Passover 5462/1702).
145 JTS 3652, pp. 158v–159 (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5492 / April 20, 1732).
146 The same approach was taken by many communities; in 1623 the Lithuanian Vaad prohib-
ited the selection of the same electors in the following year (Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah,
no. 63).
been elected in the previous year.147 The same order was reiterated several times.148
Officials were also rotated in those offices which had been posted by the kahal. In
1686, the Poznań electors instructed that when seven offices were to be filled, the
kahal should nominate two new people, and when five, only one new individual.149
It follows from another record that the electors demanded that everyone who had
been nominated by the kahal and held one office for three consecutive years should
be ousted from the office.150 This order was repeated several times, especially as
regards the three initial offices that were filled by the kahal (of memunim, tovei ir,
and slaughterhouse supervisors).151
On the other hand, in the pinkas of the Poznań electors we come across quite
opposite regulations recommending the election of officials that already hold an
office. This procedure was followed when tax estimators were elected, as there
were concerns about filling this post with new people without any experience. This
is why the kahal was ordered to nominate for each tax estimator section at least
one individual who had already held that office.152
The Swarzędz kahal noted in 1746 that although in the entire Diaspora it was
customary to replace their leadership once every two years, the function of the five
men continued to be discharged by the same people. This is why it was decided
that from then on two of them had to be replaced every second year. This rule
began to cover other officials, including, i.a., gabaim and tovim, and the rationale
was that the nomination of the same people bred anger and envy.153 On the other
hand, when in Poznań the electors noticed that many people opposed nominations
and the way positions were posted, they ordered them to be punished with the most
severe punishment.154
The above-mentioned anger and discontent by those who were deprived of
power was a very likely reason why both Poznań and Swarzędz issued regulations
limiting access of the same people to offices. According to Józef Adelson, it was
in the first quarter of the 17th century that a group of homines novi emerged in
Poznań who, although rich, had no family or financial ties with the kahal and were
therefore deprived of any prospects for positions in community authorities. Those
147 AEP no. 676 (Passover 5411/1651).

(5424/1664), AEP no. 1012 (5425/1665); and in 1676 and 1697 it was repeated in the case of one
parnas, one tovi, and one kahalnik (AEP no. 1331, Passover 5436/1676, and AEP no. 1702, Passover
5457/1697).
149 AEP no. 1531 (Passover 5446/1686). It was reiterated in the following year, adding that
when an office was to be filled by three people, one of them was to be new to the job (AEP no. 1547,
Passover 5447/1687).
150 AEP no. 1663 (Passover 5455/1695).
153 JTS 3652, pp. 195–195v (Swarzędz, 24 Sivan 5506 / June 12, 1746).
154 AEP no. 1609 (Passover 5451/1691).
nouveaux riches tried to exert pressure on the electors who responded by issuing
a number of regulations which, i.a., prohibited the election of any electors as the
kahal members and prescribed that each year some of its members should be re-
placed. The regulations seem to reflect tensions that might have existed between
the electors and the kahal, but in fact both bodies were composed of people coming
from the same group sharing common interests. Their main aim was to maintain
the status quo and prevent new people from becoming members of the authorities.
The regulations were issued to quiet down those dissatisfied and were no more
than an ad hoc response to their pressure. After everything had returned to normal,
the regulations were repealed (or were not implemented at all). Adelson also points
out that the number of lower-ranking officials was growing, and thus new posi-
tions became available to the dissatisfied homines novi, which prevented any fur-
ther pressures to rotate top offices. But this measure was also superficial because
in time the kahal would begin to post those offices with its own people.155
This superficial rotation might have also been provoked by the fear of inter-
vention by external authorities. It happened that Jews sent petitions to voievodes
or landowners complaining about the functioning of their community authorities
and election abuses. In effect, the former ordered that fair elections should be
staged and that the same people should not be elected to the same posts or related
to one another.156
It is possible to follow the career paths of the officials in Swarzędz where an-
nual lists of nominees dating back to 1706 have survived. This study covers the
period 1723–93, i.e., 71 years for which 65 lists of elected officials are still avail-
able, with only the records of six years missing. A period as long as that allows
both to examine individual careers and more general promotion mechanisms.
In the period studied here 90 names are listed only once and nearly 250 are
listed several times. Those nominated only once can be found in all positions,
mostly filling the second group of offices, and their names are also frequently
found among electors. Those nominated several times constitute a highly diversi-
fied group, as some of them were nominated only twice, while others as many as
47 times, which was a record. They were nominated every year or from time to
time. It is also necessary to point out that sometimes it is hard to interpret if one
deals with the same people due to the abbreviations of names and the titles of fa-
thers or fathers-in-law.
Generally speaking, the Swarzędz community’s body of officials was pretty
stable. The ratio of those who held a post for many years to the so-called “new”
people was clearly in favor of the former. People tended to stick to one office. It
seems that offices (apart from names) with which people are designated in pinkasim
155 Adelson, Elita kahalna, pp. 54–59.

156 See Chapter 11 for regulations issued by voievodes and town owners that regulated the
functioning of Jewish communities.
do not merely refer to the function discharged in a specific year but to something
more (the more so that they are used mainly with regard to officials with a long
track record, such as, i.e., dayanim).
The same regularity may be observed in the group of people who held the
most important position of parnas.157 This is evidenced by Annex 2 which includes
the names of 61 people who headed the community from 1723 to 1793. Owing to
the fact that they are accompanied by the names of their fathers or fathers-in-law,
one can see their family ties.
Featured in Annex 3 are career paths of Swarzędz officials who were author-
ity members for the longest time, including names of 19 people who held the com-
munity offices for more than 35 years. A record is broken here by an Itsek Ayzik,
son of Avraham, whose name was listed for 58 years on and off. Some commu-
nity officials who held their posts for many years were also members of the au-
thorities of the charity brotherhood (ḥevrah kadishah).158
The hierarchy of offices is reflected by the order in which elected individuals
were listed, as well as by election results. An important clue as to which offices
were viewed as the most important and prestigious ones is provided when one
analyzes to which of them electors would most readily nominate themselves. Their
names may be found quite frequently among elected officials. This holds for all
positions, but electors were inclined to nominate themselves for the office of a par-
nas, tovi, gabai, account supervisor, the council of five men and dayan. Even
though their only function in one year would be that of the elector, their names
could also be found among authority members either in the previous or in the fol-
lowing years.
There was also a practice of combining offices: usually two, less frequently
three, sometimes combined with the function of an elector. This mainly holds for
the offices of the first, top-ranking group. It was particularly frequent that the office
of a dayan would be combined with another one. The prevailing combinations were
as follows: dayan and account supervisor, dayan and judge, parnas and dayan, gabai
and dayan, member of the council of the five men and account supervisor, gabai
and account supervisor, and dayan and member of the council of the five men.
Lists of nominated officials are a good source to reconstruct the hierarchy of
offices and career paths, a sort of cursus honorum of the Swarzędz community.
Accordingly, one may speak of three main types of career paths followed by
Swarzędz officials:
1. The career of a minor official – secondary positions (of various deputies,
marketplace supervisors, synagogue gabaim), usually held with longer intervals.
157Majer Bałaban writes that in Kraków only thirteen people were allowed to hold the post of
parnas from 1622 to 1648, i.e., for 26 years, and that they included only the richest of merchants
(Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, pp. 348–349).
158 The surviving pinkas of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah (CAHJP, PL/Sw 46) includes entries
dating from 1732 to 1818. Lists of the brotherhood’s elected officials come from 1733–94.
Sometimes, especially after a longer period, such a person would be promoted to

a primary position, but it would only be a short-lived and one-off promotion.
2. The career of a dignitary – primary positions (of a parnas, gabai) held for
a long time, usually each year, with the important office held right from the start.
3. The career of a dayan – the dayan’s office held for many years, the career
frequently beginning with the function of the dayan’s deputy. In Swarzędz a record
was broken by someone who was nominated for the office of a dayan on and off
for 42 years! The lists of dayanim allow the tracking of the promotions of indi-
vidual people: each year they would move upwards from the bottom of the list
toward the top (the order in which that happened is not significant; what matters
is how important their next function was). Where they were divided into sections
of dayanim, one can also keep track of their promotions from a lower section to
the higher one. Frequently, at the end of one’s career, the office of a dayan would
be combined with that of a parnas or gabai, as well as an account supervisor and
judge.
Naturally, those were only patterns which had numerous exceptions. But they
show, i.a., that it is impossible to make a simple distinction into high- and low-
ranking offices. There is no doubt that there were offices which were perceived as
the first class and the most important ones, but the borderline between them and
other positions was not very clear cut.159 This is evidenced by the fact that people
who used to hold the most important positions sometimes also performed (even
for a short time) secondary functions, which could have been an attempt at a su-
perficial rotation of officials that was discussed above, but not only that. It seems
that what mattered most of all was the fact of being elected as a member of au-
thorities, and to a lesser extent the position one held (granted that we are talking
about a group of offices with similar prestige).
A hierarchy of offices in Jewish communities was not similar to the hierarchy
of positions available to Polish nobility in the Commonwealth. They were clearly
ranked, and promotion opportunities were precisely defined: after a lower-ranking
function, one could be promoted to a higher one, with practically no possibility of
going back to the previous one. In Jewish communities of those times, it was
a frequent practice that someone would change positions and go back to the one
he had already held.
But there were many similarities in the way municipal authorities were organ-
ized.160 However, the towns of the Commonwealth were not organized according
159 I also cannot agree with a division of community offices into three tiers – parnasim, tovim,
and kahalniks – used by numerous authors (e.g., Ignacy Schiper or Majer Bałaban). Differences
between those three groups are not sufficiently clear, and the third tier of kahalniks covers offices
with highly diverse status.
160 Similarities in the organization of town authorities and the kahal are pointed out by Gershon
David Hundert (see Hundert, “On the Jewish Community,” pp. 351–352).
to one system, and solutions they adopted differed from city to city and changed
in time. The position of town councils in royal towns, dependent on the starosta
or voievode, was also different than in private towns which were under the juris-
diction of their owners. Individual town councils also differed according to their
social and occupational composition.
In a town, power was exercised by a council (rada miejska) whose member-
ship ranged from a few to more than twenty people. It was headed by mayors
whose number ranged from one to four. Council members usually represented the
richest families. The council could be elected (usually by the outgoing council,
sometimes with the participation of town judges, and later approved by the staro-
sta or the town owner), or the position of a town councilor could be for life and
then the council’s members would be co-opted. In early modern times, one may
observe the emergence of a numerus clausus of those authorized to exercise pow-
er and the consolidation of the system of offices held by town councilors for life.
A homogeneous body would gradually emerge consisting of the councilors of the
previous term, who would perform only an advisory function, and the newly elect-
ed councilors. And it was in that council that an election was staged every year.
Should one of the councilors die, he would be replaced by someone new, usually
representing the same family or another councilor’s relative. In the aftermath of
riots that swept through many towns, Poznań in 1518 carried out some demo-
cratic reforms of its council. The council, consisting of six councilors and two
mayors, was to be elected every year by the starosta, out of twenty-four nominees
who had been selected by the assembly of the elders of the Poznań guilds. After
a mutiny of commoners (pospólstwo) had been crushed in 1693, a council com-
posed of twelve life members was instituted by a royal decree, including two
mayors who were to be nominated by the starosta. Thus the organization of the
Poznań authorities was made similar to the model prevailing in other towns.161
A town court (ława miejska), which was headed by a wójt, usually consisted
of a few to more than twenty members. It was most frequently elected by the
council, but the nominees were put forward by the court’s members. They were to
perform a judiciary function but also to attend meetings of the town council and
adopt municipal regulations. Their term of office was usually longer, unless some-
one was promoted to the town council. In the 16th century, under the pressure of
the commoners, an additional authority was set up in the majority of towns, which
was called the Third Order of Commoners (trzeci ordynek). This body would have
from ten to twenty members representing the commoners. Its role was to exercise
financial supervision over the council, and its members took part in debates about
general problems of the town. But gradually, the Third Order became increasingly
more dependent on the council and less open to newcomers, and eventually it
161 Bogucka, Samsonowicz, Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa, pp. 455–456.

would be controlled by the richest representatives of the commoners and it became

a starting point in a career of a town judge or councilor.162
The majority of the Wielkopolska towns staged elections every year, the nom-
inees being a closed circle of people, and it was rare for new people to be elected
as the council or court members. Frequently, the office of the mayor and wójt was
held by the same people (who would sometimes take turns) and it constituted
a culminating point in a career that would begin in the town council or court. It
was also common that one could get to the council via the court.163 Despite numer-
ous similarities, the main difference between town and Jewish community offices
consisted in that the latter were not held for life.
162 Ibidem, pp. 457–462.

163 Kulejewska-Topolska, Nowe lokacje miejskie, pp. 73–79. Growing nepotism in Lublin and
the narrowing down of the group of people who were members of town authorities are discussed by
Jan Riabinin in Riabinin, Rada miejska lubelska, p. 11.
CHAPTER FIVE
A COMMUNITY RABBI
A rabbi (rav) was the first and the most important functionary of a commu-
nity and, at the same time, its “showpiece,” a symbol of its status and affluence. In
Poznań, where the position of a rabbi was frequently vacant, electors recorded:
Think about our holy community’s glory when the president of the court and the head of the
academy takes the rabbi’s seat and will spread the Torah and strengthen the yeshivah!1
It was also observed on numerous occasions that without a rabbi the commu-
nity is like a “flock without a shepherd.”
In the period discussed here the following people were rabbis in Poznań:
Sheftel ben Yeshayah Horovits (1641–58, a cabalist, earlier the darshan in Prague
and the rabbi in Fürth and Frankfurt am Main; after he had left Poznań, he assumed
the rabbi’s function in Vienna); Itsḥak ben Avraham (1668–85, earlier the rabbi in
Łuck and Vilnius); and Naftali ben Itsḥak Kohen of Ostrów (1689–1704, later on
the rabbi in Frankfurt am Main and in Prague). Then the rabbi’s nomination was
accepted by Yakov ben Itsḥak (1714–32), son of a Poznań rabbi, Itsḥak ben Avra-
ham. His successor, Yakov Mordekhai (1732–36), also son of a Poznań rabbi,
Naftali ben Itsḥak Kohen of Ostrów, was one of the accused of ritual murder in
a court trial that took place in 1736 (he was “lucky” to have died before the trial
began). In 1774, Rafael ben Yekutiel Süsskind Kohen assumed the function of the
rabbi and continued to hold it until 1776. He was an outstanding expert in Talmud
with great authority, earlier the rabbi of Raków, Wiłkomierz, Mińsk, and Pińsk.
After his resignation from the position of the Poznań rabbi, he became the rabbi
of Three Communities (Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbeck). He was succeeded by
Yosef Tsvi Hirsh ben Avraham Yanov (1778), and later on by Yosef ben Pinkas,
known as ha-Tsadik (1780–1801).2
Only the principal communities had their own rabbis, whereas branch com-
munities had none. The community of Swarzędz was an exception in that it had its
own rabbi despite being dependent on Poznań. This function was performed by
Elikim (Elyakim) Gets (ca. 1680), Moshe Maier (ca. 1689), Avigdor ben Yakov
1 AEP no. 1899 (Passover 5468/1708).

2 Muszyński, “Poznańscy rabini,” pp. 53–56.
A COMMUNITY RABBI 113
(between 1689 and 1704), Maier (before 1717), Elizer Leizer ben Itsḥak of Leszno
(ca. 1748), and Yehudah Leib (ca. 1776).3
In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim the following words are used to refer
to the rabbi, which reflect both his function and position:
rabenu u-morenu – our teacher and rabbi;
avi mori ve-rabi – father, teacher and rabbi;
more hora’ah – the teacher of religious subjects;
gaon – wise man (name of Babylonian gaons);
av beit din – the president of the court;
rosh yeshivah, reish metivtah – the principal of the yeshivah (academy);
more tsedek – the teacher of justice;
meor ha-gadol – the great light;
meor einenu gaon aznenu – the light of our eyes and gaon of our ears;
ḥ en ha-shkem ve-ha-arev – the highlight of every morning and evening;
alkafta ve-reish galutah – alkafta (the name of a Persian dignitary) and the
Diaspora’s leader (title of the Babylonian dignitary);
ateret roshenu – the crown on our head;
nasi elokim – the prince of God;
mofet ha-dor – the miracle of the generation;
pe’er ha-geulah – the Diaspora’s glory (ornament).
In the majority of communities a rabbi was elected by the kahal. A slightly
different approach was taken in Poznań, as its rabbi was also the chief rabbi of the
entire district (ziemstwo), like in other communities of capital towns whose rabbis
were also the chief rabbis of districts and headed provincial assemblies. Hence the
difference in the way the rabbi would be selected. In Poznań, he was chosen by the
thirty-two men together with the district leaders. It follows from an entry dating
from 1708 that the Poznań rabbi was hired by the leaders of the three main com-
munities of the district: Kalisz, Krotoszyn, and Leszno.4
The Poznań electors wrote in 1778 that the assembly authorized to elect the
rabbi would be composed of thirty-two men plus the most important taxpayers
(paying 400 zł. a year in taxes). Even if the latter were related to the thirty-two
men, this would not disqualify them.5
The rabbi’s election was a very important aspect of the relations between the
Poznań community and the Wielkopolska district. It follows from the entries made
in the pinkas of the Poznań electors that the district leaders frequently arrived late
at his election or even missed it. But it was agreed that in such circumstances the
election could proceed in their absence.
3 Heppner, Herzberg, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden und der jüdischen Gemein-
den, pp. 977–978.
5 AEP no. 2241 (5538/1778).
114 A COMMUNITY RABBI
The Poznań electors frequently charged the kahal with the duty of hiring the
rabbi.6 Entries show that the leaders of Poznań and of the district entered agree-
ments which identified the final deadline by which the rabbi should be elected. In
1666, the electors noted that should the district leaders fail to appear on the agreed
date, then the rabbi would be nominated by the thirty-two men.7 When the rabbi’s
contract was prolonged by the thirty-two men in 1676, it was recorded that the
district leadership had breached the agreement, evidently by not coming to the
election. It was also added that the elected rabbi would assume his function, but
he would need to be approved later on.8
In July 1687, the Poznań kahal concluded an agreement with the district lead-
ers in Kórnik that the latter would have to come to Poznań to the election of the
rabbi before the month of Tevet of 5448 began (December 5, 1687). A proviso was
also included that should they be interested in discussing the pacts or other issues
before that date, the Poznań kahal would be obligated to attend such talks.9
On several occasions the kahal was even ordered to make the district leaders
come to Poznań to attend the hiring of the rabbi by means of various tricks and
machinations.10 In 1689, the Poznań electors went as far as to order that should the
district leaders oppose hiring the rabbi, then they should be taken to courts (i.e., to
the Council of Four Lands).11 The Council of Four Lands intervened and its ruling
was invoked in 1713 when the final date for a rabbi to be hired was set.12 The
Council’s letter vested a right with the leadership of the Poznań community to hire
a rabbi on the agreed date, even in the absence of the district leadership.13
A rule was followed in Wielkopolska that a rabbi should be a resident of an-
other community.14 When the function of a rabbi was to be filled, some people
would resort to various swindles, such as buying the function (sometimes in such
oblique ways as by extending a loan to the kahal), which was becoming an increas-
ingly more common practice due to the growing indebtedness of communities. It
also happened that a rabbi would agree to do without a portion of his salary or even
to support the kahal’s coffers with his own money. Many communities that were
heavily indebted, as Poznań in 1780, were willing to accept such a support and in
return favored the sons and sons-in-law of the rich when filling the rabbi’s posi-
5447/1687), AEP no. 1567 (Passover 5449/1689), AEP no. 1949 (Passover 5472/1712), AEP no.
2186 (Passover 5516/1756).
7 AEP no. 1033 (5426/1666).
8 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 221v (Poznań, Tevet 5437 / December 1676).
9 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 267 (Kórnik, 25 Tamuz 5447 / July 5, 1687).
12 AEP no. 1958 (Passover 5473/1713).
13 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 554 (Poznań, 5473/1713).
14 In 1566, King Zygmunt August reiterated the rule that the Poznań rabbi should come from
another town, invoking an old custom, to prevent him from being partial to his relatives who lived
in the town (Bersohn, Dyplomataryusz dotyczący Żydów, pp. 74–75).
tion.15 In the Poznań pinkas there is an announcement issued by the Council of

Four Lands invoking an earlier regulation that no man should try to get a rabbi’s
function by means of a loan or with a gift presented either personally or by a third
party, as “this function should not be held because of silver or gold.”16
When a rabbi was hired, a contract would be drawn up, which was referred to
as ktav rabanut or as a consensus (konses)17 in the 18th century. It outlined the
rabbi’s rights and obligations, remuneration and income, covered issues related to
his family’s resettlement, tax payment, etc.18 The contract was concluded for a def-
inite term, usually the first one would be concluded for the period of three years.19
This definite term of the contract was the way to make the rabbi dependent on the
kahal as it could refuse to prolong it for another term. In 1667, Itsḥak Itsek, son of
Avraham, was hired as the Poznań rabbi for a term of ten years,20 and after that
period his contract was prolonged by further nine years.21
One of the main duties of a rabbi was to teach, interpret the Torah, and preach.
Some communities, especially the larger and more affluent ones, would hire an
independent preacher (darshan), but sometimes the functions of a rabbi and dar-
shan were combined. When the office of the rabbi was vacant, then the darshan
fulfilled his duties. This is exactly what happened in Poznań from 1685 to 1689,
when the community was headed by Yosef ben Shlomo, the darshan in 1676–96
and 1704–14, and when it was headed by darshan Falk (since 1697, successor of
Yosef ben Shlomo). After 1736 the rabbi’s office was vacant for nearly forty years.
In 1750, the Poznań electors wrote that it would be necessary to hire a darshan who
would enact laws, pass verdicts and preach on every Sabbath.22 In later years the
function of the darshan was held by, i.a., Avraham Menaḥem (1758–68) and Arye
Leib ben Ḥaim (1768, then the Kutno rabbi).23

16 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 267v–268v (Poznań, 25 Iyar 5400 / May 17, 1640); the Council of
Four Lands threatened to curse those people who tried to get a position of rabbi with the help of
money.
17 Majer Bałaban in Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 83, refers to that contract as the rab-
binical diploma, which is not quite right, as it may be confused with a diploma allowing one to dis-
charge the function of the rabbi (semikhah /le-rabanut/).
18 The text of the contract signed when a rabbi was hired in Berlin in 5491 (1730/31) is offered
by Simḥa Assaf (see Assaf, “Le-korot ha-rabanut,” pp. 63–65). The terms of hiring Akiva Eger for
the position of the rabbi in Kórnik in 1815, recorded in the Kórnik pinkas, were published by Mor-
dechai Nadav (Nadav, “Ktav rabanut”). The texts of the contracts concluded with rabbis in No-
wogródek (1775) and Wiłkowyszki (1785) were published by Anna Michałowska (see Michałowska,
ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 55–61, 63–71).
19 Such a three-year contract was concluded when a rabbi was hired in Poznań in 5393 (1633)
(see Ben-Sasson, Hagut ve-hanahagah, pp. 178–179).

21 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 221v (Poznań, Tevet 5437 / December 1676); Michałowska, ed., Gmi-
ny żydowskie, pp. 52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 / March 29, 1677).

22 AEP no. 2178 (Passover 5510/1750).
23 Muszyński, “Poznańscy rabini,” pp. 53–55.
In Poznań, the rabbi was also the principal of the yeshivah. Many communi-
ties separated those two functions and people who held them competed with each
other.24 Such practice usually prevailed where the yeshivah was a private founda-
tion and its rector was employed and remunerated by the founder or his successors.
But the Poznań yeshivah was financed by the community. It attracted students,
both boys and heads of households, as it was described, “from distant corners of
the earth and lands.”25 In 1688 the yeshivah had 36 students (probably by corre-
spondence with the number of the 36 righteous lamed-vovniks), of whom twelve
were to come from Poznań, and others from other communities.26 The yeshivah
studies continued for two terms, and during a recess the rector would set out with
his students to a fair, e.g., in winter as far as Lwów or Lublin, and in summer to
Jarosław or Zasław. Yeshivot operated at such fairs, too.
The community’s yeshivah was closed down at the beginning of the 18th cen-
tury (around 171327) due to absence of funding. In 1707, the Poznań electors re-
corded that the buildings of the yeshivah and mikvah were destroyed, and in 1717
they wrote that in view of the fire damage, it would not be possible to open the
yeshivah until God made the community prosperous again.28 In 1724, the Poznań
electors recorded that eighteen young men (of whom six were from Poznań) stud-
ied under the rabbi’s guidance, which indicates that the yeshivah was not closed
down for a long time.29 Apart from the main community yeshivah, Poznań also
had minor private yeshivot that were opened by rich household heads in their own
houses.30
As the rabbi’s position in Poznań was frequently vacant, the electors and the
kahal tried to ensure that the yeshivah would continue its work to prevent any
breaks in the course of studies. This is why the yeshivah students, dayanim, and
scholars were obliged to study regularly and to attend the yeshivah, “so that the
24 The position of a rector in a community is described by Natan Hanower: the rector was held
in high esteem; he was offered sumptuous presents; on the Sabbath and holidays he was the third one
to be called out to the reading of the Torah; he was the first to leave the synagogue and was accom-
panied on his way back home by the whole community. This served as an incentive to learn and study
and eventually to get the position of the rector in a community (Hanower, Jewen Mecula, vol. 4,
pp. 407–408).
25 AEP no. 1869 (Passover 5466/1706).
26 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 270v (Poznań, 5 Ḥeshvan 5449 / October 29, 1688) – this limit prob-
ably applied to students who were supported by the community. A similar number of students was
set by the Lithuanian Vaad, which made it conditional on the number of community taxpayers (one
student advanced in his studies and two younger students per 10 taxpayers), but it could be raised at
the community leaders’ discretion (Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, p. 189).
27 See Bałaban, “Szkolnictwo żydowskie,” p. 341. In another work Majer Bałaban writes that
the Poznań yeshivah had to be closed at the time of the Tarnogród Confederacy (1716) (Bałaban,
“Ustrój gminy żydowskiej,” 3 (1939), p. 106).
29 AEP no. 2084 (Passover 5484/1724).
light of the Torah is not extinguished,” when there was no rabbi in the community.
In 1651, due to many responsibilities mainly involved in the running of the yeshi-
vah, the rabbi’s duty to explain the decisions of the wise men, the Talmudic pun-
dits, was imposed on the dayanim.31
A rabbi supervised community schools and checked students’ progress with
learning. It was the responsibility of all teachers to bring their charges to an exam
every week. When a rabbi was not in the community at the time, the duty to ex-
amine them was delegated to the yeshivah students and scholars.
It was also a rabbi’s responsibility to see to it that religious dictates were ob-
served in life, mainly by inspecting the mikvah and slaughterhouses. Each week
shoḥetim were obliged to present the rabbi with the knives for ritual slaughter to
get his approval. In the second half of the 17th century, kosher meat became a par-
ticularly acute problem in view of frequent suspicions of crypto-Sabbatian sympa-
thies. In 1683, the Poznań rabbi and the entire kahal passed a verdict in the case of
“suspect” shoḥet Ḥana.32 A rabbi also provided the community residents with
guidelines and advised them about problems of everyday life.
A rabbi officiated marriages and divorces. He also exercised general control
over the community’s judiciary and sometimes presided over court sessions, espe-
cially in important cases, as described in detail in the chapter devoted to the judi-
ciary.
A rabbi also took an active part in the community’s public life. He supervised
community elections which could not be held in his absence. He also attended
meetings of the community authorities, especially when major problems were to
be examined. The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim mention that the meeting was
held in the rabbi’s presence or that a specific regulation was adopted with his
knowledge and consent. The rabbi signed the kahal’s regulations; without his sig-
nature, the kahal’s resolutions were null and void, at least theoretically. Sometimes
a rabbi was among those who were elected to perform “special tasks,” e.g., to
oversee the repayment of the community’s debts,33 or he acted as a trustee of
pledges and drafts. He would sometimes be the only one who knew tax estimators,
as their identity was not disclosed to other community residents until taxes were
finally assessed.34
It was also with a rabbi’s knowledge and approval that the titles of ḥaver and
morenu were conferred.35 He would also be the one to put a curse (ḥerem) on
somebody, usually at the kahal’s request, but his consent was necessary anyway.
31 AEP no. 681 (Passover 5411/1651).

32CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 260v (Poznań, 9 Adar 5443 / March 7, 1783).
33 AEP no. 1136 (Kislev 5431 / November–December 1670).
34 JTS 3652, p. 61v (Swarzędz, 6 Iyar 5469? / April 16, 1709).
35 For example, Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 /
March 29, 1677).

The Poznań electors recorded in 1668 that only the rabbi was authorized to pro-
nounce the great ḥerem in synagogues.36
A rabbi derived his income from various sources. He was paid a regular sal-
ary, and in Poznań half of his remuneration was paid by the kahal and the other
half by the district.37 The salary was paid in weekly installments.38 Sometimes, on
the occasion of major holidays, usually the pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Feast
of Tabernacles and Feast of Weeks), a rabbi was paid an allowance.39 Sometimes
rabbis collected donations at the time of Hanukkah (known as Hanukkah gelt).40
There was a tradition that a rabbi would preach two sermons a year: on the
Great Sabbath (shabat ha-gadol, the Sabbath preceding the Passover) and on
the Sabbath of Return (shabat shuvah, the Sabbath between the New Year and the
Day of Atonement). He was paid a special remuneration for them. In 1750,
the Swarzędz electors and the kahal recorded that in order to cut the community’s
spending the rabbi should be paid on such occasions only as much as had once
been ruled by ancestors.41
In the principal community, the rabbi received donations from subordinate
branch communities, usually once a year. He also collected fixed charges from
local arrendators. He was paid a share of court charges and payments for the titles
of ḥaver and morenu. He also collected a fee on the occasion of a wedding or di-
vorce.42 He was paid for inspections of slaughterhouses, on issuing a permit allow-
ing the shoḥet to perform his function, for the supervision over the charity brother-
36 AEP no. 1080 (Passover 5428/1668).

37 Salo Wittmayer Baron writes that the salary of the Poznań rabbi was raised from 130 to 260
florins in 1631, to 400 florins in the following year, and to 500 florins in 1677 (Baron, The Jewish
Community, vol. 2, pp. 82–83). The latter sum (500 zł.) was guaranteed to rabbi Itsḥak, son of Avra-
ham, when his contract was prolonged by nine years; see Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp.
52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 / March 29, 1677).
38 Majer Bałaban wrote that in the 17th and 18th centuries a weekly salary usually averaged
8–10 zł. in major cities (Lwów, Poznań, Opatów) (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” p. 33).
39 In 1747, the Swarzędz rabbi’s salary was raised from 4 to 5 zł. a week, and on pilgrimage
festivals he was to be paid no extras – JTS 3652, p. 105v (Swarzędz, 17 Nisan 5507 / March 28,
1747).
40 The Lithuanian Vaad criticized that practice as demeaning the dignity of the rabbi’s office,
and the Opatów rabbis were instructed to delegate such collections to other people (Bałaban, “Ustrój
kahału w Polsce,” p. 33).
5510 / April 29, 1750).

42 A fee paid for the wedding was set at 1zł. 18 gr. per each 100 zł. of the dowry in all of Poland,
and it included clothes and books. A divorce fee was equal to 4 zł. (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Pol-
sce,” p. 33). Gershon David Hundert writes that in Opatów the rabbi charged the following fees for
performing weddings: 2 zł. for the first 100 zł. of the dowry, 1 zł. 6 gr. for the following 100 zł., and
24 gr. for each additional one hundred. The divorce fee was to be 6 zł. when paid by the poor, 12 zł.
when paid by middle-income people, and 18 zł. when paid by rich people (Hundert, The Jews in
a Polish Private Town, p. 94).
hood, on the occasion of dowry oaths and execution of contracts, agreements and
testaments, etc.
Frequently, the rabbi would be offered free lodging by the community or an
allowance covering his rent. In 1714 the electors ordered to quickly overhaul
a house for the rabbi, so that he would have a place to live “becoming his honorary
position.”43 In 1759, three respectable citizens of Swarzędz, Moshe Yoḥanan, Leib
Liser and Ikir Pozner, undertook to build a house for the rabbi as a gift from the
community. They were to finance the construction works out of their own pockets
and accept no money either from parnasim or the tax collector.44
A rabbi was also presented with various gifts. The Poznań kahal concluded an
agreement with the district leaders that the etrog and lulav (which were needed for
the Feast of Tabernacles) for the rabbi would be financed alternately by the kahal
and by the district.45 A regulation recorded in the Swarzędz pinkas providing for
various savings shows that on top of his salary such expenses of the rabbi would
be covered as rent, shoes, flour and wine for Passover.46
A rabbi, and sometimes also his family members, was exempted from taxes.
He did not pay any fixed or special taxes, be they levied by the state (in 1661 King
Jan Kazimierz exempted all rabbis from personal tax47) or by a community. A rab-
bi could also be exempted from fees for ritual slaughter. Sometimes a proviso was
introduced that should he get involved in commercial activity, he would have to
pay bardon, but sometimes he would be exempted from that tax as well. For ex-
ample, an entry was made in 1734 in Swarzędz that nobody but the rabbi was
exempted from bardon payment.48
After Itsḥak, son of Avraham, had been hired as the Poznań rabbi in 1667, it
was decided that his sons-in-law would be granted the community’s citizenship;
they would be able to take part in the community elections on a par with other
residents and would also be exempted from property taxes over the entire period
that the rabbi would hold his function in Poznań. However, should he leave the
town to take up his duties somewhere else, then his sons-in-law would no longer
enjoy any exemptions should they decide to stay in Poznań. In both cases they had
to pay bardon.49 In 1677, when the contract with Itsḥak was prolonged, it was re-
corded that his father-in-law, the learned reb Yeḥezkiel, would be exempted from
all taxes except bardon and the royal poll tax. That exemption was to apply as long
as the rabbi continued to live in Poznań. The rabbi’s son and son-in-law were
43 AEP no. 1970 (Passover 5474/1714).

44 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 5v (Swarzędz, 5519/1759).
45 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 257v (Poznań, 5442/1682).
47 Morgensztern, “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej i Sigillat... (1660–1668),” no. 156.
48 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 6–7 (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5494
/ May 4, 1734).
granted the community’s citizenship and were to be treated like all other residents,
also at the time of community elections. Regarding taxes, they were offered
a choice: either to appear before tax estimators or to conclude an agreement with
the kahal. The kahal also rented a room for the rabbi’s son and it is likely that the
rent was attractive.50
When in 1678 an order was issued that all payable taxes were to be collected
by all coercive measures available, a reservation was made that those methods did
not apply to the members of the rabbi’s household.51
Additionally, a variety of honorary distinctions were bestowed on a rabbi. He
was not bound by sumptuary regulations which prohibited luxurious dresses and
jewelry. This ban usually did not apply to the rabbi’s wife, and sometimes to his
direct relatives, either. The rabbi also was not limited in any way when it comes to
presents which he could freely accept and give. Like his wife, who was allowed to
accept the sweets sent by women after childbirth.
A rabbi’s special position was particularly noticeable in the synagogue. The
community would wait for him to start prayers, and the cantor would never start
repeating the prayer of Amidah until the rabbi finished his own prayers.52 The third
reading of the Torah was reserved for him, and when the blessing Mi she-borakh
(“the one who is blessed”) was given, he was the only one to be mentioned by
name, while all other officials were referred to jointly. It was customary to invite
a rabbi to religious feasts given on the occasion of a circumcision, wedding, etc.,
the more so that the limit of allowed guests did not apply to him. The rabbi’s pres-
tige in a community was determined by his scholarly accomplishments, especially
if he had publications.
Special treatment would be reserved by the community not only for its own
rabbi but also for rabbis coming from other communities. If any of the commu-
nity residents left to take up a position of a rabbi in another town, he would be
treated as one of its citizens, after his return, even before a year would have passed:
he was taken into account when a quorum was established at meetings, and his
nomination was put forward when a candidate for the office of a dayan was cho-
sen.53 It would also be easier for a rabbi from another town to get a temporary
settlement permit (apart from a fee that he had to pay), and frequently it was em-
phasized that he would be treated on a par with other residents when offices were
filled. Rabbis would also be granted the right to conduct commercial activity, ex-
cept that then they had to pay an income tax (bardon).54
50 Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 52–55 (Poznań, 25 Adar II 5437 / March 29,
1677).
51CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 253v (Poznań, 8 Sivan 5438 / May 29, 1678).
52Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 75.
53 AEP no. 1513 (Passover 5445/1685).
54 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 247 (Poznań, 2 Sivan 5435 / May 27, 1675), CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 198
(Poznań, 3 Ḥeshvan 5411 / October 28, 1650; 4 Shvat 5411 / January 26, 1651).
Policies conducted by community authorities indicate that they wanted to

curb the rabbi’s authority. That trend first manifested itself in the first half of the
17th century. According to Majer Bałaban, the rabbi’s rights were curbed by the
kahal for financial reasons: problems faced by communities and their debts made
it necessary for them to levy taxes on weddings, titles, etc.55 Examples of how the
authority of the Tykocin rabbi was curbed are offered by Abram Gawurin.56 Natu-
rally, the relations between the kahal and the rabbi were not similar everywhere,
and it also happened that a rabbi would interfere in secular affairs, thus encroach-
ing on the competency of the kahal and community officials, or that he would
abuse his authority of administering ḥerem, etc.57 When a rabbi was hired in Vil-
nius in 1708, it was on condition that when summoned, he would be obliged to
arrive before the parnasim, that he would not interfere in taxes and leases, and that
he would not come late to the synagogue and keep others waiting to begin prayers.58
He also had to make a commitment that at the sessions of the Lithuanian Vaad he
would not vote on the affairs of the Vilnius community without first consulting the
community’s authorities.59
The very fact that the contract concluded between a kahal and a rabbi it would
hire was for a definite term constituted a form of pressure that the former tried to
exert. Should he fail to fulfill his duties, also in a manner that would be viewed as
“appropriate” in terms of the kahal’s needs, the contract would not be prolonged.
The rabbi’s salary was also up to the kahal, as it could either raise it or cut it. This
is why the rabbi’s position in a community was a little equivocal: on the one hand,
he was the “flock’s shepherd” keeping an eye on the morality of all the communi-
ty’s residents, including the parnasim and the members of the authorities, but on
the other hand, he was an official who was largely dependent on them, as they
hired and paid him. As Jacob Katz observed, this created mutual dependence,
whereby one party needed the other to function, and whereby the rabbi gave a re-
ligious sanction to the measures adopted by the kahal: approved its elections and
regulations or more severe punishments, mainly a ḥerem.60
The tendency to curb a rabbi’s competency and at the same time to make him
more dependent on the community authorities is also easily seen in the Poznań and
55 Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” p. 32.

56 In Tykocin the shames was allowed to summon to the prayers in advance, as instructed to do
so by the monthly parnas, even if the rabbi did not agree to that. In other matters, too, when the orders
issued by the monthly parnas and the rabbi were contradictory, the shames was to obey the monthly
parnas. The rabbi was not allowed to put a curse without the permission of the kahal or dayanim
(Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, pp. 30, 37).
57 This is a situation referred to by the regulation on the Orla kahal (Leszczyński, ed., “Ustawa
kahału orlańskiego,” pp. 115–116).

60 Katz, Tradition and Crisis, pp. 74–75.
Swarzędz pinkasim. The agreement concluded with the rabbi who was hired in
Poznań in 1631 included a proviso that he was not allowed to put a curse (ḥerem)
on anyone, except together with the parnasim.61 The section of dayanim was al-
lowed, even in the rabbi’s presence, to impose a fine up to a certain limit, but when
the trial was attended by the kahal members, the same limit would not apply.62
Sometimes certain rights were also vested in the kahal’s officials to make them, in
a way, independent of a rabbi. In 1786, the market parnasim in Swarzędz were
allowed to punish those who did not want to recognize and implement their orders,
and they did not have to consult the rabbi.63 The kahal was a rabbi’s equal partner
when the titles of ḥaver and morenu were conferred or when a curse was pro-
nounced, but in time it was the kahal that had more say in such matters.
Some communities began to draft the so-called rabbinical regulations (kon-
stytucje duchowne), a general statement of rabbi’s rights and obligations. They
were developed with each community rather than an individual nominee for a rab-
bi in mind. The regulation drafted in Opatów in 1664 allowed for the hiring of
a rabbi for six years and the contract could only be prolonged by further four years.
The Opatów rabbi was not allowed to arrange marriages of his children with the
community’s residents, and no kahal meetings were to be held in his house. He
was also prohibited from getting involved in any commercial activity, and when
granting any loans, he could charge no more than 18 percent. In Lwów, the rabbi’s
distant relatives (within the fourth degree of affinity) were not allowed to become
kahal members, and in Wielkopolska a resident of the community was not at all
allowed to be nominated for its rabbi.64 Every candidate for the rabbi’s position
had to accept the preconditions formulated by the community.
Sometimes conflicts would arise between the kahal and a rabbi, usually about
money, e.g., debts, unpaid remunerations or bills of exchange, rather than about
the scope of authority. They usually ended in the rabbi’s undoing, and in effect he
would have to leave the community. It was also frequent for the kahal to fire
a rabbi without any notice. The Lithuanian Vaad tried to rule out such practices by
adopting a resolution in 1628 whereby the rabbi’s employment had to be termi-
nated on a half year notice. In the absence of such a notice, the contract would be
valid for another year.65
A conflict between a rabbi and the kahal that broke out in Swarzędz was
caused by financial issues. In 1684 the Swarzędz rabbi, Elikim Gets, son of
Mordekhai, complained to the Poznań electors about the community’s kahal and
the verdict had passed. The electors assured him that the Poznań kahal would ex-
61 Lewin, Louis, Die Landessynode, pp. 72–73.
62 AEP no. 1828 (Passover 5464/1704). For more on this subject, see the chapter devoted to the
judiciary.
amine his case.66 In the following year, both parties concluded an agreement, prob-
ably after an intervention by the Poznań kahal, and the Swarzędz kahal agreed to
pay the rabbi its debt of 50 florins in four semi-annual installments. At that point
it was decreed that all other bills of exchange were since then null and void.67
Diverse local situations made rabbis frequently change their jobs and move
from town to town. On the whole, they contributed to greater dependence of rabbis
on community authorities: the number of scholars who were Talmud experts was
by several fold higher than the number of available vacancies. Despite the high
esteem in which scholars were held, only a scholar employed by a community (as
a rabbi, rector, darshan, cantor, teacher, or even shames) had a chance to live
a peaceful and relatively affluent life. It follows from a diary of Moses Waserzug
that educated Jews living in the Commonwealth, including himself, were on the
search for positions of rabbis, teachers, cantors, or shoḥetim in neighboring Ger-
many. This is why they headed for a fair in Frankfurt an der Oder, where the rep-
resentatives of local Jewish communities recruited candidates.68
Those scholars without permanent employment joined masses of itinerant
preachers and went from one community to another, almost like beggars, even
though communities treated such wandering scholars only slightly better than “or-
dinary” beggars. They were usually invited into houses (sometimes even by the
parnas) and allowed to stay longer. Sometimes they were also allowed to preach,
and thus to earn some money.
66 AEP no. 1498 (5444/1684).

67 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 81–82 (Swarzędz, 1 Tamuz
5545 / June 9, 1785).
68 Goldberg, “Wokół pamiętników Żydów polskich,” pp. 209–210.
CHAPTER SIX
JUDICIARY
There were several types of courts in Jewish communities that examined var-
ious disputes between Jews: the courts of dayanim, the courts of community au-
thorities (the kahal, other officials, guilds), and mixed courts.
The scope of their authority depended on cases they examined: in civil cases
(financial – dinei mamonot), a verdict would be passed by the court of dayanim.
Penal cases (dinei nefashot) were examined by the kahal’s court. The only excep-
tion were the cases of libel, insult, or unfair competition (hasagat gvul, which
covered, e.g., a lease without the kahal’s permission) which fell under the jurisdic-
tion of the kahal’s court, even though they would evidently be of financial nature.1
The Lithuanian Vaad also listed lawsuits concerning a lease (arenda), taxes levied
on production and the sale of alcohol (czopowe) and disputes over the apportion-
ment of state taxes or benefits payable to the owner as those within the jurisdiction
of the kahal.2
In minor cases there was some margin of freedom to choose the court as evi-
denced by a record in the pinkas of Poznań electors. They wrote that it was a duty
of the shames to ask the disputing parties to which court they would like to bring
their lawsuit.3
The first category of courts was the courts of dayanim, which were also re-
ferred to as clerical courts. Owing to the religious nature of the Jewish law, the
judge adjudicated not only in disputes between individuals and the community, but
also between man and God. Hence the office of a dayan was not a secular but
clerical function, and the judiciary was viewed as a part of the service of God.
Dayanim were elected by electors in annual elections, along with other offi-
cials. Pinkasim frequently reiterate that only the citizens of the community could
hold this position, and should someone live anywhere else for some time (three
1 Pursuant to the 1595 statute of Kraków, libel cases were exceptionally heard by the dayanim’s
courts when the offence had been committed in their presence; a similar decision was taken by the
Lithuanian Vaad, which identified the dayanim courts as appropriate to rule in the cases of insulting
behavior in the court (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” pp. 101–102).
2 Ibidem, p. 105.
3 AEP no. 879 (1 Iyar 5419/1659). A similar option was allowed by the Kraków statute of 1595
in the cases of unfair competition, when the value of the dispute did not exceed 10 zł. (Bałaban, ed.,
“Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595,” pp. 331–332).
JUDICIARY 125
consecutive years), he would be eligible for a nomination again after a lapse of one
year from his coming back.4 The only exception was made for someone who left
to take the rabbi’s position in another community.5
In the Poznań community the number of dayanim ranged from 3 to 68. On the
whole it may be said that their number was growing, as in the mid-1740s it ex-
ceeded 30. In the 1770s there were 40 of them and in the mid-1780s their number
was 50. In 1789, 68 dayanim were elected, and henceforth a similar number was
to be elected in the years to come (1790–95). There are a few entries (from 1769–
72, 1778–79, 1782, and 1794) reading that the first council assisting the rabbi
consisted of wise men, the yeshivah students. From 1728, there were elected from
1 to 4 dayanim assistants. In the Swarzędz community, too, the number of dayanim
varied significantly from year to year, ranging from 4 to 23, with an average of 12
people nominated every year. Usually their names were recorded one by one in an
order which was significant, because it reflected their hierarchy. When one exam-
ines lists of elected officials covering several years, one may keep track of day-
anim’s promotions and how they moved from the bottom to the top of the lists. It
also follows that the dayan’s office could be held for many years and that prefer-
ence was given to older and more experienced people. Many dayanim used the
title of morenu, which evidenced, at least theoretically, that they were well versed
in the Talmudic law.6 Sometimes dayanim were grouped into three or four sections
on lists of elected officials.7 In Swarzędz, the dayan’s assistant or assistants were
also elected. They would join the bench when one of the dayanim would be re-
lated to one of the parties or would leave the community during “his” week in
office.8 Or, as it follows from another entry, the rabbi summoned the following
dayan, according to the order in which his name was recorded in the pinkas.9
In courts, dayanim had to abide by the principle of collective decision-making
and, at minimum, three of them had to be present.10 When a community had sev-
eral sections of judges, they either had an equal status or were subordinated to each
4 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 261 (Poznań, 6 Nisan 5444 / March 21, 1684).
5 AEP no. 1513 (Passover 5445/1685).
6 Jacob Katz observed that dayanim were not always scholars, and this is why their rulings
were not always based on Halakhic principles, but also on their judgments stemming from the case
law (Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 81).
7 In the communities of the Commonwealth one section of judges was composed of 3–7 mem-
bers. In Vilnius 12 dayanim were elected who worked in 2 sections; in Grodno, 2 sections; in Lwów,
3 sections of 4 dayanim each; in Opatów, 2 or 3 sections of 2–7 dayanim; in Przemyśl, 2 sections; in
Leszno, 2 sections of 3 dayanim each; in Kraków, 3 sections of 3 dayanim; in Żółkiew and other
branch communities of Lwów, 2 sections of 5 dayanim each (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,”
pp. 98–99).
9 JTS 3252, pp. 158v–159 (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan 5482 / April 20, 1732).
10 By analogy to German communities, Michał Lisser suggests that minor financial cases could
be adjudicated by the rabbi alone or by the under-rabbi, especially in branch communities which did
not have permanent dayanim’s courts (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” p. 98).
126 JUDICIARY
other according to a hierarchy. When of equal status, all sections could examine
the same cases and would take turns so that each week only one of them adjudi-
cated. When they were subordinated, as in, e.g., Kraków,11 their competency usu-
ally depended on the value of the subject of litigation. In effect, all sections could,
but also had to, work at the same time.
A system where sections would have equal status existed in the majority of
the Commonwealth’s communities, including Poznań and Swarzędz, where they
took turns.12 It follows from the first list of elected officials included in the pinkas
of Poznań electors that the town also had a hierarchical system. Among the offi-
cials elected in 1621 there are nine names of dayanim who were divided into three
sections: three dayanim, three dayanim [adjudicating cases] from 100 to 20 zł.,
three dayanim [adjudicating cases] of less than 20 zł.13 In later records no such
distinction can be found, but the dayanim are divided into three or four sections
(at times one or two) whose scope of authority is not defined. Frequently, the first
of them would be referred to as the section sitting together with the rabbi.
Dayanim were told to observe the established division into sections and an
order according to which they were supposed to take their seats. The Poznań elec-
tors prescribed in 1650 that dayanim should not change that order and take differ-
ent seats and that the whole section was to sit together throughout the trial. It was
also prohibited for more than three dayanim to take part in a trial.14 In 1674, the
electors recorded that one group of dayanim was not allowed to attend when an-
other section was in charge, unless the litigating parties had decided otherwise.15
In Swarzędz a decision was taken in 1746 that electors would be obligated to
deliver a slip of paper listing a pair of dayanim for each week. At the same time it
was prohibited to change this rule and all dayanim were to do as told by the elec-
tors. Should it turn out that a dayan was not appropriate in the light of the law
(i.e., related or had any ties with one of the parties), then he would be replaced by
a dayan from a lower-ranking section.16
The Poznań electors recorded in 1696 that no dayan should be excused from
a trial, unless he was related to one of the parties. And when the community had
no rabbi, two dayanim of the section adjudicating with the rabbi had to be joined
11 Bałaban, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595,” pp. 331–334. In Kraków
the first section of dayanim examined cases of less than 10 zł.; the second one, cases from 10 to
100 zł.; and the third one, cases of more than 100 zł. The two first sections had their sessions every
day, excluding holidays and the days preceding the holidays, and the third section convened two or
three times a week, as required.
12 AEP no. 1900 (Passover 5468/1708).
13 CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 2v (Poznań, 5381/1621).
14 AEP no. 646 (Passover 5410/1650).
15 AEP no. 1257 (Passover 5434/1674).
16 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 21 (Swarzędz, 7 Iyar 5506 /
April 27, 1746).

JUDICIARY 127
by a yeshivah student as the third wise man, according to a hierarchy that applied
to the yeshivah students.17
As a rule there had to be an odd number of judges at a trial (ein beit din
shakul). This was to prevent an equal number of votes which would make it impos-
sible to reach the final verdict. Should, however, the number of dayanim be even,
it could have been due to two reasons. One of them could be that the section was
convened in the presence of the rabbi or his deputy, and then there would be an
odd number. The second one occurred when one of the dayanim was a substitute
invited in case one of the dayanim would not be able to attend the trial, e.g., be-
cause of family ties or his absence in town.18
Some cases were adjudicated in the presence of the rabbi who also exercised
general control over the community’s judiciary. It follows from a pinkas entry
made by the Poznań electors that the trial could also be held in the rabbi’s presence
at the request of one of the parties.19
Dayanim had to convene at a permanent seat for a court session. In 1673, the
Poznań electors complained about problems that were due to the fact that dayanim
had no permanent seat and they ordered the kahal to find a place which would also
be appropriate in winter. It should be equipped with a special table for the day-
anim’s books.20 The Poznań electors decided in 1674 that the former lodging of
the shtadlan, which was initially to accommodate a midwife, would be a place
where the dayanim could hold their sessions. And this is where they could leave
their pinkasim.21 In 1708, the dayanim were prohibited to convene in the apart-
ment of any of them and told to hold their sessions in the synagogue’s vestibule.
Should the case be adjudicated by the rabbi–darshan, then they would be allowed
to gather in his lodgings. He was also allowed to summon any dayanim he wanted
to, even when it was not their turn. Outside sessions, dayanim could meet any
place, wherever they wanted, be it the darshan’s house or the lodging of any of
them.22 In a different entry, dayanim were ordered to sit “in their tents” all day long
rather than stand in the streets, and when the time of the trial came, they should
head for the session.23 The times when sessions were to be held were defined. The
Poznań electors recorded two session times: the first one was to begin two hours
ahead of the knocking which summoned people to the synagogue, and the second
one in the evening, after everyone left the synagogue.24
17 AEP no. 1673 (Passover 5456/1696).
18 Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” pp. 99–100.
19 AEP no. 2253 (5552/1792).
20 AEP no. 1220 (5433/1673).
21 AEP no. 1254 (Passover 5434/1674). Majer Bałaban wrote that in Kraków every section of
dayanim kept several books at the same time: to record witness testimonies, verdicts, and fines
(Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, p. 371).
22 AEP no. 1900 (Passover 5468/1708), AEP no. 2253 (5552/1792).
23 AEP no. 774 (5415/1655).
24 AEP no. 1900 (Passover 5468/1708).
128 JUDICIARY
Dayanim were obligated to record all their verdicts in a special pinkas im-
mediately after their ruling. The reason why dayanim were ordered first to record
the verdict and then to impart it to the parties probably was to prevent any pressure
by litigating parties.25 Dayanim were frequently reminded that the verdict had to
be recorded immediately, before they left the court.26 This procedure was to be
followed also to prevent any changes to the verdict, which, it was added, had been
very frequent. It was also emphasized that the verdict should be immediately writ-
ten down and delivered to the parties. Should anyone lose his verdict, the text
could be found in the dayanim’s pinkas.
Although dayanim held their offices gratuitously, they were paid some remu-
neration by the litigating parties (pesak gelt). Both parties paid an equal share
before the trial. In order to prevent a situation that the richer party may expose the
poorer opponent to excessive expenses, a limit was set which could not be changed
either by the dayanim or one of the parties. The Poznań electors corroborated an
earlier regulation about the fee in 1704. When at the time of the morning session
the subject of litigation was worth less than 100 zł., then each of the parties was to
pay 9 gr. In the afternoon, when the object of dispute was worth less than 100 zł.,
each party paid 6 gr.; when it was worth from 100 zł. to 1000 zł., 15 gr.; and when
more than 1000 zł., 1 zł. It was also forbidden to charge any higher fees.27 Their
amounts were slightly changed in 1708. When the subject of the litigation was
worth less than 20 zł., each of the parties had to pay 3 gr.; if less than 30 zł., 4 gr.;
less than 40 zł., 5 gr.; less than 50 zł., 6 gr.; less than 100 zł., 9 gr.; less than
1000 zł., 6 gr. per each one hundred; and in excess of 1000 zł., 6 gr.28 Dayanim
were ordered to charge the fee only once, and when the trial was adjourned, they
were not allowed to charge it again.29
In the pinkas of Poznań electors one may come across dayanim’s complaints
that officials deprived them of their earnings by adjudicating in all quarrels and
civil cases. The electors reminded on that occasion that an earlier regulation, in-
voked in 1653, should be observed, whereby the officials nominated by the kahal
were to give their word that they would not issue any rulings themselves.30 An
entry made in 1687 by the Poznań electors reads that two more dayanim than re-
quired had been elected (eight instead of six). To ensure that their remunerations
would continue to be stable it was decided that the officials who adjudicated in
25 AEPno. 2055 (Passover 5481/1721).

26 AEP no.647 (Passover 5410/1650), AEP no. 1042 (5426/1666), AEP no. 1127 (5430/1670),
AEP no. 1215 (Passover 5432/1672), AEP no. 1299 (5435/1675), AEP no. 1309 (Passover 5436/1676),
AEP no. 1365 (5437/1677), AEP no. 1559 (Passover 5448/1688), AEP no. 1573 (Passover
5449/1689).
27 AEP no. 1827 (Passover 5464/1704).
28 AEP no. 1901 (Passover 5468/1708).
29 AEP no. 700 (Passover 5412/1652).
JUDICIARY 129
disputes would share half of what they charged for their verdicts with the dayanim.
They were the officials exercising supervision over crafts: supervisors of slaugh-
terhouses, tailors, furriers, stall-keepers and loop-makers as well as tovei ir. It was
made absolutely clear which dayan was to be remunerated by which office.31
The court of dayanim had its own scribe who was instructed to discharge his
duties with dedication and turn his job into a “service of Heavens.”32 An entry
from 1655 prescribes that every section of dayanim should have its own scribe to
write down its verdicts and announcements. Scribes were nominated by the kahal
and courts were obligated to hire them.33 Dayanim were prohibited to raise their
scribes’ remuneration.34
A shames summoned people to appear in court, and if anyone wanted to indict
someone, this could be done only via the shames of his synagogue.35 Then the
court would summon, also via the shames, the accused. Dayanim were reminded
that they were not supposed to instruct the shames orally, but that summons had to
be written down on a slip of paper. It should be dated so that the shames would not
be able to delay its delivery.36 Should the person summoned fail to appear in court
on the defined day or deliver an excuse, then he would be summoned the second
or even the third time. After three ineffective summons, the name of an individual
obstinately refusing to appear in court was made public and a ḥerem would be put
on him.37 One can read in the pinkas of the Poznań electors that should any house-
hold head ignore the shames and his summons, then the monthly parnas would be
obligated to imprison him and to punish with other punishments “thus to strength-
en the pillar of the court.”38
After the litigants were summoned by the shames, they would not be allowed
to enter any agreement, but would have to appear before the court.39 The shames,
too, was not allowed to reconcile the parties after he had been sent to call them to
the court, unless they asked him for settlement.40
31 AEP no. 1551 (Passover 5447/1687).

32 AEP no. 646 (Passover 5410/1650).
33 AEP no. 777 (Passover 5415/1655).
34 AEP no. 1042 (5426/1666).
35 AEP no. 1028 (5425/1665).
36 AEP no. 1256 (Passover 5434/1674).
37 One can read in the Opatów pinkas that if a person summoned to court fails to appear after
three summons, then the shames is to put up a notice on the synagogue’s door that a curse has been
put on the man. Should the latter tear it off, then the curse would be announced to the public in the
synagogue, and should someone else do it, then he would have to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims under
pain of such a punishment as if he were the defendant himself. A similar decision may also be found
in the pinkas of the Lithuanian Vaad (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” p. 117).
38 AEP no. 1309 (Passover 5436/1676).
39 AEP no. 1256 (Passover 5434/1674).
40 AEP no. 1006 (5424/1664).
130 JUDICIARY
One may find many complaints in the Poznań electors’ pinkas about the de-
cline of the courts, one of the pillars of this world, due to their tardiness in sum-
moning to the court and in verdict enforcement. In consequence, many people did
not appear in court despite numerous warnings or would appear with a significant
delay. In 1717, the seven men elected to enact laws were called upon to set a dead-
line by which one would have to appear in court.41 A regulation adopted by ances-
tors was recalled in 1720 which instructed the shames to resort to coercion within
72 hours from the second warning. And those indicted who would fail to appear in
court were warned that they would have to cover all the expenses that the plaintiff
had incurred since the second summons.42 In 1792, the Poznań electors issued an
order that a person should appear in court on the same day that he was handed
summons by the shames (should the shames be unable to hand the summons to
him personally, he was to leave it with his wife or in his house). And if he did not
appear and did not provide the rabbi with an excuse, the shames would be allowed
to put a curse on him on the following day without asking the rabbi or parnas for
permission.43
In Poznań, the delivery of court summons and enforcement of court verdicts
was initially the responsibility of the shamesim of the three main synagogues.
They took an oath to discharge their duties with due diligence, not to favor anyone,
and should they violate their pledge, then they would be dismissed and replaced
by a special shames.44 The duty to deliver summons and to enforce verdicts was
assigned to higher-ranking shamesim and lower shamesim were strictly prohibited
to do that under pain of a fine.45 In view of complaints that shamesim were slow,
and in order to “strengthen the pillar of the court,” a special shames (shames
meyuḥ ad) was hired. He was to enforce awarded punishments, announce names of
those who notoriously failed to appear in court despite a summons or to abide by
the verdict.46 From the moment the shames of the dayanim was handed a slip of
paper with the verdict, he had 72 hours to enforce it, to which he pledged in an
oath. He was paid by the kahal for his job.47 In 1795 one more shames was hired,
whose sole duty was to inform the public of the names of those who were notori-
ously ignoring the court’s summons and to pronounce a ḥerem.48
The Poznań electors took a decision in 1704 that when the accused found
himself in a difficult financial situation or when he was poor, the monthly parnas
41 AEPno. 2013 (Passover 5477/1717).

42 AEPno. 2042 (Passover 5480/1720).
43 AEP no. 2253 (5552/1792).
45 AEP no. 2122 (5491/1731).
5464/1704), AEP no. 2051 (Passover 5481/1721).

47 AEP no. 1372 (5438/1678).
48 AEP no. 2261 (Passover 5555/1795).
JUDICIARY 131
would be allowed to suspend the enforcement of a verdict by the special shames

of dayanim, no longer, though, than for eight days (to do which he had to get the
permission of the entire kahal).49
There was a tendency to keep apart the scope of cases examined by the court
of dayanim and the court of the kahal to prevent any conflicts between the two,
which is reflected in regulations issued by both central50 and community authori-
ties. The Poznań electors made it clear in 1633 that the kahal had no right to inter-
fere in civil litigation, unless such cases had been referred to it by dayanim.51
It follows, however, from pinkas records that sometimes community authori-
ties did interfere in the work of dayanim, mainly in such matters as the fees they
charged and the fines they adjudicated. In 1704, the Poznań electors invoked an
earlier regulation whereby even the rabbi and his court were not allowed to punish
anyone with a fine higher than 5 zł. But should a trial be attended by the kahal
members, then the fine could exceed 5 zł., at their discretion. In both situations,
this money would have to be sent to the monthly parnas who would give it to the
poor.52 But it was decided in 1677 that all fees charged by secular courts and half
of the charges collected by dayanim’s courts would go to charity because of great
poverty and the lament of the poor.53 After the High Synagogue fire, it was decreed
in 1717 that half of all fines awarded by all kinds of courts (of the kahal, dayanim,
officials and guilds) would be earmarked for the reconstruction of the synagogue
and beit midrash.54 The electors recorded in 1633 that the kahal would have to
confirm every sentence passed by a court, so that it could be enforced with all
means possible.55
Sometimes a kahal would try to change the ruling of the dayanim’s court. In
1676 the Poznań electors recorded that sometimes one of the litigants would com-
plain to the kahal about the dayanim’s verdict, and then the kahal would either
declare it null and void or change some of the decisions. The electors strictly pro-
hibited such practices, emphasizing that no parnas or kahalnik had a right to cor-
rect “even a dot in the letter yod” of the dayanim’s sentence. And if, in the kahal’s
opinion, something was not right, then it would be entitled to send two of its rep-
resentatives to join the dayanim and they would examine the case together.56
49 AEP no. 1826 (Passover 5464/1704).

50 A decision issued by the Lithuanian Vaad reads that a kahal is not allowed to interfere in
cases about financial matters; however, dayanim are permitted to co-opt two kahalniks, if necessary.
Dayanim were also forbidden to interfere in matters that were not within their authority, such as, e.g.,
lease or alcohol tax (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” pp. 100, 102).
51 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim,” p. 65.
52 AEP no. 1828 (Passover 5464/1704).
53 AEP no. 1342 (5437/1677).
54 AEP no. 2011 (Passover 5477/1717).
55 AEP no. 2142 (Passover 5494/1734).
56 AEP no. 1308 (Passover 5436/1676).
132 JUDICIARY
Courts that operated at fairs were a special variety of the dayanim’s courts.
They held their sessions at all major fairs of the Commonwealth (i.a., in Lublin,
Jarosław, Lwów, Gdańsk, and Toruń), and the bench consisted of judges delegated
by major communities. Fair dayanim charged fees on their verdicts which were
split between both litigants. Fair courts examined all disputes that could arise at
the time of the fair as well as those over bills of exchange that matured at the time
of the fair. They were also allowed to adjudicate in disputes that had not arisen at
the time of the fair, but only when the litigating parties lived in two different prov-
inces.57
It was customary to send one dayan from Poznań and one from the Wielko-
polska district to the fairs in Toruń and Gdańsk. The Council of Four Lands strict-
ly prohibited sending two dayanim on pain of a ḥerem that could be put both on
the leadership of the district and on the second dayan who would accept that as-
signment.58 The community dayanim would be the first to be considered as candi-
dates for the office of the fair dayan, and when none of them was willing to go to
the fair, it was possible to nominate someone else.59 But a dayan nominated for
that position was not allowed to sell it to anyone else, and should he be unable go
to the fair, the kahal would select someone else to do his job.60
Apart from clerical courts, there were also secular courts where jurisdiction
was exercised by the monthly parnas, frequently along with other parnasim or
tovim. The kahal court could consist of the monthly parnas alone, when he exam-
ined minor cases, or of several members. Like in the dayanim’s courts, in the kahal
court a parnas or tovi who was in any way related to one of the litigants was not
allowed to attend the session. In major cases, which were heard by a group of
judges, the rabbi’s attendance was required.
Falling within the scope of the kahal court’s competency were penal cases and
a group of civil cases, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. But penal cases
did not cover theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, fraud, or receiving of stolen
property, etc., which though viewed by the Jewish law as civil cases, lay within the
competence of the dayanim’s courts. The kahal did not also examine homicide cases
as they were referred to non-Jewish courts. Hence the scope of cases was limited to
religious offenses or breach of the regulations issued by community authorities, es-
pecially regarding such financial matters as taxes, leases, etc.61
57 Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” p. 104.

58 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 552 (Jarosław, 27 Tishri 5473 / October 6,
1712).
5458/1698).
60 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 257v (Poznań, 12 Av 5442 / August 16, 1682); AEP no. 1662 (Passover
5455/1695).
61 Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” pp. 105–106. Lisser underscores an interesting phenom-
enon that secular rather than clerical courts examined and prosecuted religious crimes.
JUDICIARY 133
Cases that were within the authority of community officials were examined
by the latter. For example, disputes over one’s seat in the synagogue were to be
handled by gabaim in the presence of a permanent community dayan.62 Quarrels
that broke out in the streets and marketplaces were examined by a market supervi-
sor. When this function was abolished in 1779 to cut community spending, his
duties and the cases he examined were handed over to five kahalniks.63
It was common for a dayan or a kahal member to attend a session of the of-
ficials’ court. There is a rule recorded in 1697 by the Poznań electors that when
cases are adjudicated by officials, they have to be assisted by one dayan and a ver-
dict issued in his absence will be deemed as null and void.64 It follows from an-
other pinkas entry that officials were prohibited from adjudicating civil cases and
that they were allowed only to rule on unfair competition or misbehavior.65 In
1655, nominees for supervisors of slaughterhouses and loop-makers pledged un-
der an oath that they would not adjudicate civil cases and award fines above a cer-
tain limit (of half a thaler). For a higher fine to be awarded the trial had to be
conducted in the presence of one kahal member, and the surplus in excess of the
limit of half a thaler should go to the kahal.66
In Poznań real estate disputes were to be examined by tovei ir. They would be
sometimes divided into two sections, and according to a record dating from 1721,
the two sections of tovei ir (each consisting of five men) were to adjudicate alter-
nately. Each section was allowed to have one or two dayanim among their midst,
as appropriate. At the same time shamesim were prohibited from referring real
estate disputes to other courts.67
In Swarzędz, where the kahal had to tackle too many community matters,
cases were to be examined by market supervisors, following the example of other
communities. The kahal was only to approve their verdicts. Market supervisors
were also allowed to punish or take coercive measures against all those who would
question their verdicts, without even consulting the rabbi or a kahalnik.68
In guild courts, which will be discussed in the following chapter, verdicts
were passed by a guild’s rabbi or elders. Those courts examined “professional”
disputes among guild members, e.g., between an artisan and his apprentices, or
pupils, or between a guild member and the guild. When a fine in excess of 10 zł.
was awarded, the parties could appeal it to the kahal.69
62 AEP no. 2024 (Passover 5478/1718).

63 AEP no. 2243 (Passover 5539/1779).
64 AEP no. 1714 (Passover 5457/1697).
66 AEP no. 841 (5415/1655).
67 AEP no. 2065 (Passover 5481/1721).
69 AEP no. 2156 (5497/1737).
134 JUDICIARY
Jewish communities also had mixed courts consisting of dayanim and com-
munity officials. Such a mixed composition of the court was either due to legal
requirements or necessary in specific cases, but sometimes either the dayanim or
the kahal would want to enlarge their composition. In an order issued in 1718 the
Poznań electors instructed that in matters regarding a dayan’s own house he should
not be the one who adjudicates, but the dayanim should invite one kahalnik of
the “clean table” chosen by the monthly parnas.70 An indirect way to force the
dayanim to co-opt kahal members was to set a maximum fine that could be
awarded by their court, even when it was presided over by the rabbi.
When a “clean table” member joined the dayanim or officials, parnasim were
prohibited from commenting in any way about their verdicts.71
The dayanim’s sentences in civil cases were final, which means that they
could not be appealed. But it was possible to appeal verdicts of the kahal’s court
to central courts.72 In the lands of the Crown, they could be appealed to the Coun-
cil of Four Lands whose tribunal was composed of the dayanim and parnasim of
the Lands (dayanei medinah, parnasei medinah). It examined disputes between
individuals and communities (the principal communities, as any dispute between
the branch community and an individual would be examined in the principal com-
munity), complaints about illegal regulations of community authorities that were
harmful to individuals, and cases between the branch and the principal commu-
nity or between two principal communities. Appeals lodged by the Poznań Jews
to the Council of Four Lands will be discussed in detail in the chapter about con-
flicts between community authorities and residents.
Since judiciary was perceived as a religious function, individuals turning to
non-Jewish courts were viewed as traitors or even sinners.73 In 1653, the Poznań
electors ordered the kahal to pay attention to those who appealed verdicts of com-
munity courts to non-Jewish courts and to punish them.74
Jewish courts also handled disputes between Jews and Christians. It became
a prevailing practice that in many situations, especially in minor cases, a Christian
would not turn to the undervoievode’s court but to the kahal judges.75
70 AEP no. 2027 (Passover 5478/1718).

71 AEP no. 1397 (Passover 5439/1679).
72 The Lithuanian Vaad allowed for the appeal of a verdict of the kahal elders, but only in
cases of serious punishments (loss of franchise, curse or a high fine), or in the event when the rabbi
and at least one of the dayanim lodged his votum separatum to the ruling (Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie
w Polsce,” p. 130).
73 The Lithuanian Vaad ruled in 1673 that a Jew who would not abide by the verdict of a Jewish
court and would seek refuge under the protection of a lord or who would take his fellow believer to
a non-Jewish court would be cursed for life (Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah, no. 690).
74 AEP no. 737 (Passover 5413/1653).
75 As Michał Lisser observes, the scope of competency of Jewish courts, uncomplicated proce-
dures, minimal costs, and summary proceedings made many Christians go to Jewish courts with their
cases against Jews (Lisser, Sądownictwo żydowskie w Polsce, p. 15).
JUDICIARY 135
The Poznań electors instructed that should a nobleman take action against
a Jew, then the trial should be conducted in the kahal’s house before its court.
A kahalnik chosen by the assembly to hear such a case would be able to invite two
or three parnasim who would pass the verdict together with him.76 The kahal mem-
bers pledged in the oath they took that they would sit in courts side by side with
Gentiles.77 Some electors identified by name those who were to take part in court
hearings together with non-Jews.78 Special judges (senzis) were also nominated
for such trials: they were frequently kahal members, mainly parnasim, sometimes
tovim and kahalniks. But they were forbidden to hold trials in their own houses
(they were to be conducted in the kahal’s house). It follows from another entry that
electors instructed people who had been chosen to take part in the trials in which
non-Jews were involved to see to it that the official who would issue a sentence
was always in the company of two people.79 A dispute between a Christian and
a Jew could also be examined by a shtadlan, most probably also in the company
of the above-mentioned judges.80 When a Jewish artisan was accused, then the
case was examined by a shtadlan with two senior guild members.81
Judges who were to hear cases involving non-Jews were instructed to be par-
ticularly diligent and careful so that negligence would not bring misery on the
community. Despite those instructions, the Poznań electors took note of several
cases of such negligence. They recorded in 1700 that judges were sometimes tardy
and failed to come to trials in time, which resulted in complaints and threats by
Christians. They feared that the community would be deprived of its right to ex-
amine disputes with non-Jews which was vested in their forefathers, as it was duly
noted, after a fortune had been spent. The judges were therefore instructed to come
to trials on time and to exert pressure on those who came late. They were also
vested with all necessary powers, including incarceration, to have their verdict
enforced, and the parnasim and kahalniks were not allowed to interfere.82
Judges were also warned that when a case involved a Gentile, they should pay
special attention that the pinkas with minutes was closed at all times and placed
where it should be, rather than left open, thus allowing all passersby to sneak
a look. This measure was explained by “a few secret reasons” and the need to avert
misfortune.83 Electors also warned that Gentiles should not be given the text of the
76 AEP no. 1178 (5431/1671).

78 AEP no. 1020 (5425/1665), AEP no. 1050 (5426/1666), AEP no. 1231 (Passover
5433/1673).
79 AEP no. 1086 (Passover 5428/1668).
80 A list of officials elected in 1672, offered in the Poznań electors’ pinkas, includes names of
judges accompanying the shtadlan (senzis etsel ha-shtadlan) – CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 380v.
81 AEP no. 2158 (5497/1737).
83 AEP no. 1983 (Passover 5475/1715).
136 JUDICIARY
sentence “in the language of Jews” but in Polish, adding that neither the shtadlan
nor the judge should sign it, but only make a note that it was copied “letter by let-
ter” from the pinkas.84
Non-Jewish courts that examined disputes between Jews and non-Jews will
be discussed below.
84 AEP no. 2026 (Passover 5478/1718).

CHAPTER SEVEN
GUILDS AND BROTHERHOODS

AND THEIR RELATIONS
WITH COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
Associations are referred to in Hebrew sources as ḥevrah. This term covers all
types of associations that operated in a Jewish community, including occupational
(or craftsmen’s) guilds,1 charities, schools, and religious brotherhoods. Differ-
ences between these groups are not very distinct. In all brotherhoods the religious
factor played a very important role: their members formed a community, which
was both of a professional and religious nature and which gathered for religious
services and sometimes had its own rabbi or synagogue. They also formed a social
community which was a “large family” of sorts, obligated to offer support to its
members. Membership in a guild was obligatory, whereas membership in other
brotherhoods was not.
Similarly to community offices, the size and degree of development of broth-
erhoods depended on a community’s size, local needs, and opportunities. Brother-
hoods had their own authorities which were elected every year (usually, like the
community authorities, they would be elected at the time of Passover). Commu-
nity authorities controlled their operation, and special community officials ap-
pointed during elections were charged with the supervision over various associa-
tions. The interdependencies between community authorities and brotherhoods
will be discussed later on.
1. CRAFTSMEN’S GUILDS
It follows from pinkasim records that in the Poznań community there were
guilds of tailors, furriers, butchers, stall keepers, loop makers, grave diggers
1 Occupational associations are usually referred to as guilds, but some authors tend to use
brotherhood to reflect the absence of any distinction in Hebrew, e.g., Maurycy Horn, who titled his
book: Żydowskie bractwa rzemieślnicze na ziemiach polskich, litewskich, białoruskich i ukraińskich
w latach 1613–1850 [Jewish Brotherhoods of Craftsmen in Polish, Lithuanian, Byelorussian and
Ukrainian Territories in 1613–1850] (see Horn, Żydowskie bractwa rzemieślnicze).
138 GUILDS AND BROTHERHOODS
(ḥevrat kabranim – one may actually wonder if this association was a guild or
a brotherhood). Maurycy Horn also mentions a guild of damask makers and
a guild of silk fabric makers, which were first mentioned by source materials
in 1792.2 But the Swarzędz pinkasim also mention tailors, musicians (klezmers),
and butchers.
Guild membership was obligatory and unaffiliated craftsmen were not al-
lowed to do their job. When the Swarzędz kahal granted citizenship to Ayzik,
a klezmer of Rogoźno in 1757, it made a reservation that he would not be allowed
to do his job alone, but together (be-ḥavrutah) with other klezmers.3
A guild would operate according to its statute that was also known by the
name of a parchment letter (igeret ha-klaf ). It outlined election rules of the guild’s
authorities, responsibilities of its officials and members, criteria of new member
admission, membership fees and other charges, etc. The oldest guild statute known
today is the statute of Kraków furriers dating from 1613.4 No statutes of the Poznań
and Swarzędz guilds have survived and the only document still available is a reg-
ulation drafted in 1737 by the Poznań kahal addressed to all the guilds that oper-
ated in the community and which was recorded in the pinkas of the Poznań elec-
tors. It was titled “New regulation for all craftsmen’s guilds of our community.” Its
provisions were in no way new and one of its items read that the kahal had over-
seen guild operations for many years and this is why it was its duty to issue such
a regulation which it did with the well-being of the entire community in mind.5
Guild authorities were elected every year, and in Poznań and Swarzędz their
elections were held at the time of Passover.6 They were indirect as first electors
had been chosen. The authorities of a guild would be headed by the guild’s elders
(ziknei ḥ evrah), who were also referred to as the parnasim of the guild. Contrary
to what Bałaban7 wrote, in the examined period one may clearly see that commu-
2 Ibidem, p. 111. A list made in 1713 mentions 35 Christian guilds that operated in Poznań
(Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 3, no. 237). Another entry in the Poznań regulations refers
to admission of 6 Jewish beaver skin dyers to the Christian guild of furriers (ibidem, no. 119
(1615)).
3 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 41 (Swarzędz, 23 Ḥeshvan
5518 / November 6, 1757).

4 The statute’s text is offered by Majer Bałaban (Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1,
pp. 304–305).
5 AEP nos. 2153–2172 (6 Nisan 5497 / April 7, 1737). The German translation of the 1737 guild
regulation is offered by Wolf Feilchenfeld (Feilchenfeld, “Eine Innungsordnung”).

6 In other communities the authorities of guilds were elected at different times, e.g., the Feast
of Tabernacles or in the evening preceding the month of Shvat (Kobylin); see Wischnitzer, “Die jü-
dische Zunftverfassung,” p. 442. Based on the guild pinkasim from Kiejdany, the author points out
that guild positions were filled by the same people and that new people were not allowed to become
the authorities’ members (ibidem, p. 443).
7 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 53. Bałaban drew that conclusion by comparing the lists
of officials elected in the community of Poznań in 1634 and 1764. Missing in the second list were
officials charged with the supervision over trade and guilds.
CRAFTSMEN’S GUILDS 139
nity authorities interfered with guild operations and also with the appointment of
its authorities.8 The above-mentioned statute developed by the kahal for guilds
reads that from now on the kahal’s electors will also nominate five guild elders.
Two of them will have to be guild members, and the remaining three are to be
selected from among household heads or kahalniks. It also adds that they should
be just, trustworthy, and energetic people.9 This rule was changed in the provisions
regarding a tailors’ guild, most likely as a result of their opposition to what had
been decreed by the kahal: the five elders were to include three guild members and
two learned men, dayanim, whose names were listed in the kahal’s pinkas.10
Two other guild officials, guild gabaim who were collecting taxes and re-
ceivables of the guild, were to be chosen from among guild members.11 One of the
entries also refers to two guild dayanim.12
A guild would also have its own rabbi13 who was always elected by the ka-
14
hal. The rabbi acted as a preacher and custodian of morals, and all guild members
were obliged to obey him. But the rabbi himself was also to abide by regulations
which the kahal adopted for guilds. It was the rabbi’s responsibility to write the
minutes of the guild authorities’ meetings and to keep the accounts. The 1737
statute prescribed that the rabbi should keep the income and expense pinkas with
integrity and file minutes in the right order. He was not allowed to hand the
pinkasim to any of the guild’s elders or any other man, as they were always to be
stored by him. This is why regular meetings of guild elders were to be held at the
rabbi’s place.15
In Swarzędz, the kahal intervened in a dispute between gabaim and members
of the tailors’ guild in 1745. A decision was then made, with the guild’s well-being
in mind, that the two parnasim who were to head the guild would be elected by the
kahal. Names of two men were drawn: Hirsh, son of K., and Mikhael, son of P.,
who were to hold their offices until the nearest Passover. A letter from the com-
8 As Ignacy Schiper observed, it was an accepted practice in many communities; in the Crown,
the kahals delegated their two representatives to guild authorities and were also charged with the
election of the guild’s rabbi (Schiper, “Dzieje gospodarcze Żydów Korony i Litwy,” p. 176). In
Lithuanian communities, pursuant to a decision made in 1687 by the Lithuanian Vaad, the commu-
nity authorities chose half (two out of four) members of guild authorities. Filling of the position of
shames in a guild was also done with the kahal’s approval (Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah,
no. 817).
9 AEP no. 2155 (5497/1737).
10 AEP no. 2171 (5497/1737).
11 AEP no. 2155 (5497/1737).
12 AEP no. 2172 (5497/1737).
13 He was called, following the Christian example, the guild’s patron; usually he would be one
of the community’s rabbis, as very few guilds would have their own rabbi (Kramerówna, “Żydowskie
cechy rzemieślnicze,” p. 270). Mojżesz Schorr wrote that usually one of the community gabaim
would be the guild’s rabbi (Schorr, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce, p. 29).
14 AEP no. 2154 (5497/1737).
15 AEP no. 2168 (5497/1737).
munity rabbi recorded in the pinkas of the tailors’ guild was then invoked (which
proves that the function of the guild’s rabbi was also performed by the community
rabbi).16 In 1742, the gabaim of the Swarzędz tailors’ guild turned to the kahal with
a request to be left in their positions for another year, making at the same time
a commitment that they would collect specific sums of money. Their request must
have been granted, because they were vested with a right to collect all debts by
means of all kinds of coercive measures.17
In 1784, the Swarzędz electors intervened in a conflict that arose in the butch-
ers’ guild. Its members rebelled against its rabbi, Yehudah Leib Segal, son of reb
A., who had been approved by the kahal for the position of the community rabbi
and at the same time the guild’s rabbi. The electors forbid, under pain of a curse,
anyone else to accept the position of the guild’s rabbi without the permission of and
a letter written by Yehudah Leib. They also decided that guild members would have
to pay Yehudah Leib his entire remuneration to obtain his permission and a letter
allowing another rabbi to be elected. The rationale for that decision was that “the
scholar’s honor” had to be protected.18 This, however, did not resolve the conflict,
because a few years later butchers had to be reminded that each guild member who
would oppose the rabbi mentioned above would be punished by the kahal.19
All internal disputes, be they between craftsmen or between craftsmen and
their apprentices (poel) or pupils (lerin yung), had to be examined by a guild’s
court. It consisted of the guild’s rabbi and four elders, of whom two had to be
craftsmen. The court’s verdict certified by the rabbi was recorded in the guild’s
pinkas. When a fine of more than 10 zł. was awarded, the sentence of the
guild’s court could be appealed to the kahal.20 The guild’s dependence on the kahal
is also clear when one looks at the way verdicts were enforced. A guild’s rabbi and
elders were not allowed to carry out penalties that were adjudicated by their court,
but they had to hand a copy of the verdict to the monthly parnas who commis-
sioned the kahal’s shames to carry it out.21 This rule was changed after it had been
opposed by the tailors’ guild, and then it was decided that a sentence passed by
a guild’s court (consisting of a rabbi and two guild dayanim) should be enforced
by the kahal’s shames after he had been commissioned to do that by the court,
without any involvement of the monthly parnas.22
Disputes regarding crafts that involved Jews and Christians were examined
by a shtadlan along with two guild elders.23 When a case of this kind was heard by
16JTS 3652, p. 190 (Swarzędz, 1 Shvat 5505 / January 4, 1745).

17Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 14 (Swarzędz, Passover
5502/1742).
19 Ibidem, p. 82 (Swarzędz, 4 Iyar 5552 / April 26, 1792).
20 AEP no. 2156 (5497/1737).
21 AEP no. 2157 (5497/1737).
22 AEP no. 2172 (5497/1737).
23 AEP no. 2158 (5497/1737).
CRAFTSMEN’S GUILDS 141
a non-Jewish court, guild authorities were prohibited from acting on their own and
they had to notify the kahal. It was argued that the kahal was familiar with all
permits and decrees regarding the Poznań community which had been issued by
non-Jewish authorities and it was its duty to carry them into life. The kahal also
promised support from the community’s coffers during such trials.24
Guild authorities were supposed to oversee the execution of contracts be-
tween craftsmen and apprentices, which order had been issued to prevent any
disputes between them. A contract including, i.a., the amount of pay, had to be
signed by both parties and also by the guild’s rabbi (who charged a fee for the
execution of such a contract) and one of the guild’s elders. The same procedure
was followed in the case of pupils, but then the guild’s rabbi would not be paid
a fee. Texts of contracts were to be immediately recorded in the guild’s pinkas. It
was to ensure that no apprentice-guest would be hired before all local apprentices
had found employment. Owing to the meticulous records of contracts, one could
check how long an apprentice had been employed in the community and the date
of sacking an apprentice-guest after his three-year stay, as the regulation had pre-
scribed.25 A craftsman who failed to follow the foregoing rules of contract execu-
tion would pay the guild a fine of 6 grzywna26 per apprentice and 3 grzywna per
pupil.27 The kahal also supervised promotions of apprentices to independent crafts-
men. The ceremony was to take place in front of the kahal and three guild elders
were to take a decision after they had examined the quality of the candidate’s
skills.28 A decision about admission to a guild would be taken by community au-
thorities, after they had consulted the guild elders.
A guild’s pinkas would include minutes of its authorities’ meetings, verdicts
issued by the guild’s court, and accounts and contracts with apprentices and pupils.
The guild’s rabbi was obliged to enter the names of all the craftsmen in a special
pinkas. It was done to facilitate the search for those apprentices who had left their
foreman and began to earn their living as craftsmen, in defiance of all prohibitions.
When such an apprentice was caught red-handed for the first time, he would be
fined by his guild; the second time, he would be expelled from the community.29
A guild had its own till (kupat ha-ḥ evrah) which was separate from the kahal’s
coffers. Its proceeds consisted of membership fees and charges, admission fees,
donations, and fines. In the statute of 1737 the kahal prohibits guild elders from
encumbering craftsmen at their discretion and it sets the amount of charges they
will pay. A craftsman was to pay 1 zł. a year, an apprentice, 1 gr. of his pay.30
24 AEP no. 2159 (5497/1737).

25 AEP no. 2164 (5497/1737).
26 1 grzywna = 48 gr. (1 zł. 18 gr.).
27 AEP no. 2163 (5497/1737).
28 AEP no. 2162 (5497/1737).
29 AEP no. 2161 (5497/1737).
30 AEP no. 2166 (5497/1737), the same way as in Przemyśl in 1688 where the kahal approved
the authorities of the tailors’ guild “on condition that they do nothing of major or minor importance
A guild’s expenses included salaries paid to its rabbi and shames. Some money
went to charity and was usually paid to the guild’s own members: these were al-
lowances for the elderly, craftsmen unable to work or sick, a support for poor
pupils and orphans who wanted to learn a craft, craftsmen’s widows, etc. Such
expenses were approved by the rabbi and a guild’s elderly. They were also obli-
gated to provide the community parnasim with accounts of the whole year, includ-
ing the guild’s proceeds and expenses.31
It is clear that the kahal’s control was very tight and covered nearly all areas
of guild operations.32 Community authorities strictly ordered guilds to abide by
their regulations or pay a fine of 20 grzywna which went to the poor. It follows
from the Poznań electors’ pinkas that guilds opposed decisions that were imposed
on them. After the objections voiced by the tailors’ guild, the decisions about the
composition of the guild’s authorities and enforcement of its court’s verdicts were
changed, as mentioned above. Ultimately, amended regulations were signed by the
kahal and the guild’s members along with its rabbi.
Kahals also tried to encumber guilds with a portion of payments for, e.g., re-
pair of the synagogue or beit midrash, the buyback of pledged Torah scrolls, etc.
The Poznań electors recorded in 1678 that gabaim were to turn to the grave dig-
gers’ guild with a request for their support (whether financial or in kind, in the
form of labor, is unclear) to build a fence.33 In 1686, they decided that all guilds
and brotherhoods would have to pay a specific amount set by the kahal that would
be spent on the Abrush synagogue.34 In 1717, the Poznań electors issued an order
that half of the fines awarded by all courts, including guild courts, would be spent
on the refurbishment of the High Synagogue and beit midrash.35
Naturally, it was not in all the Jewish communities of the Commonwealth that
guilds were subordinated to the kahal to the same degree. In Poznań, this depend-
ence was particularly strong and sometimes resulted in conflicts, although similar
conflicts were common also in other communities.36
without informing the men of the kahal, and especially that no performances are collected by them
for the society’s needs without their knowledge” (Schorr, Żydzi w Przemyślu, p. 64).
31 AEP no. 2169 (5497/1737).
32 Perła Kramerówna points to an analogy with the relations between Christian guilds and town
authorities (“Żydowskie cechy rzemieślnicze,” p. 279), as does Mark Wischnitzer (Wischnitzer, “Die
jüdische Zunftverfassung,” p. 449). It is clear in the regulations included in the Poznań town regula-
tions (wilkierze poznańskie), which lay down a duty that guild regulations should be approved by the
town council (Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 3, nos. 25–26 (1536)). The Poznań council also
had a major say about the posting of the offices of guild elders. Examples that guild activities were
curbed by kahals are offered by Efraim Kupfer (see Kupfer, “A tsushteyer”) who, however, tends to
jump to too far-reaching conclusions by, e.g., interpreting a tax levied on Poznań tailors in 1646
(which was of a purely fiscal nature) as an attempt to thwart crafts (ibidem, p. 214).
33 AEP no. 1370 (5438/1678).
34 AEP no. 1534 (Passover 5446/1686).
35 AEP no. 2011 (Passover 5477/1717).
36 Examples of similar tensions between the community authorities and guilds also come from
other communities. As Michael M. Zarchin puts it, the reason for conflicts between the kahal and the
CHARITY BROTHERHOOD 143
2. CHARITY BROTHERHOOD (ḤEVRAH KADISHAH)
Initially, community gabaim were involved in all types of charity, but gradu-
ally some of their duties were taken over by special brotherhoods. The most im-
portant of them, and viewed as the earliest one,37 was a charity brotherhood.
It was also called a funeral or holy brotherhood (ḥ evrah kadishah or ḥ evrat
(kadishah) gemilut ḥ asadim).
In early modern times, charity brotherhoods operated in all major communi-
ties of the Commonwealth, including Poznań and Swarzędz. Information about the
Poznań brotherhood is scattered in the pinkasim that have survived, and in the case
of Swarzędz only two pinkasim of its charity brotherhood exist today. One of them
includes various records made from 1732 to 1818: minutes of elections of the
brotherhood’s authorities, regulations regarding its activities, accounts of proceeds
and expenses, as well as other entries, e.g., testament bequests made in favor of
the brotherhood. The other pinkas is a register of the brotherhood’s members from
1772 to 1809.
The authorities of a ḥevrah kadishah were elected every year during the inter-
mediate days of Passover, independently of the elections of community authori-
ties.38 Some entries made in Swarzędz read that they were held on the third inter-
mediate day of Passover, i.e., immediately after the elections of the community
authorities. The brotherhood’s pinkas includes 57 lists of elected officials coming
from 1733 to 1794, of which missing are only the election results of five years.
Eight lists include only the names of electors.
tailor’s guild in Kórnik was, i.a., the fact that people were admitted to the guild who were not com-
munity members, who did not have their seats in the synagogue, or who evaded regulations that
prohibited bridegrooms from becoming guild members without the kahal knowing about it (Zarchin,
“Tailor’s Guild of Kurnik,” pp. 55–56). Salo Wittmayer Baron writes about a conflict between the
kahal and the tailors’ guild in Berdyczów, which ended in the guild’s complete independence of
the kahal owing to a privilege it had been granted by the town’s owner in 1732. According to
Baron, it was an exception confirming a general rule that the kahal exercised significant control over
guilds. Baron also mentions a “rebellion” in Mińsk (1777), where the guild authorities filed a com-
plaint with state authorities about the community authorities (Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 1,
p. 371). Ignacy Schiper wrote that the foregoing rebellion in Mińsk ended for rebellious craftsmen
in court (Schiper, “Dzieje gospodarcze Żydów Korony i Litwy,” p. 177). Maurycy Horn mentions
other more successful attempts, with the support of town authorities, to become independent of the
kahal, in Nasielsk (1750) and in Wieledniki (1757 and 1760) (Horn, “Powstanie i rozwój teryto-
rialny,” p. 6).
37 Schiper, Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów, p. 98.
38 Unlike the elections of community authorities, which were staged at the time of Passover in
all the communities of the Commonwealth, the elections of the ḥevrah kadishah authorities were held
at a different time, e.g., during the Feast of Tabernacles in the community of Ostróg in Volhynia
(Teimanas, L’autonomie des communautés juives, p. 128); Gershon David Hundert writes that in
Opatów the authorities of the local ḥevrah kadishah were elected by the electors of the kahal ordered
by the town’s owner in 1769. But a few years later (in 1775), the town returned to separate elections
(Hundert, The Jews in a Polish Private Town, p. 88).
Elections of a brotherhood’s authorities were indirect: 5 (or 4, in exceptional

situations only) electors (ksherim) elected officials. The number of officials varied
from year to year, fluctuating from 9 to 18, but there was no regular pattern. The
following officials were elected:
1. gabaim (gabaim) 4–9,
2. gabaim deputies (bi-mkom gabaim) 1–3,
3. trustees (ne’emanim) 2–7,
4. trustees of the small money box (ne’emanim de-kalpei ktanah) 1–4,
5. supervisors (mashgiḥim) 1–3.
The foregoing list includes all offices that appear in election results, which
does not necessarily mean that all of them were filled every year. There were years
when only gabaim and trustees were elected. It is also apparent that some offices
were filled by electors. Usually one, less frequently two or three electors of a ḥevrah
kadishah were nominated as its authority members each year.
Another phenomenon may be observed in Swarzędz: the brotherhood’s au-
thorities, especially gabaim, included many people who were at the same time
members of the community authorities. When lists of elected members of the com-
munity’s and brotherhood’s authorities are compared (naturally in those years in
which complete lists are available), one can see that usually two people (less fre-
quently one, three, or four), who were members of the brotherhood’s authorities,
would also hold community offices. A special situation occurred in 1736 when out
of 13 members of the brotherhood’s authorities 8 were also members of the com-
munity authorities. It was also common that the same people would hold most
important community offices of a dayan, parnas, gabai, and also tovi, the five men,
account supervisor, or elector. Even if their names were not listed in one year, then
they were the authority members either in the previous or in the following years.
There was little rotation among the officials of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah, like
in the community authorities: the same people would hold an office for many years
and very few new entrants were allowed.
It is gabaim who were the most important officials in a brotherhood. On some
election lists the name of one of the gabaim would be enclosed with a note that he
was to take care of the brotherhood’s pinkas (mashgiyaḥ al ha-pinkas).39 Trustees
were to supervise the brotherhood’s coffers, and the fact that two kinds of trustees
were elected indicates that they must have consisted of two collection boxes,
a small one and a big one. Trustees also acted as custodians of valuable objects
donated to the brotherhood, e.g., silver or brass dishes. Brotherhood authorities
convened their meetings, sometimes in the presence of the community rabbi.
It is interesting that even the electors of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah, most
probably following the example of the electors of the Swarzędz kahal, continued
to work all year long. They were charged with a duty to examine the regulations
39 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, pp. 54v and 56v (1755 and 1756).
adopted by the brotherhood. In 1786, when a regulation laying down the duties and
remuneration of the shames was adopted, the electors certified that the decisions
had been made in accordance with the will and permission of the brotherhood’s
gabaim.40
Apart from the foregoing offices, which were held gratuitously, a brotherhood
also hired functionaries whom it paid salaries. The most important of them was
a shames who discharged many support functions which he would be commis-
sioned by the brotherhood’s authorities: he delivered information, summoned peo-
ple to prayers, etc. It was also his responsibility to collect money to the brother-
hood’s coffers, i.a., membership fees, debts, or fines. In 1736, shames Shlomo was
charged with a task of delivering the amount of one and a half złoty to the hands
of the brotherhood’s trustee, and should he fail to do it in time, then he would have
to pay the same amount out of his own pocket or it would be deducted from his
salary. Then he would keep the money he would collect later on. The shames
agreed to discharge this duty, and in return, to offset his risk, his remuneration was
raised (from 15 to 18 zł. a year).41 In 1745, another shames named Hirsh (who was
also holding the function of a teacher) complained that it was hard for him to col-
lect the above-mentioned amount, as people did not pay their membership fees,
and in effect it was reduced to 1 zł. 10 gr. by the brotherhood’s authorities.42
There is a clear trend in the regulations adopted by brotherhood authorities to
limit new member admissions. A decision was taken in 1759 that new members
would be admitted once a year, on the 7th day of Adar, at a meeting of the brother-
hood’s gabaim and trustees.43 It has also been established that in other charity
brotherhoods admissions were preceded by an internship of 2 or 3 years;44 and this
practice must have also been followed in Swarzędz. Then a freshly admitted mem-
ber would pay an admission fee whose minimum amount was set at 3 zł.45 A regu-
lation was issued in 1796 that all the brotherhood’s members should be informed
of such admissions and that they should take place at the time of a meeting held
either on the 7th of Adar or on Shmone Atseret (the last day of the Feast of Taber-
nacles). An admission granted in a different way would be invalid.46
40 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 144 (Swarzędz, 2 Av 5546 / July 27, 1786).

42 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 33 (Swarzędz, 2 Iyar 5505 / May 4, 1745). But in 1759 an order was
issued to provide shames Hirsh with a weekly amount of 1 zł. 20 gr. – CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 67
(Swarzędz, 9 Iyar 5519 / May 6, 1759).
43 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 66v (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5519 / April 25, 1759). That admissions were
made only on the 7th day of Adar is also confirmed by the second pinkas of ḥevrah kadishah (JTS
4031). Interestingly, in the leap year 1772 it was recorded that it was the first month Adar (no notes
were made in other leap years).
44 Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas bractwa pogrzebowego,” pp. 55–80.
46 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 180 (Swarzędz, 19 Adar I 5556 / February 28, 1796).
The other pinkas of the Swarzędz charity brotherhood sheds quite a new light
on its membership.47 It includes two lists of its members. They are not dated, but
it follows from the pinkas further on that they were compiled before 1772. The first
of them48 consists of 343 names. They are arranged in alphabetical order; each
alphabet letter is followed by names. Each name is attached with the father’s or
father-in-law’s name; sometimes both are offered, as well as nick-names or oc-
cupations. Fourteen names are preceded by the word son-in-law (ḥ atan), which
must have been used to designate young men who were most probably supported
by their fathers-in-law. The names of sons-in-law are usually at the end of the list.
Two of them are preceded by the word boy (naar). The alphabetical order of names
and absence of any additional information indicate that the list reflected the mem-
bership of the brotherhood at the moment it was made. Later on, 63 names were
stricken off, most probably of the deceased members. Sometimes the word “son-
in-law” preceding the name was also deleted, which probably means that the per-
son became independent.
The second list49 is the verification of the first one. It lists the same people as
the first one, except that some names are deleted and new ones are added. It does
not make any reference to a son-in-law, if the word was earlier deleted. It includes
one child (yeled ), six boys (naar), one young man (baḥ ur) and sixteen sons-in-
law. Some of those designations were deleted later on. The list is not complete
and includes 193 names to the letter kaf, with space left to add the other ones. But
the number of people (in the first list there are 187 names to the letter kaf ) already
listed indicates that, when complete, both lists would have included a similar
number of people. Like in the first list, some names (37) were later deleted.
It is interesting to compare the list of the ḥevrah kadishah members with the
number of the Swarzędz community’s residents. A census carried in Swarzędz in
1764–65 recorded 1024 Jews (men and women) aged more than one (1390 people
after corrections), and a census carried by the Prussian authorities in 1793 re-
corded 1373 Jews.50 It may be assumed that men accounted for a half of the 1400
(after the actual figure has been rounded up) Jewish residents, i.e., 700 people. The
first, complete list of the brotherhood’s members includes 343 names, meaning
that one man in two (including infants and children!) was a ḥevrah kadishah mem-
ber. The fact that minors (if the designation “child” or “boy” before the name is to
be interpreted in that way) are listed indicates that their ratio might have even been
higher.
This mass-scale membership in the brotherhood is confirmed by a relatively
high number of new admissions every year. The second part of the pinkas51 in-
47 For more on the subject, see Michałowska, “Honour or duty?”
48 JTS 4031, pp. 1–3v.
49 JTS 4031, pp. 4–5v.
50 About census data, see Chapter 1.
51 JTS 4031, pp. 7–15v.
cludes lists of new admissions. There are 38 lists of new admissions made from
1772 to 1809. The number of those admitted to the brotherhood every year ranges
from three (as few members as that were admitted in 1777 and 1806) to twenty six
(in 1794). In those 38 years a total of 416 people were admitted, an average of
eleven people a year.52 It also follows from those records that the trial period,
which preceded the admission of a new member, lasted three years.53
The foregoing data shed quite a new light on charity brotherhoods and their
membership. They disprove a view that prevails in the literature on this subject
that they were elitist and prestigious because of a limited number of new admis-
sions.54 In the light of the second pinkas of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah, mem-
bership in the brotherhood was more like an obligation that was to be fulfilled by
adult men than an honor bestowed on a chosen few. This must have been due to
the fact that the duty to take care of the sick and dying and to prepare a funeral was
a heavy burden on the brotherhood’s members. This is best evidenced by regula-
tions which remind of the need to report for duty according to the order established
by lot drawing and which warn potential evaders of punishment. This may have
been the reason why attempts were made to ensure that a larger group of people
shared those onerous duties. Prestige was certainly involved when someone was
the member of the ḥevrah kadishah’s authorities, which, as follows from the lists
52 At the end of the 18th century, admissions to the charity brotherhood were equally numerous
in Praga (near Warsaw), where the number of new admissions (usually for a trial period of one or
two years) ranged from a few to more than a dozen people a year – CAHJP, PL/4 (Copy of the pinkas
of the charity brotherhood in Praga (near Warsaw) 1785–1870).
53 A three-year trial period was also adopted by other charity brotherhoods, i.a., in Zamość,
where people on trial were not allowed to be electors or members of brotherhood authorities (Kupfer,
ed., “Pinkas bractwa pogrzebowego,” pp. 57–59). In the pinkas of the charity brotherhood in Praga
(near Warsaw) (1785–1870) a reference is made to a one-year trial period, after which an intern had
only active electoral rights, and after two more years, both active and passive electoral rights. Entries
also speak about internships of two or three years, and sometimes a decision about its duration was
left to the assembly (CAHJP, PL/4, pp. 4 and 8).
54 Limits imposed on new admissions to the charity brotherhood in Zamość are mentioned by
Efraim Kupfer in his introduction to the edition of the brotherhood’s pinkas (Kupfer, “Pinkas brac-
twa pogrzebowego,” pp. 50–51). He observes that initially (i.e., at the end of the 16th century) the
brotherhood had mass-scale membership, but in time, beginning from the 17th century, it was limited
after a new brotherhood’s statute had been adopted in 1687, and then amended. It should be noted,
however, that the financial requirement laid down in the above-mentioned statute (and amendments),
and payment of appropriate taxes and charges, applied only to the brotherhood’s authorities. Similar
criteria had to be met by people seeking community positions. Growing charges affected all com-
munity residents who used the ḥevrah kadishah’s services. Growing charges, including the member-
ship fees, were part of the financial policy followed by Jewish communities in those days whose
main purpose was to raise additional funds, and not, as Kupfer suggests, to eliminate poorer members
from the brotherhood. The only regulation that did limit access to the brotherhood was the amend-
ment of 1709 which prohibited admitting more than one person a year (ibidem, p. 63). But it follows
from other entries that this was not observed (ibidem, p. 72).
of those who were elected, were confined to a narrow group of people who were
also members of the community authorities.
Records made in the pinkas of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah reflect conflicts
that broke out inside the brotherhood. Disputes and quarrels, of which it is only
known that they were instigated by the hatred to the brotherhood’s gabaim, re-
sulted in the intervention by the community authorities and suspension of the
brotherhood’s authorities. The suspension decision was then revoked by the fol-
lowing community authorities which restored the former powers of the gabaim.
Nobody, not even the rabbi, was allowed to interfere with their decisions and none
of them could be nullified. Anyone who would try to oppose the brotherhood’s
gabaim would be expelled, fined and cursed, and his name would be announced in
the synagogue.55
The main responsibility of charity brotherhoods was to take care of the sick
and dying and to prepare funeral ceremonies. It was also their duty to oversee the
operation of a poorhouse or hospital (hekdesh), which was to accommodate not
only the sick but also the old, lonely, and disabled. It follows from the records in
the pinkas of Poznań electors that the town had a separate brotherhood that took
care of the sick (ḥ evrat bikur ḥ olim).56 It may be concluded, therefore, that the
Poznań ḥevrah kadishah focused only on funeral services. In a smaller commu-
nity like Swarzędz, those two tasks were fulfilled by one brotherhood.
The members of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah had the responsibility to visit
the sick, both during the day and at night, to keep vigil at the bedside of a dying or
deceased person, clean the corpse and prepare the funeral. In the event of some-
body’s illness or death, each brotherhood member was obliged to come to perform
the last offices, following an order established by lot drawing. If someone had no
time to spare, he had to provide his substitute, paying him out of his own pocket.
When he was not at home, then someone else was appointed to perform such of-
fices, and the absentee would be the first one to perform a duty on the following
occasion. The purpose of such a scrupulous specification of duties was to avoid
any disputes and controversies among the brotherhood’s members.57 Fines were
levied on those members whose names were drawn but who did not show up to
dig a grave, carry the stretcher with a corpse, or take part in the funeral procession,
as instructed by the gabai.58
Special duties were imposed on members of the ḥevrah’s authorities; they
were to be the first to console the sick or dying, regardless of their position or af-
fluence. Reminders were also given on several occasions that people should not
nominate anyone who did not take part in the brotherhood’s work, supported by
55 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 114 (Swarzędz, no date).

56 AEPno. 2248 (Passover 5547/1787).
57 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 180 (Swarzędz, 19 Adar I 5556 / February 28, 1796).
58 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 177v (Swarzędz, no date).
the appropriate quote from the Book of Proverbs 27:18 (Who so keepeth the fig tree
shall each the fruit thereof ). Special emphasis was put on the participation in the
ceremony of body cleaning. There was also another precondition to be nominated
for a position in the brotherhood’s authorities: one had to be a community resident
for five years.59
It was also the responsibility of the brotherhood to take care of the mourners,
especially during shivah, a period of strict mourning which lasted for seven days
from the funeral. It is mentioned in a bequest in which the deceased vowed to
donate the Torah scroll to the brotherhood along with the small box and a silver
pointer (yad). Prior to that bequest there was a custom that at the time of shivah
the mourner would be brought the Torah scroll from the synagogue or from the
beit midrash, but, as it was observed, it was a disgrace to the Torah when it was
carried uncovered in the streets and marketplaces. So from then on the brother-
hood’s shames was to carry bequeathed things to the mourner’s house, and should
they be damaged, their repair would be financed by the brotherhood. In return for
such a bequest, the brotherhood was to commemorate the founder’s and his son’s
death anniversaries by lighting candles.60 Still another donor earmarked 50 zł. out
of his legacy and donated it to the ḥevrah kadishah in return for a minyan on his
death’s anniversary and for the El male raḥ amim prayer reminiscing about his
soul.61 Several other bequests are mentioned in the brotherhood’s pinkas, usually
in the form of dishes and liturgical equipment (silver, brass, and zinc), books, or
money,62 and it is likely that their testators, too, were to be mentioned in prayers
after their death.
The 7th day of the month of Adar was a special day for the Swarzędz ḥevrah
kadishah, because it was traditionally viewed as the anniversary of Moses’ death
who was a patron of sorts for the brotherhood. On that day the brotherhood’s
members had to fast. According to a record made in the Swarzędz pinkas, that
custom was observed by the majority of the Diaspora’s communities, also in the
Holy Land.63 But pinkasim also mention other dates of that fast, e.g., members of
the ḥevrah kadishah in Praga (near Warsaw) used to fast on the 20th day of Elul.64
On the eve of the fast, the brotherhood’s shames had to go to the houses of
gabaim, trustees, and the brotherhood’s members to remind them of the fast and
that it should begin in the afternoon. If the 7th of Adar was on the Sabbath, then the
fasting was moved to the preceding day. The ḥevrah’s authorities decided that
gabaim, trustees, and also other people should fast, for a total of not less than
60 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 121v (Swarzędz, 13 Kislev 5535 / November 16, 1774).
61 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 12 (Swarzędz, no date).
62 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 75v (Swarzędz, 29 Iyar 5521 / June 2, 1761; 1 Iyar 5524 / May 3, 1764;
27 Nisan 5525? / April 18, 1765; 22 Tevet 5529 / January 1, 1769; winter 5545 / 1784/85).
63 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 6 (Swarzędz, 1 Adar 5492? / July 23, 1732).
64 CAHJP, PL/4, p. 6.
18 people. The brotherhood’s gabai was allowed to fine a member who would
ignore that obligation (labeled as mitzva).65
During the fast, people would attend the synagogue three times a day for the
morning, afternoon, and evening services, and they would pray, do penance
(seliḥ ot), and read appropriate fragments of the Scriptures in the order prescribed
by the pinkas. After the morning service, a gathering for the minyan consisting of
10 people (out of the said 18) was obliged to go to the cemetery where they would
walk around the graves of the righteous. Said on that occasion was a special prayer
intended especially for that ceremony.66 When the funeral ceremony was per-
formed, the dead were asked forgiveness for all sins and offenses which might
have insulted them, committed even unawares.
Some insight as to the nature of the above-mentioned insults to the dead is
provided by a record made in 1732. The record concerns the transgressions com-
mitted by Hirshel, shames of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah, who buried the dead
improperly. The rabbi and the rabbinic court along with the authorities of the com-
munity and the ḥevrah kadishah punished him, reminding everybody on that oc-
casion that the dead deserved much higher respect than the living. Hirshel had to
take an oath in the great synagogue that in future he would act appropriately, and
that, i.a., he would not bury the dead in the road that encircled the graves, but ex-
actly, where they should be buried, inside the cemetery. He was also prohibited to
choose the burial site himself and he was to be accompanied by the community’s
charity gabai who was in office that month. Moreover, Hirshel was to dig the grave
in the presence of the ḥevrah kadishah’s gabai or trustee or another appointed man
who was familiar with the law and customs. All the foregoing measures were
adopted because it happened before that a grave had been dug at the site of an-
other grave, and thus corpses had been profaned. Under the same oath, Hirshel was
also committed to take pledges from those brotherhood’s members who would be
appointed to dig the grave but would be reluctant to do that; he also had to be care-
ful not to appoint single young men for the job, but only married men. Should
Hirshel fail to abide by any of the foregoing rules, he would be deprived of the
function of the brotherhood’s shames and of the community’s citizenship.67
After the fast, the brotherhood’s authorities were obliged to collect and exam-
ine all bills.68 It must have been at the same meeting that new members were ad-
mitted, as mentioned earlier in this chapter. The regulations of 1744 which curbed
excessive spending by the ḥevrah’s gabaim and trustees on the night following the
fast,69 that must have gone for a lavish dinner, indicate that people tried to make
up for the fast.
65CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 6 (Swarzędz, 1 Adar 5492? / July 23, 1732).
66CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 6v (Swarzędz, no date).
67 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p.11 (Swarzędz, 18 Sivan 5492 / June 11, 1732).
68 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 6 (Swarzędz, 1 Adar 5492? / July 23, 1732).
69 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 28 (Swarzędz, 5504/1744) – it was forbidden to spend more than 3 zł.
on that day to which the trustee was committed under pain of ḥerem. He was also warned that should
A significant part of the pinkas of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah consists of

accounts. Each year proceeds and expenses were diligently reconciled and summed
up. The proceeds most frequently came from burial fees, repaid debts, fees for
reading in the synagogue, payments for a gathering for the minyan, the borrowing
of the Torah scroll at the time of mourning and donations to the brotherhood. The
brotherhood’s members were also obliged to pay membership fees. Admission
fees had to be paid by those who were admitted into the brotherhood. Those paid
in Swarzędz ranged from 3 gr. to 1 zł. 18 gr., an amount which sometimes might
have been only a portion of payment.70 When Leib, a physician, was admitted into
the brotherhood in 1772, it was recorded that he paid his admission fee in medi-
cines, in accordance with a calculation made by the ḥevrah kadishah’s gabaim.71
Expenses most frequently consisted of money paid out to the poor and people
in need, usually sick, widows, wives whose husbands were ill, etc. Another group
of expenses were costs that had to be incurred by the brotherhood when it was tak-
ing care of the sick or preparing a funeral. These were payments for sitting at the
sick person’s bedside, grave digging, repairs of equipment belonging to the broth-
erhood (e.g., spades), and payments to physicians and for medicines (mainly for
the poor living in the poorhouse). The brotherhood also paid its shames. Expenses
also included small sums of money paid to guests whose place of origin was usu-
ally identified; most of them came from other communities of Wielkopolska:
Leszno, Kalisz, Głogów, Międzyrzecz, and from German lands (Ashkenaz) but
sometimes also from as far away as Jerusalem. Sometimes the guest’s profession
was also offered, especially if he happened to be a scholar, preacher, or teacher.
The brotherhood also extended loans to the poor and to those in need, and it
was the duty of its shames to collect them later. Since this job was hard to do, he
was paid an extra 6 zł. for his shoes.72
During the intermediate days of Passover, the outgoing authorities of a ḥevrah
squared their accounts for the past year at a meeting with gabaim and trustees. The
account squaring closed with a balance which included all earnings and expenses
of the year, and sometimes it also offered an amount carried forward from the
previous year. In an overwhelming majority of cases the balance was positive, and
it was only a few times over the entire discussed period that expenses were higher
than earnings.73
he break the prohibition, then the expense would not be approved and he would have to cover it out
of his own pocket.
70 JTS 4031. In 1759, a minimal admission fee was set at 3 zł. – CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 66v
(Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5519 / April 25, 1759).

71 JTS 4031, p. 8.
72 CAHJP, PL/Sw 46, p. 144 (Swarzędz, 2 Av 5546 / July 27, 1786).
73 Efraim Kupfer, the editor of the pinkas of the Zamość charity brotherhood, observes that,
owing to the discharge of important public functions by the brotherhood, it raised significant funding
and was bequeathed a number of real estates and businesses. In time, it also became the kahal’s
lender (Kupfer, ed., “Pinkas bractwa pogrzebowego,” p. 53).
The very high position that a ḥevrah kadishah enjoyed, and especially the
monopoly it held over burial services, might have led to abuse of its powers. The
ḥevrah kadishah was sometimes ruthless in charging its fees, some of them very
high; sometimes, it seriously abused its authority. This is what happened in many
communities, e.g., in Orla.74 That such abuses were the fact is corroborated by
a regulation issued by the Lithuanian Vaad in 1761, whereby funeral brotherhoods
were prohibited to delay funerals for financial reasons, e.g., when mourners of-
fered a pledge instead of cash or when any doubts arose as to who would cover
funeral costs; it also set maximum funeral fees that would hence depend on how
rich the deceased and his family were.75 However, in the Poznań and Swarzędz
sources there are no examples of any such flagrant abuses of its dominant position
by the local ḥevrah kadishah.
In ḥevrah kadishah operations, a very important role was played by its rela-
tions with community authorities. Not only was it probably the only brotherhood
for which supervisors were appointed at the time of the community elections, but
its authorities included permanent representatives of the community’s authori-
ties.76 This fact alone could not be indifferent to their mutual relations.
Community authorities were obliged to control the brotherhood’s activities.
Information about the above-mentioned conflict in the authorities of the Swarzędz
ḥevrah kadishah reached the community authorities and made it intervene. When
in financial dire straits, the community authorities tried to push some of obliga-
tions onto associations, and especially, as one may easily guess, onto the ḥevrah
kadishah, the most important and the most prosperous of all the brotherhoods in
a community. The Poznań electors imposed an obligation on a few guilds and
74 In the law of the Orla kahal, commissioned by the town owner in 1780 to eliminate any ir-
regularities in the operation of the local community, one of its articles is devoted to the ḥevrah
kadishah. It reads that since the brotherhood does not bury the dead out of mercy, it should at least
show moderation in how much it charges for its services. The brotherhood should not refuse to admit
anyone, except fornicators, thieves, and well-known criminals (Leszczyński, ed., “Ustawa kahału
orlańskiego,” p. 121).
76 As Gershon David Hundert observes, usually members of the ḥevrah kadishah authorities
were also members of the community authorities (Hundert, The Jews in a Polish Private Town,
p. 88). Gradual dependence of the brotherhood on the kahal is described by the editor of the above-
mentioned pinkas of the Zamość ḥevrah kadishah: “The Zamość brotherhood was established as an
independent and self-governing institution. In the first phase of its existence, the brotherhood en-
acted the appropriate provisions of its statute in order to defend itself from the centralizing pressures
exerted by the kahal (by banning the kahal leaders from top positions in the brotherhood and by
making a reservation that the local rabbi could not be the brotherhood’s member). After the brother-
hood’s reorganization in 1687, the kahal’s leaders or former leaders became members of a privileged
caste which had been vested with the exclusive right to exercise power in the brotherhood.” (Kupfer,
ed., “Pinkas bractwa pogrzebowego,” pp. 53–54). Abram Gawurin writes that the Tykocin kahal used
its ḥevrah kadishah to collect the debts of the deceased individual, who would not be buried until his
family paid all the amounts due (Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 76).
BROTHERHOODS 153
brotherhoods, including its charity brotherhood, to contribute half a złoty each

month to the remuneration of two scholars, who were to study in beit midrash.77
In 1676, the same electors charged all the holy brotherhoods, i.e., the religious
ones, with an obligation to lend some money for the repairs of the High Syna-
gogue.78 In the accounting records of the Swarzędz ḥevrah kadishah, one may
come across synagogue-related expenses, repairs of its equipment, etc.
3. OTHER BROTHERHOODS
There were also other brotherhoods that operated in Jewish communities.

Like ḥevrah kadishah, they evolved from commissions of the kahal which began
to gradually hand them their powers.
Education was the focus of attention of the Talmud-Torah brotherhood
(ḥ evrat talmud-torah), which was also referred to as the school brotherhood. Al-
though the statutes of such brotherhoods operating in the communities of Poznań
and Swarzędz have not survived, based on the preserved text of the Kraków statute
of 163779 one may learn about their activities, which must have been similar. The
brotherhood’s members were obliged to take care of education and schools, super-
vise teachers, visit schools, and check pupils’ progress. It was also the brother-
hood’s responsibility to develop school curricula. It follows from one of the stat-
ute’s provisions that the brotherhood’s members were to pick poor boys in the
streets and hire a teacher for them. After a boy turned fourteen, the brotherhood
would decide about his future: the gifted one was allowed to continue his educa-
tion at the yeshivah, and the one without any talents would have to take up a trade
or a craft. The statute also defined the sources of the brotherhood’s income. In-
come was to come from a portion of donations made at the time of the Torah read-
ing, on the occasion of a circumcision or wedding, from a portion of donations
collected in synagogue boxes, offerings made by children’s parents, from the tax
levied on the remuneration of private teachers, and from membership fees.80
In 1678, the Poznań electors instructed the officials appointed for the Talmud
Torah to take proper care of beit midrash, so that it be repaired and restored to its
previous condition.81 In 1692 an order was issued by the electors that the three
gabaim of the Talmud Torah were to be joined by a fourth person who was to come
from the family of the deceased Shimon Baksa (he was the founder of one of
77 AEP no. 2248 (Passover 5547/1787).

78 AEP nos. 1310, 1311 (Passover 5436/1676).
79 The text is reconstructed from the oldest statute of the Kraków school brotherhood from
1551, which was destroyed by fire along with pinkasim; Majer Bałaban offers the entire text of the
statute (Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, pp. 471–474).
80 Ibidem.
81 AEP no. 1367 (5438/1678).
Poznań’s batei midrash). The fourth gabai was to pay special attention to teachers
in beit midrash, so that they discharged their duties appropriately.82 A teacher who
was to teach young men was to be selected by a meeting consisting of the rabbi,
the gabaim of the Talmud Torah, and two people representing the kahal.83
The Poznań electors reiterated on several occasions that it was necessary to
establish a teaching order in beit midrash and to control teachers so that learning
went on as it should and pupils did not hang around in the streets. On another oc-
casion, the gabaim of the Talmud-Torah brotherhood were charged a duty on im-
porting books (kuntresim84) which they were to pay to the printing house. The
books were to be sold to the community, but at no profit, so that all scholars could
buy them and thus extol the Torah.85
The Talmud-Torah brotherhood had its own till (kupat talmud-torah).86 In
order to raise the financing necessary for the operation of the Poznań Talmud To-
rah, a collection was gathered at the time of the Feast of Weeks, a holiday celebrat-
ing the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai, which, as was emphasized, was an
ancestors’ custom. The donations, which were to be largely spent on repairs of the
damaged Torah books, were mandatory and their amount depended on commu-
nity taxes.87 The brotherhood’s funds were used to pay the salaries of scholars,
who were to study at beit midrash, and of teachers and examiners who were to
check pupils’ progress (later on, when faced with financial difficulties, it became
the responsibility of scholars, especially those who were paid by the Talmud-Torah
brotherhood).
Apart from the ḥevrah kadishah, other charity brotherhoods also operated in
the Poznań and Swarzędz communities. A brotherhood for the ransom of cap-
tives (ḥ evrat pidion shvuim) was involved in a different kind of charity work. In
the pinkas of the Poznań electors, as many as three brotherhoods labeled as ḥ evrat
geulot ha-nefesh are mentioned, each of them identified with a consecutive number.
They collected money to pay ransom for Jews who had been captured. They were
usually captured during war operations and held in captivity. But according to
a record made in the Poznań pinkas, the same fund was used to free Jews who were
82 AEP no. 1618 (Passover 5452/1692).

83 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250 (Poznań, 23 Ḥeshvan 5436 / November 12, 1675).
84 The word kuntresim stands for books, brochures, and textbooks, and also Rashi’s (Shlomo
ben Itsḥak, 1040–1105) commentaries to the Talmud.

85 AEP no. 1435 (Passover 5441/1681). The Poznań community frequently discussed the prob-
lem of the book shortage, but at the same time it prohibited buying them from individuals without
the kahal’s permission (AEP no. 1652, Passover 5454/1694), see Weinryb, Texts and Studies, p. 56.
86 Bernard D. Weinryb claims that the money spent by the Poznań community on education
(offered to the Talmud-Torah brotherhood) was rather small initially (ca. 2% of total expenses in
1637/38), and later no funds were earmarked in the budget, thus making schools totally dependent
on private donations. A similar approach was taken to charity spending, which was gradually limited
in the community budget (ibidem, pp. 50, 55–56).
87 AEP no. 2053 (Passover 5481/1721).
BROTHERHOODS 155
captured and imprisoned by Polish nobility (usually because of their debts).

A record made in 1677 describes one such event, except that the released indi-
vidual returned the parnas the amount that was covered by the brotherhood.88 It
also follows from the same entry that money collected in Poznań was sent to
Kraków to pay ransoms for captives, and that the kahal sometimes borrowed mon-
ey from the fund and it was necessary to supplement its balance before any cash
was sent.
Poznań and Swarzędz also had brotherhoods supporting the poor in the
Land of Israel. The gabaim of the Land of Israel (gabaei erets yisrael) collected
money for its poor. It was recorded in the Swarzędz pinkas in 1752 that three
gabaim mentioned by name were elected in the presence of an emissary from Je-
rusalem. Their duty was to collect money twice a year and to record proceeds in
the appropriate pinkas. The fourth individual nominated at that time was a gabai
and trustee of the Land of Israel who was to carry the collected amount to Frank-
furt and to hand it to the Land of Israel’s gabaim of the holy community of Berlin
(and get a receipt).89
In the Jewish communities of the Commonwealth, there were also brother-
hoods of girls’ dowry (ḥ evrat haknasat kalah). They frequently raised funding
that was to be used for the dowries and trousseaus of poor brides. Other brother-
hoods collected donations that were to support orphans and widows. It follows
from pinkas entries that in Poznań and Swarzędz such charity work was carried
out by the kahal and gabaim.
There were also religious brotherhoods, e.g., the ones that recited psalms90
or guarded the Eternal Light (ḥ evrat ner tamid) by adding oil to the olive lamp
which was constantly ablaze in the synagogue. The pinkas of the Poznań electors
also mentions the brotherhood of the seven men appointed to read the Torah (ḥ evrat
shivah kruim).91 Frequently the brotherhood of Eternal Light and the brotherhood
of the seven men to read the Torah were merged.92
88 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 252 (Poznań, 26 Adar II 5437 / March 30, 1677).
89 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 41–42 (Swarzędz, 6 Adar
5512 / February 21, 1752).
90 Natan Hanower wrote in his chronicle that in some communities there was a brotherhood of
sentinels of the morning. Its members would wake up before the dawn for prayers and to mourn the
destruction of the Temple, as well as the brotherhood of psalms, whose members would recite psalms
for one hour preceding prayers (Hanower, Jewen Mecula, vol. 4, p. 408).
91 AEP no. 2248 (Passover 5547/1787). The brotherhood to read the Torah was to provide each
of its members to be appointed to read the Torah at least once every three–four weeks (Yaari, “Ner
Tamid Societies,” p. 119). Bernard D. Weinryb writes that the purpose of this brotherhood was to
read the Torah and to say additional prayers (musaf ) in locations where the Jewish population was
not so numerous (Weinryb, “Studies in the Communal History,” p. 134).
92 Yaari, “Ner Tamid Societies,” p. 119. By merging with the brotherhood of the Eternal Light,
the brotherhood had guaranteed proceeds from the fees paid by members when they were invited to
read the Torah.
The kahal exercised control over all kinds of associations. The easiest way
was to appoint its own officials as members of brotherhood authorities (either
alone or together with others appointed by the brotherhood). In the electoral reg-
isters of Swarzędz, the lists of those elected at the time of the Passover include the
gabaim for ransom of captives, the gabaim of the Land of Israel, the gabaim of
the Eternal Light. There were also elected three, though usually two, officials who
were to take care of the Talmud-Torah brotherhood. It also happened that electors
or the kahal levied taxes or one-off charges on brotherhoods, usually to be able to
repay the community’s debts or to repair the synagogue, etc.
CHAPTER EIGHT
COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES
AND THE CONTROL OF RESIDENTS
A community’s authorities exercised their control over its residents mainly by

means of h.azakah. This term stands for the right to own something or to do some-
thing, but it may also be translated as a concession or permit. All more important
areas of activity required that a ḥazakah be granted by the community authorities.
One could live in a community pursuant to a residence ḥazakah, or the communi-
ty’s citizenship. A ḥazakah to pursue one’s profession (e.g., to open a store or
a workshop) would allow one to earn a living, and an ownership ḥazakah vested
one with the right to buy and own real estate. Family life was also regulated by
various permits: a permit was required to become engaged or to break an engage-
ment, to marry, or to have a funeral. A ḥazakah would be issued pursuant to the
kahal’s decision and at its discretion. No criteria were set which, when fulfilled,
would automatically guarantee that a ḥazakah would be granted. It was also the
kahal that set a fee for a ḥazakah. Such payments were a major source of the com-
munity’s income. Cancellation of a ḥazakah was one of the punishments imposed
when most serious crimes were committed.
1. CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE IN A COMMUNITY
In both communities discussed here, the residents were not a homogeneous

group. Only those who had been granted the community’s citizenship, labeled as
irinut, ḥezkat irinut, or sometimes as ḥezkat ha-kehilah and ḥezkat ha-ishuv, en-
joyed all privileges. It entailed such political rights as the right to elect and to be
elected to community offices. The pinkas of Poznań electors includes several re-
minders that a nomination for a dayan should not be offered to anyone who is not
the community’s resident and who has not been married for at least three years
(which was tantamount to having citizenship for three years).1 It follows from an-
other record that this requirement had to be met to hold all the community offices.2
1 AEP no. 1258 (Passover 5434/1674) and AEP no. 1399 (Passover 5439/1679).
2 AEP no. 1774 (Passover 5460/1700).
158 COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES AND RESIDENTS
Citizenship allowed an individual to do business freely. In 1772 the authori-

ties of the Swarzędz community reminded one of its residents, the singer Uri, in
connection with rumors that he intended to get involved in trade, that he did not
have citizenship and was no more than a singer working for the community’s can-
tor, which did not permit him to conduct commercial activities. Should it transpire
that he nevertheless become engaged in trade, he would have to leave the com-
munity immediately.3 But sometimes even citizenship did not suffice: it follows
from the Swarzędz pinkas that sons-in-law who had been granted citizenship were
prohibited from engaging in trade or entering partnerships with household heads,
unless they were prepared to pay a property tax, because then they would be treat-
ed as household heads.4
Citizenship entailed a variety of prominent functions and honors, such as the
Torah reading or kaddish saying on the anniversary of a close relative’s death.5 It
follows from the pinkas of the Poznań synagogue that a bridegroom with the
town’s citizenship was allowed to pick a synagogue where he would step out to
read the Torah on the Sabbath preceding his wedding, and if he did not have citi-
zenship, he had to go to the synagogue where his future father-in-law used to pray.6
Children whose parents were a community’s citizens would be granted citi-
zenship after they got married. This practice followed from a conviction that only
a married person could exercise all civil rights. People coming from other com-
munities were able to apply for citizenship of a community of their choice. The
application had to be filed either with the kahal or the kahal’s electors. On such
occasions disputes would break out as to who was authorized to take such a deci-
sion. After one such dispute, it was decided in Swarzędz that neither the kahal nor
the electors were allowed to grant a ḥazakah independently; rather, they had to
make that decision together at their joint meeting.7
A person granted citizenship would be issued an appropriate certificate8 and
was charged a special fee, which would sometimes be divided into several install-
ments. At times this was done with a proviso that until all payments were made the
applicant would not be allowed to live in the community.9 Synagogue shamesim
3 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 71 (Swarzędz, 18 Av 5532 /
August 17, 1772).

4 Eadem, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 156–159 (Swarzędz, 5489/1729).
5 Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 88.
6 JNUL, 8º2469, p. 6 (Poznań, no date).
7 JTS 3652, p. 121v (Swarzędz, 20 Nisan 5489 / April 19, 1729), p. 197 (Swarzędz, 6 Iyar 5507
/ April 16, 1747).

8 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 50–51 (Swarzędz, 18
Ḥeshvan 5523 / November 4, 1762) – Moshe, son of reb A., asked the Swarzędz kahal to grant citi-
zenship to his son-in-law, Ayzik, son of reb B., who produced the citizenship ḥazakah in the holy
community of Leszno. But he also claimed that he came from Swarzędz. Was he seeking double
citizenship?
9 Ibidem, p. 77 (Swarzędz, 10 Av 5543 / July 8, 1783).
CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE IN A COMMUNITY 159
were prohibited from announcing ḥazakah until all payments had been made and
a special receipt from the tax collector had been delivered.10 When a citizen of one
community would apply for the citizenship of another community, then, apart
from the fee, he would also asked to deliver a letter from the shames of the com-
munity which had been his place of residence. The letter was to state plainly that
the former community had no claims against him and that he had no debts
to pay.11
When two people coming from different communities were married, it was
a prevailing practice that the wife’s community would be the place where the cou-
ple would live. This is why a young man usually applied for citizenship in his fi-
ancée’s community.12 The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim frequently refer to steps
taken by each community’s citizens so that their prospective sons-in-law could get
citizenship and to who would need to cover the costs of that procedure. In 1674,
when Moshe, son of Aron from Piła, son-in-law of Leib, the Poznań shames, was
to get citizenship, it was recorded that he had been granted one only in effect of
the pleas and requests made by his father-in-law and also in recognition of his
venerable ancestors. The names of three guarantors were recorded, of whom one
was the said father-in-law. They were to vouch for his solvency, and should he
contract any new debt or another obligation at the time of his stay in Poznań, they
would have to pay the amount, which they vowed to do before the kahal.13
Citizenship was vested for an indefinite or definite period. It was usually he-
reditary, but in specific cases this privilege would exclude children. This is what
usually happened when two people from different communities remarried, and
then the husband would move to his wife’s community and be granted its citizen-
ship which then would not cover his children from his previous marriage.14
Citizenship was granted upon a promise to behave properly. A few records
include a description of the ceremony that accompanied ḥazakah granting. Having
made all necessary payments, a young man, who received the citizenship of the
community of Swarzędz in 1727, had to vow before the aron ha-kodesh and in the
presence of two shamesim that should he misbehave, then he would be deprived
10 AEP no. 1831 (Passover 5464/1704).

11 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 9 (Swarzędz, 20 Tishri 5499
/ October 4, 1738).
12 The rule that a son-in-law is to be granted the citizenship of his father-in-law (i.e., his wife)
is laid down in the Kraków statute (1595). The statute also lists people whom they were allowed to
invite to live in the community: a son with his wife and children, a son-in-law with his wife and
children, a father if a widower, and a widowed mother, but the community citizen was not allowed
to invite his parents’ children or grandchildren.
13 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 246 (Poznań, 8 Kislev 5435 / December 7, 1674).
/ February 14, 1763) – when Avraham from Goślina, who married a Swarzędz widow Zlatka, was
granted citizenship, it was stressed that it did not cover his sons and daughters who had no right to
live in the town, unless parnasim and kahalaniks agreed to that.
of his citizenship.15 Exactly the same precondition was imposed by the Swarzędz
kahal when it granted citizenship to Ayzik who was also warned that should the
kahal learn anything unfavorable about him, be it something from the past or that
might happen in the future, then his ḥazakah would become null and void.16
Pinkasim also include records of bad, sinful, or disgusting acts committed by
people. Such crimes were usually referred to with a dose of mystery as “unfit for
the record” or identified as acts to be kept secret. They were enclosed with a note
that their perpetrators were not allowed to get citizenship and that no money should
be accepted from them, even if they wanted to pay for their citizenship.
To a craftsman, citizenship stood for the ability to pursue his occupation free-
ly and independently. This is why when an apprentice was granted one, a special
procedure was followed. The Poznań electors recorded in their pinkas that if an
apprentice decided in advance of four weeks before his wedding that he wanted to
become an independent craftsman, then he would have to go to the kahal and file
his request. Then the kahal would check the quality of his skills in the presence of
three guild elders and decide whether he could be liberated. Afterwards, the ap-
prentice would buy the document of his citizenship from the kahal and deliver it
to the guild’s rabbi who entered his name in the pinkas.17
Local craftsmen were getting increasingly concerned by the fact that new
craftsmen were granted citizenship, be they local residents or members of other
communities. As a result of complaints lodged by the Swarzędz tailors, in 1756 the
kahal decided that in the coming three years no young man or son-in-law who was
the community tailor would be granted citizenship when he was a resident of an-
other community. This ban was effective for six years. At the same time the kahal
agreed to the engagement of tailor Wolf’s daughter with Getshlik, son of tailor
Moshe, on condition that the young man would not pursue the tailor’s occupation
in the following two years, and Wolf would not hold his daughter’s wedding ear-
lier than in two years.18 But in 1772, as a result of protests by loop-makers, the
electors of the Swarzędz kahal revoked the citizenship that had already been grant-
ed to one bridegroom, a loop-maker from another community. Money that had
already been paid by his father-in-law was to be reimbursed by the kahal. It was
also added that the previous year’s kahal certainly would not have minded that its
15 JTS 3652, p. 124 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5487 / April 15, 1727). A similar oath was taken by
people who were granted the citizenship of Poznań. They promised “reverence, faith, and obedience”
to the King and mayor, the Council, and all town officials, to abide by their orders, to inform them
about any unfavorable opinions circulated about them and to protect the person and possessions of
another townsman (Maisel, Sądownictwo miasta Poznania, pp. 412–413).
16 See Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 50–51 (Swarzędz,
18 Ḥeshvan 5523 / November 4, 1762).

17 AEP no. 2162 (5497/1737).
5516 / May 3, 1756).

decisions were revoked; what is more, it would certainly revoke them itself, had it
heard the arguments of loop-makers.19
Another problem arose in connection with a practice adopted by principal
communities which tended to extend their citizenship over branch communities.20
The latter felt threatened, especially with respect to their economic interests, and
tried to fight this practice by curbing the rights of the citizens of the principal com-
munities in their area of jurisdiction. This is what happened, e.g., in Swarzędz,
which enjoyed branch community status. In 1759, the authorities of the Swarzędz
community, fearing the influx of too many new people from Poznań, took a deci-
sion that the Poznań settlers would not be allowed to participate in elections for
a period of three years from the moment they settled in Swarzędz.21 It follows
from the same record that they were also prevented access to Swarzędz offices,
discussed in the chapter on elections. The well-being of the Swarzędz community
was offered as the rationale for such prohibitions, whose defiance was punished
with a curse. But expansion of the territorial range of citizenship was only a one-
way process, as one of the Poznań pinkasim explains that Aharon, son-in law of
Shmuel, was a citizen of Swarzędz but not of Poznań.22
It clearly follows from the decisions granting citizenship that attempts were
made to limit their number. To this end a variety of methods were adopted: the
amount of required charges was raised (e.g., to at least 3 florins that had to be paid
in Swarzędz in 178123) or the number of new citizenships that could be granted
each year was defined. In 1772 this limit was set in Swarzędz at four citizenships
a year,24 to be raised to five in 1781.25 Sometimes a ban on granting citizenships
for a few years would be imposed.26 Such constraints were explained by the fact
that the community had a high (and constantly growing) number of household
heads who were not able to sustain themselves and their families and to fulfill their
obligations, i.e., to pay community taxes.
Limits imposed on the number of new citizens resulted in limits on the number
of new engagements. The Poznań electors frequently set annual engagement limits
in their regulations; they ranged from three to six and covered only poor commu-
nity residents whose dowry was not particularly high. In 1670, the Poznań electors
recorded that anyone who committed 400 zł. for his daughter’s dowry would not
19 Ibidem, p. 71 (Swarzędz, 18 Av 5532 / August 17, 1772).
20 Mordechaj Siemiatycki refers to it as chazaka obwodowa – a district ḥazakah (Siemiatycki,
Prawo obywatelstwa, p. 27).
22 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 209 (Poznań, 30 Nisan 5413 / April 27, 1653).
23 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 37v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5541 / June 3, 1781).
II 5532 / April 3, 1772).

25 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 37v (Swarzędz, 10 Sivan 5541 / June 3, 1781).
II 5532 / April 3, 1772) – the granting of citizenship was forbidden in the coming four years.
have to ask the kahal’s permission; they also noted that some people committed
overestimated amounts that in no way corresponded with their actual financial
standing and ordered the kahal to make the necessary checks.27 In 1696, the kahal
allowed six engagements a year; of these six, only one of the dowries could be less
than 400 zł. with the bridegroom coming from another community.28 But limits
higher than that were also set. In 1676, a regulation about engagements was passed
by the eleven men and announced to the public in all Poznań synagogues. The
regulation mentioned seven couples by name (including one young man from
Swarzędz) that were allowed to get married from the beginning of the month of
Tevet until the end of Nisan 5437 (i.e., more than four months). It was also pre-
scribed that until the end of that period no man would be allowed to apply for
a wedding permit as the limit would then be surpassed.29
Those who breached regulations and became engaged outside their commu-
nity were not granted its citizenship, naturally, should they decide to live in the
community after their wedding. The Poznań electors noted in 1700 that there was
a certain number of engagements and weddings after which the spouses would
come to Poznań to live, as well as people who would become engaged in secret,
even without the execution of the required engagement contract. They reminded
everyone on that occasion that an engagement without the kahal’s permission was
prohibited and those who tried to evade the rules should not count on the citizen-
ship of the Poznań community.30 It was the duty of community authorities to find
such people and oust them. Sometimes the kahal would also be committed under
an oath to keep in effect the punishment of those who became engaged or married
unlawfully. A parnas who would stand up for them could be fined, deprived of his
position, and would not be allowed to run for an office in the following ten
years.31
Each community also maintained records of citizenships that were no longer
valid. This is what happened in the case of interim citizenship whose validity had
expired. Sometimes, when a wedding ḥazakah was granted to a person from an-
other community, it was made clear that it would expire should that person get
divorced.
One of the penalties that a community could impose was to deprive one of
citizenship. But crimes that deserved such a punishment were frequently defined
quite enigmatically, e.g., failure to pay bardon or other past due community tax-
27 AEP no. 1128 (5430/1670).

28 AEP no. 1681 (Passover 5456/1696). Such a small number of allowed engagements, espe-
cially in a community as large as Poznań, is likely to give rise to doubts. Maybe the authorities hoped
that families would be prepared to pay a lot of money to get a permit?
29 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250v (Poznań, Tevet 5437 / December 1676).
30 AEP no. 1778 (Passover 5460/1700).
31 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 242v (Poznań, 21 Tevet 5432 / December 22, 1671).
es,32 receipt of stolen property (and thus exposing the community to risk),33 fraud,
misbehavior, following “dark paths” and other “bad and sinful deeds.” An Itsek
from Swarzędz was deprived of his citizenship in 1676, when the community in-
curred losses after he had disclosed its commercial secrets to customs duty collec-
tors.34 In 1686, the Poznań kahal warned on the occasion of punishing one of its
citizens for fraud that if his behavior did not change and if at least one complaint
was filed against him, he would be expelled from the community and deprived of
his citizenship along with his offspring.35 A similar warning was issued to butcher
Yakov, son of Yoel, who was accused of beating.36
A separate category of a community’s residents were those who settled pursu-
ant to agreements (psharah) concluded with the kahal.37 Such agreements were
concluded for a term of one year and, less frequently, for two or three years. They
would usually list rights vested in newcomers such as the right to live in the com-
munity (sometimes along with other members of the household), to conduct com-
mercial activity, either personally or via intermediaries, to extend loans, etc. In
Poznań, such agreements with the kahal were usually contracted by citizens of
other communities who were pursuing commercial activity there.38 A fee was
charged for a residence permit, usually split into several installments, which was
secured by a draft written by the person who was granted it. This way he would be
exempt from any local taxes over the term of the agreement. Sometimes, however,
the agreement would include a provision that some taxes (such as, e.g., poll tax or
garbage collection tax) had to be paid.39
The situation of such a temporary resident is best illustrated by a statement
made by an Itsḥak from Witkowo. He affixed his signature under the terms which
allowed him to live in Swarzędz: he was not allowed to claim that he was a resi-
dent of Swarzędz or to buy or build a house without the kahal’s permission; he had
to pay all the community taxes, especially the income tax; and should a complaint
be filed against him, then he would be required to leave the community immedi-
32 AEP no. 1089 (Passover 5428/1668); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223 (Poznań, 5429/1669).
33 AEP no. 1092 (Passover 5428/1668).
34 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250 v (Poznań, 20 Sivan 5436 / June 1, 1676).
35 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 235v (Poznań, 5 Adar 5446 / March 1, 1686); like in CAHJP, PL/Po
1a, p. 242v (Poznań, no date) – others who breached the law were warned that in the event of an-
other crime they would be deprived of their right to live in the community, including their off-
spring.
36 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 259 (Poznań, 21 Kislev 5442 / December 2, 1681).
37 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 195 (Poznań, 21 Iyar 5410 / May 22, 1650), p. 198 (Po-
znań, 3 Ḥeshvan 5411 / October 28, 1650), p. 201v (Poznań, 4 Av 5411 / July 22, 1651), p. 205
(Poznań, 1 Ḥeshvan 5413 / October 3, 1652), p. 217 (Poznań, 16 Ḥeshvan 5420? / November 2,
1659).
38 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 217v (Poznań, 22 Iyar 5421 / May 21, 1661).
39 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 201v (Poznań, 4 Av 5411 / July 22, 1651).
ately, together with his household members. The agreement also stipulated that he
could not be a credible witness in Jewish courts, both in civil and penal cases.40
The pinkas of Poznań electors includes interesting information about agree-
ments contracted with the kahal by local household heads. The electors recorded
that there was a growing number of household heads, who after they had got mar-
ried, lagged behind in payment of dowry fees, and who then requested the kahal
to sign an agreement with them. In consequence, people who concluded such
agreements began to account for the majority of the community’s residents. This
is why the thirty-two men were instructed to check if the kahal had the authority
to enter into agreements with such people and to define the allowed period of their
stay after their weddings.41
The third category of a community’s residents were people labeled as guests,
as they had neither citizenship nor residence permit. It was announced in the
Swarzędz synagogue on many occasions that no guests should dare arrive in the
community without the kahal’s permission.42
Community authorities tried to limit the influx of visitors, arguing that it
would not be in the interest of its citizens. Restrictions imposed on visitors varied
from community to community. The limitations were usually related to commer-
cial activities they were involved in and regarded goods (they were not allowed to
sell or buy some things), trading hours (in the majority of communities, trade was
allowed only on market days and at fairs), and people with whom business was
done (a ban on trading with non-Jews, on partnerships with the community’s citi-
zens, and sale on consignment). Other restrictions imposed on “outsiders” includ-
ed a prohibition to lease, build and buy real estate, to hold community offices, and
to enjoy various synagogue honors.
One of the methods was to curb a visitor’s period of stay in a community
(when the fair was over). The Swarzędz electors took a decision that guests arriv-
ing in the community on business could stay there no longer than three days per
one quarter of the year.43 To prevent any transgressions of the rule, household
heads were prohibited from renting them lodgings without the knowledge and
permission of the community’s authorities. A household head who would ignore
this ban would be punished, mainly by a very high fine payable to the kahal.44 Poor
guests were not allowed to stay in the community longer than for 24 hours, which

5503 / May 19, 1743).
41 AEP no. 656 (Passover 5411/1651).
5503 / May 19, 1743).

44 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 13–14 (Swarzędz, 30 Tishri
5499 / October 14, 1738) – a household head who would host a guest more than 72 hours had to pay
the kahal a fine of 20 red złoty.
was an attempt to curb charity expenses. When the second shames of the kahal
assumed his position in Swarzędz in 1789, he pledged to pay attention to poor
visitors so that they would not stay in the community for more than 24 hours, thus
exposing its residents to excessive expenses.45 The Poznań electors issued an order
in 1667, whereby a list of all unwelcome guests was to be drawn up so that they
could be expelled by all possible means, also with the help of Gentiles.46
Both the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim frequently repeat that it is the kahal’s
duty to pay attention to people who illegally settle in the community47 and to part-
nerships between a citizen and a visitor, as well as to contracts between an artisan
and a visiting apprentice. Poznań would sometimes elect special officials to this
end, outside supervisors (parnasei/memunei (anshei) medinah) who were to exer-
cise control over “visiting” merchants coming to the community.
Servants coming from other communities were also allowed to stay for a limit-
ed time. The Poznań electors decided that they should not stay longer than two
years,48 but when this regulation was recalled later on, three years were men-
tioned.49 Household heads who would keep their servants longer than that period
were warned of fines, and their servants were to be expelled from the community.
In their policies towards people coming from other communities, kahals did
not only limit their influx or expel them from the community. They also tried to
attract those people who would be beneficial to their communities, mainly the
wealthy who were able to pay a significant amount for their citizenship or high
community taxes. Communities also encouraged settlement of people who were
viewed as particularly precious for other reasons, such as scholars, rabbis, and
sometimes people of rare professions. As it is recorded by the Poznań electors, the
kahal was allowed to grant the right to live in the community to anyone that it
viewed as valuable.50 On another occasion the electors decided that should the
community be paid a visit by a scholar or another eminent person who may con-
tribute prominently to the community, then the kahal would be allowed to grant
him the right of residence, exempt him from taxes, and also confer on him any kind
of honor that it was authorized to bestow.51
A community tried especially to retain those of its citizens who were rich and
paid high taxes. When someone like that would leave the community for some
45 Ibidem, pp. 92–93 (Swarzędz, 20 Tamuz 5549 / July 15, 1789).

46 AEP no. 1061 (Passover 5427/1667).
47 AEP no. 897b (Passover 5420/1660) – the Poznań electors told the kahal to pay attention to
people who lived in the community without citizenship and to oust them within one month.
49 AEP no. 2255 (5552/1792).
50 AEP no. 1399 (Passover 5439/1679). In 1682 it was recorded that Yeḥiel Fishel, the rabbi of
the holy community of Krajenka, who married a widow from Poznań, Mrs. Pesi, could come and live
in Poznań whenever he wanted – CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 259v (Poznań, Adar II 5442 / March 1682).
51 AEP no. 1082 (Passover 5428/1668).
time, he would be committed under an oath to come back. This is what the Poznań
kahal did in 1654 when it obligated Avraham, son of Menaḥem, who was going to
a fair in Gniezno, to come back to Poznań. He also had to vow that he would not
take his assets, such as money and its equivalent, books, and all other chattels.52
Frequently, such a vow would also be secured by a draft which would be cashed
the moment he defaulted. Emigration was also restricted by the obligation to no-
tify the kahal earlier about the intention to leave.53 It had to check if all the taxes
and liabilities to the community had been paid. Those who left without permission
were severely punished, e.g., by a curse.54
Treatment of residents and visitors was an important element of policies pur-
sued by Jewish communities. The constraints of social and economic life made it
necessary to strictly define those who would be allowed to exercise their right to
reside in the community, work for its institutions, or pursue commercial activity
or crafts. Decisions on who would be vested with such rights and who would not
were a very important element of the exercise of power. Citizenship and temporary
agreements were also a source of community earnings.
2. CONTROL OVER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
The kahal supervised a community’s economic life mainly with a view to col-
lecting taxes and charges. Apart from that it kept a watchful eye on how much
people owned and the way they earned their living, and it kept track of “outsiders”
who were a competition to the locals. In the long run, the purpose of this control
was to maintain the financial and economic stability of the community and to pre-
vent any conflicts with townsmen and nobility that would be settled by non-Jewish
authorities and have adverse consequences for the community.
It was easy to exercise control over business transactions due to their technical
and legal nature. Pursuant to the rulings of rabbinical pundits (including, e.g.,
Moses Isserles and Yehoshua Falk), a transaction or contract would not be valid if
it did not involve the execution of a formal deed of purchase (kinyan). This regula-
tion pertained to transactions contracted between individuals; however, such
a deed did not have to be executed if one of the parties enjoyed personality under
the public law.55
52 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 210 (Poznań, 10 Iyar 5414 / April 27, 1654). Such a commitment to
return to the community was made by David Beniamin provided that there would be no damages in
the town and no problems due to the plague – CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 210 (Poznań, Iyar 5414 / April–
May 1654).
53 AEP no. 1174 (5431/1671).
54 AEP nos. 757, 767, 768 (Passover 5414/1654).
55 Shilo, “Stosunki prawne pomiędzy jednostką a gminą w prawie żydowskim,” p. 92.
CONTROL OVER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 167
It was on several occasions that the Poznań electors invoked a regulation

whereby each transaction document (kinyan sudar or kinyan agav sudar) regard-
ing sale (of, e.g., a house, a seat in the synagogue), work, ḥazakah, pledge, loan,
or dowry had to be written down by the kahal’s scribe. He was to attach his signa-
ture on the document and one of the three shamesim of major synagogues was to
act as a second witness. A document that was drawn up or signed in any other way
was null and void and could not be used as evidence in court, of which people were
reminded in synagogues on numerous occasions.56 The scribe was paid half of the
fee charged on the transaction amount, and the other half went to the shames.57 In
1663, the electors decided that transaction documents regarding houses and syna-
gogue seats were to be signed by two shamesim, Lizer and Leib. Also the maxi-
mum fee to be charged by them was defined (24 gr. in the case of a house and 15 gr.
per a synagogue seat ).58
When a house was sold, the scribe was prohibited from drafting the transac-
tion document until a buyer brought a receipt from the monthly parnas confirming
that the appropriate amount had been paid. Moreover, the shames was not allowed
to affix his signature without such a receipt. Offered as a rationale for this regula-
tion was a dwindling income that the kahal earned from house purchases. The
buyer was allowed three days from the transaction date to contact the scribe; after
that deadline, the transaction was no longer valid.59
Transactions of house purchases or leases were made public at the synagogue
and buyers were obliged to provide the synagogue’s shames with a receipt issued
by the monthly parnas that the required fees had been paid.60 When the kahal had
claims to specific real estate, it informed the public to warn potential buyers.61 For
example, in 1688 a Lizer Segal, who had moved into a house located in the vicin-
ity of Żydowska Street, was warned by the kahal represented by two shamesim
that he should not even think of getting a ḥazakah for that property as the house
had been owned by the kahal from time immemorial. The kahal permitted him to
live there for a definite term, with the proviso that at its first request he would have
to move somewhere else without any delay.62
(Passover 5459/1699), AEP no. 1839 (Passover 5464/1704), AEP no. 1940 (Passover 5471/1711).
57 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 255v (Poznań, 5 Tamuz 5440 / July 2, 1680) and p. 262v (Poznań,
20 Kislev 5445 / November 27, 1684).

58 AEP no. 965 (Passover 5423/1663).
59 AEP no. 1528 (Passover 5446/1686).
60 AEP no. 1561 (Passover 5448/1688); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 207 (Poznań, 25 Kislev 5443 /
December 25, 1682).

61 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 233 (Poznań, 2 Nisan 5431 / March 13, 1671) – the kahal
warned Moshe Avigdor from Skwierzyna (Schwerin) not to buy a house from Yakov of Kalisz which
was the property of his father because the kahal had claims to it. Should he conclude a contract in
spite of the warning, it was added, he would lose his money.
62 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 270 (Poznań, Elul 5448 / September 1688).
Community authorities also issued many rules regulating commerce. It was

reiterated several times that door-to-door trade was prohibited, especially going to
the houses of Gentiles; the only exception allowed was a visit to a nobleman’s
house at his request. The reason for this ban was that door-to-door vendors de-
prived store owners of their earnings, and their trade with non-Jews exposed the
community to danger. Disregard for such bans was punishable by high penalties,
fines and ḥerem.63 In 1670 peddlers were allowed to sell goods in suburban areas
and on side streets off the marketplace, but they were strictly forbidden to go “with
bags” from house to house situated in the marketplace and along the main streets.64
When many new stores selling clothes (fabrics) were opened in the Poznań’s mar-
ketplace in 1697, which gave rise to discontent and hostility, the electors instruct-
ed the kahal to keep an eye on their operations and to curb that process.65 Store
owners were forbidden to put tables with their goods in front of non-Jewish hous-
es located in the marketplace. They were allowed to trade in front of Jewish hous-
es only on Sundays and Fridays. On those days owners of the houses with stores
were allowed to display their goods in shop windows.66 Also the goods that were
traded were under scrutiny to check if they had not been stolen.67
Community authorities also tried to fight the trade conducted by young men
who were not yet independent household heads. In 1728 young men living with
household heads, and especially those who lived in the community for less than
two years, were prohibited from engaging in trade. They were a serious competi-
tion to store owners and this is why they were to be severely punished, e.g., by
confiscation of their goods.68 The Swarzędz electors recorded in 1748 that some
young men went to the Frankfurt fair on foot and brought goods which they then
AEP no. 2233 (Passover 5534/1774). Jewish door-to-door sellers were also combatted by non-Jews,
and the Poznań town regulations included an authorization granted to the merchants’ guild to confis-
cate goods sold by Jewish door-to-door peddlers; see Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 2,
no. 228 (1727).
64 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 230v–231 (Poznań, Nisan 5430 / March–April 1670).
65 AEP no. 1704 (Passover 5457/1697).
66 JTS 3652, p. 27 (Swarzędz, 5 Tevet 5472 / December 15, 1711).
67 Marcin Kamler wrote in his book that nearly 65% of deals made by Jews were in stolen
goods, and in Poznań Jewish men accounted for ca. 83%, and Jewish women for 18% of dealers in
stolen goods. The author claims that it was due to the fact that commerce, especially small deals,
were the main area of Jewish business activity, and that deals in stolen goods (apart from trade in
religious objects) exposed Jews neither to penal sanctions nor to the loss of their money. The author’s
studies are based on testimonies collected in books of villains compiled in Kraków, Lublin and
Poznań (Kamler, Świat przestępczy, pp. 46, 93). However, dealing in stolen goods and even spo-
radic purchase or pledging of stolen goods could expose communities to danger and be the grounds
for charges that Jews supported thieves, which might result in demands to oust Jewish residents from
the town.
68 AEP no. 2102 (Passover 5488/1728).
sold cheaply. Such a practice was prohibited at all fairs on pain of fines and the
kahal and electors were at the same time prohibited from protecting such offend-
ers. Every young man who would ignore that ban was to be punished with a fine
of one ducat which had to be paid at the time of the fair. And those who would
manage to run away from the fair were at risk of being deprived of their citizen-
ship.69 Young men were also prohibited to engage in brokerage, so that they did
not deprive factors of their job. The only exception was made for those whose
fathers were brokers, as then they were serving their fathers’ clients.70
It was also up to the kahal to take decisions regarding individuals engaging in
trade. They could be prohibited, for example, from opening a store in a specific
house or basement or from trading in a specific commodity or from running a retail
business.71 In 1735, dayan Yoel lodged a complaint with the kahal against his broth-
er, shames Leib, that he was selling hides and other goods in his quarters. Moreover,
he invited buyers who were Gentiles and soldiers into his house, which could invite
disaster. The kahal ordered Leib to rent other premises which were fit for commer-
cial activity, and he was allowed to sell goods at home only occasionally.72
Trade partnerships, especially with people of other communities, were also
the kahal’s focus of attention, mainly because they tried to evade tax payment,
using their partners as an excuse.73 The Poznań electors ordered the thirty-two men
in 1651 to examine whether those outsiders who were living in the community
pursuant to agreements were allowed to enter partnerships with the community’s
residents. In any case, they were to warn them that they would have to make
higher payments for their residence permits, and they were forbidden to conduct
business on their own, without a partner.74 Partnerships with Gentiles were com-
pletely banned.75
A town’s commerce was under the supervision of officials elected by the ka-
hal: memunim and market supervisors. They controlled law and order in the mar-

5505 / May 7, 1745).
70 AEP no. 2243 (Passover 5539/1779).
71 See AEP no. 1117 (5430/1670) – Avraham, son-in-law of reb A., was prohibited from open-
ing a store in the house he had bought on Średnia Street; AEP no. 1645 (Passover 5453/1693) – the
kahal forbade Faibush Alm to open retail stores and to sell goods to retail clients; he was only al-
lowed to be involved in selling wholesale.
72 CAHJP, PL/Po 19 (Poznań, 6 Kislev 5496 / November 21, 1735).
5549 / November 10, 1788) – a decision was made that any resident who would enter a partnership
with an outsider would have to pay the entire bardon, which also applied to partnerships with the
Poznań residents; like in eadem, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 156–159 (Swarzędz, 5489/1729); eadem,
ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 20 (Swarzędz, 17 Nisan 5503 / April 11, 1743).
74 AEP no. 653 (Passover 5411/1651).
75 AEP no. 895 (Passover 5420/1660), AEP no. 984 (5424/1664), AEP no. 1011 (5425/1665);
CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 211 (Poznań, 6 Tamuz 5414 / June 21, 1654).
ketplace and checked if scales and measures were reliable. In 1719, the Poznań
electors told memunim to keep an eye on people who broke the law and opened
stores on holidays; the monthly memun who would neglect his duties was to be
punished with a fine.76 Fair officials served as an arm of a community’s authorities
outside its area of jurisdiction. They scrutinized transactions and charged taxes
from the community residents who went to a fair, and fair dayanim settled
disputes.
In 1652, the Poznań electors prohibited Jews from acting as intermediaries
between Gentiles and lending Jewish money to them. The kahal was ordered to
remind them of that ban before every fair. Moreover, a merchant was not allowed
to pay and a broker to charge more than 0.5% of the transaction’s value for his
services.77 Even if a merchant wanted to guarantee a higher brokerage, the contract
would be null and void.78 Faced with complaints lodged by household heads that
brokers deprived them of their earnings, the Poznań electors told the kahal in 1677
to supervise collection of brokerage.79
Community authorities also supervised coin exchange. There is an entry in the
Poznań pinkas dating from 1669 that the community residents were prohibited
from becoming engaged in the exchange of silver coins for profit. This ban applied
to brokerage in coin exchanges with Gentiles, or between a Gentile and a Jew,
whereas the same deals were allowed between Jews and also when their objective
was the purchase of goods. A reservation was also made that the regulation was to
be in force only until the month of Tamuz 5429, and that afterwards it would need
to be examined by the nine men.80 The Poznań electors also suggested that in coin
exchange it was necessary to pay special attention to those brokers who were ad-
vising noblemen and non-Jewish merchants.81
76 AEP no. 2036 (Passover 5479/1719).

77 AEP no. 703 (Passover 5412/1652). In 1696 an earlier regulation was invoked (AEP nos.
111, 587, 703) setting the amount of the remuneration for brokerage services at 0.5% (half a złoty
per each one hundred) – AEP no. 1689 (Passover 5456/1696). In 1685 a broker Meir, son of Yudah
Pregir, was paid a commission of 1% for a loan granted to the kahal for five years. He was paid 50 zł.
for a loan of 5000 zł., a commission payable on an annual basis – CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 266v (Poznań,
1 Tevet 5446 / December 28, 1685).
78 AEP no. 703 (Passover 5412/1652).
79 AEP no. 1355 (5437/1677).
80 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223v (Poznań, 5429/1669). Bernard D. Weinryb, who published that
fragment of the pinkas in his selection (Weinryb, Texts and Studies, no. 314), observes in a footnote
that bans on exchanging coins were reiterated by many communities many times at the beginning of
the 17th century, but in the 1760s those rules were made more lenient. An entry from 1670 describes
the composition of the nine men who were to be chosen by the kahal: three men were to be selected
from among the dayanim, three were to come “from the street,” and three from among the kahal
members. They were to be headed by the rabbi, and this is why electors referred to them as the ten
men – CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223v (Poznań, 7? Iyar 5430 / April 27, 1670).
81 AEP no. 1113 (5430/1670).
The kahal also controlled butchers; it was interested in the slaughter of ani-
mals in abattoirs, mainly for tax reasons. In Swarzędz such a control was estab-
lished because live animals were sold to other communities which resulted in
lower earnings of local abattoirs and, in turn, in lower taxes. An order was issued
in 1775, mainly the responsibility of shames Wolf, to pay attention to butchers
selling cattle to other communities as that practice did not generate an income tax
(bardon), and thus the earnings from ritual slaughter began to fall.82 It was also in
Swarzędz that Yehoshiya, who wanted to become the community’s household
head again and pay all the taxes, was committed to take an oath that should he
enter a partnership with someone from Poznań to deal in cattle, then he would take
his share of the cattle and have it slaughtered in Swarzędz, and afterwards sell
meat in Poznań.83
The supervision exercised by the authorities over crafts has already been dis-
cussed in the chapter devoted to guilds.
By far, the focus of the greatest attention of a community’s authorities were
loans contracted by its residents. The community was responsible for the debts of
its residents and the main addressee of requests for their repayment. Bans to bor-
row money from Gentiles without the authorities’ permission and knowledge, both
personally and via brokers, were issued on several occasions.84 By the Poznań
electors’ order, it was to be announced in all synagogues in 1699 that some people
tended to borrow with both hands and then, when they were not able to repay their
debts, they turned to the community’s authorities for help.85 When parnas Yakov
Libush was granted a permit to borrow money from nobleman Tomiński in 1672,
the kahal recorded that the said nobleman had made it clear that it was the kahal
that was the guarantor of debts contracted by individuals, especially the parnasim,
and expressed its concern that such an attitude might result in claims towards the
kahal.86
Brokers who arranged loans granted by nobleman were warned of ḥerem.87
It was also forbidden to buy the kahal’s or other debtors’ debt from noblemen
without informing them about it, and should someone earn interest on such trans-
actions, it would have to be given to the kahal.88 Amounts that one could borrow
II 5535 / March 31, 1775).

84 The ban was reinforced by the regulations issued by the central Jewish authorities: in 1673
the Council of Four Lands introduced a borrowing ḥazakah. After that Jews were not allowed to
borrow any money from Christians without the permission of the community authorities (Leszczyński,
“Organizacja i ustrój gminy Żydów ziemi bielskiej,” p. 132).
85 AEP no. 1759 (Passover 5459/1699).
86 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 231v (5432/1672).
87 AEP no. 1781 (Passover 5460/1700).
88 AEP no. 1227 (Passover 5433/1673).
depended on the taxes one paid (property tax).89 Sometimes it was forbidden
to lend money to a person who had lagged behind in payment of his dues to the
kahal.90
A community also saw to it that people who contracted loans had appropriate
security for their repayment. The Poznań electors ordered the kahal in 1676 to
make sure that people who would borrow money from noblemen had the required
security and that no one would borrow more than the worth of his real estate.
At the same time brokers who offered noblemen’s loans were instructed to notify
parnasim and the kahal, who were to decide what amount an individual would
be allowed to borrow.91 In 1685, Zelig, son of Yakov Pakshir, had to account
for his loan contracted from nobleman Grabski before the kahal. He borrowed
money together with Shimon, son-in-law of Mendel Kats, who also endorsed
the draft. Zelig claimed that he was the only one to guarantee timely debt repay-
ment and assured the kahal that it would not get into any trouble on account of that
borrowing.92
It was also necessary to get the authorities’ permit to use the money set aside
for a dowry. A record from 1681 reads that young men first borrow the dowry
money with which they pay for their lodging and then hang around in the streets
and look for a job. Some of them even stray from the narrow and straight path and
do not pay taxes. This is why an order was issued that when the dowry was equal
to 400 zł., only 200 zł. could be borrowed, so that a half continued to be available
to a young man for his living and payment of taxes. When the dowry was less than
400 zł., a young man was not allowed to borrow anything before the lapse of six
years from the wedding date.93
The kahal was also concerned about purchases made on credit, usually at
fairs. A special permit from the kahal was then required.94 In 1686, the kahal ex-
amined the case of Mordekhai, son-in-law of Naḥman, who went to fairs “empty-
handed” and then owed significant amounts to merchants. He was strictly prohib-
89 AEP no. 1426 (5440/1680) – those who paid an income tax of less than half a złoty were
allowed to borrow 200 zł., and those who paid more than half a złoty could borrow 500 zł. An order
was issued in 1681 that the foregoing rule was to be followed, and it was emphasized that an un-
specified number of household heads had borrowed too much from noblemen, which spelt many
disasters for them – AEP no. 1440 (Passover 5441/1681).
90 See CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 246 (Poznań, 30 Shvat 5435 / February 26, 1675) – the kahal
warned sons of the deceased parnas Avraham that they should not lend money of their father’s lega-
cy to their brother, a son-in-law of Mr. Gets, who had failed to square the accounts with the kahal.
91 AEP no. 1316 (Passover 5436/1676).
92 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 266v (Poznań, 23 Elul 5445 / September 22, 1685).
93 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 258v–259 (Poznań, 22 Ḥeshvan 5442 / November 3, 1681) – this
regulation was to be in effect for two years from the Passover of 5442.
94 The regulations passed by the Lithuanian Vaad in 1623 prescribed that kahals should inter-
fere when any goods were taken on credit and it was suspected that the buyer had no creditworthiness
(Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah, no. 26).
ited from doing that on pain of being deprived of his citizenship, expulsion from
the community, and ḥerem.95
Community authorities also saw to it that debtors paid their debts in due time.
In view of the debts drawn from nobleman Tomnicki by many residents of the
Poznań community, it was decided in 1670 that debtors were since required to
have all payments ready in time. Their dues were to be collected in advance of four
weeks before the repayment deadline and locked in one box. In order for this rule
to be observed, three men had been appointed, including the rabbi, and they were
to hold collected dues and force those reluctant to pay by coercion and curses.96
Kahals frequently had to intervene and bail out unfortunate debtors from their
creditors and then to recoup that money from what they owned. There is a record
from 1685 in the Poznań pinkas that two people, Shimon Kats and widow Shinḥa,
borrowed 1200 zł. from nobleman Tomiński. When they were later unable to repay
that amount, the angry nobleman put them in jail. The kahal intervened with
Tomiński and assumed their liabilities, later to demand their repayment from the
debtors. Shimon Kats made a commitment in the presence of witnesses that he
would pay 600 zł. after he had sold his real estate, and the payment of the part
payable by the widow was guaranteed by a Getsshlik.97 The kahal granted a loan
to Eliezer, son of Leizer Kiner, in 1680, as he was bitterly crying and complaining
that he had been pursued by noblemen, his creditors.98
The kahal also intervened twice in the case of Hirsh, son of Mendel Plotsker,
who put himself in the noblemen’s hands out of his own stupidity, as it was re-
corded. He would not listen to the community’s residents who told him that one of
his creditors, nobleman Przyimski (Przyjemski?), was looking for him and who
warned him that he should not walk in the streets not to get caught. When the kahal
saw that he was not listening to his neighbors, it sent two shamesim to warn him.
But Hirsh ignored their warning, too, and in the evening of Passover he went to
visit his creditor who put him immediately in jail. The Hirsh family raised great
lament, the more so that it was likely that the creditor would feed him sour and
non-kosher food. The kahal convened in the rabbi’s presence and decided to show
Hirsh mercy, i.a., because of the approaching Passover. So he was bailed out for
a very high amount of 1400 zł. But a similar thing happened to him again before
the Feast of Weeks, this time at the hands of another creditor, nobleman Sos-
nowski. Again Hirsh had been warned by the community’s members and two
shamesim of the kahal, and again he had ignored all warnings and ended up as the
96 AEP no. 1136 (Kislev 5431 / November–December 1670) – regulations by the seven super-
visors.
97 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 266v (Poznań, 16 Av 5445 / August 16, 1685); as on p. 254 (Poznań,
no date) – the kahal intended to recoup the sums it had paid noblemen to repay the debts of com-
munity residents from their houses.
98 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 257 (Poznań, 21 Tishri 5441 / October 14, 1680).
nobleman’s prisoner. As rumors were circulated in the community that the noble-
man intended to kill his debtor and prisoner, the kahal decided to intervene again
and bail Hirsh out. It was done on condition that Hirsh would pledge under oath
that he would not settle in Poznań without the kahal’s knowledge. He would be
allowed to settle in the town provided he had paid all his debts to noblemen.
Should he break his oath and again get caught by his creditors, the kahal made it
absolutely clear that it would do nothing to rescue him. Punishment was also en-
visaged for those who would intercede for Hirsh, including the monthly parnas,
should he convene a meeting in support of Hirsh.99
The kahal also assumed debts of deceased debtors and supervised their repay-
ment. The kahal decided in 1676 that the debt of 250 zł. that the deceased Shimon
Kats had borrowed from the priest would be paid by Wolf, son of reb M. In return
he would be the first to recoup the same amount after the house of the deceased
was sold.100 After the debt of the deceased goldsmith Toviye had been repaid to
the Carmelite brothers, the kahal recovered what it had paid by selling the syna-
gogue seats that belonged to him. However, goldsmith Shmuel, another creditor,
claimed his right to that money. He threatened the kahal that he would go to court,
but eventually an agreement was concluded and the kahal paid him his dues.101
The Poznań electors recorded in 1650 that the kahal was allowed to sequester
the property of people who had run away from the community leaving a lot of
debts behind. Confiscation of their houses was to be the means to repay their debts
to noblemen, according to what had been borrowed.102
When regulations regarding money and debts were issued, the prevailing ap-
proach was to “play safe” and to foresee all possible problems. The Poznań elec-
tors recorded in 1700 that merchants and stall keepers first spent a lot of money
buying flax in Wrocław, then they paid relatively low Silesian customs duties,
which reflected the product’s value only to a small extent. In the electors’ opinion
that could mean disaster and their commodities could be confiscated; thus, Jews
would lose money, and then they would have no money to repay their debts to
nobility and clergy. This is why the electors ordered the kahal to intimidate the
merchants by warning them of high penalties, so that they would never resort to
such practices again.103
The kahal not only controlled but was also a party to various transactions and
(business) activities. Pinkasim entries refer to the sale of houses, synagogue seats,
and lease of arrendas, and the kahal’s role was to decide who would be appropriate

100 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 251 (Poznań, 4 Adar 5436 / February 18, 1676).
102 AEP no. 640 (Passover 5410/1650).
103 AEP no. 1786 (Passover 5460/1700).
SUMPTUARY LAWS 175
for the task.104 The kahal was also involved in cash transactions, lending money
to individuals (which money had been earlier borrowed from other community
residents, noblemen and clergy).105
3. SUMPTUARY LAWS
An important portion of regulations issued by community authorities were

sumptuary laws which curbed excessive spending on luxury goods, clothes, feasts,
presents, etc.106 Gambling, and especially cards, was also prohibited.
The first group of bans applied to clothes. Forbidden were mainly such wom-
en’s clothes, more embellished than men’s, in which the daughters of Zion are
haughty and walk with stretched forth necks (Isaiah 3, 16). It was also frequently
emphasized that money was squandered more frequently now that people wore
luxurious clothes, especially to imitate Gentiles.107
The list of forbidden clothing included new silk clothes (both external and
pants) and veils, especially when embroidered with silver, gold or pearls; silk at-
tires in various colors, aprons worn over dresses and coats, as well as silver hooks
and eyes on short riding jackets (żupice), corsets, and short overcoats. Also banned
were shoes and pumps with heels and sharp noses, similar to those worn by Gen-
tiles. Another large group of forbidden things consisted of ornaments and jewelry:
silver, gold and velvet belts, gold rings, silver and golden embroidery, chains,
ducats, corals, silver and golden hat ornaments.
All women, including girls (maidens), married women, and brides, were for-
bidden to wear the above-mentioned elements of clothing, and every man was
obliged to remind his wife and daughter of these regulations. Only the rabbi and
his wife were exempted, though sometimes the exemption extended to members
104 For example, the Poznań electors ordered the kahal to lease the sale of meat and wine in the
streets to a rich and reliable man – AEP no. 1504 (Passover 5445/1685), but in 1713 they recorded
that “the hands of all people are equal” when it comes to the lease (of silk, silver and golden thread,
salt and herring sales) and nobody would be favored – AEP no. 1963 (Passover 5473/1713).
105 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 256v (Poznań, Tevet 5441 / December 1680–January
1681).
106 Regulations of this kind were not unique to the Jewish population, as town authorities also
passed similar legislation that applied to non-Jewish town residents (see Estreicher, “Ustawy prze-
ciwko zbytkowi”). A number of regulations prohibiting lavish feasts and luxurious clothes may also
be found in Poznań town regulations – Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie, part 1, no. 11 (before
1462), no. 97 (1535), no. 102 (1553), no. 130 (1621), no. 160 (1709), no. 165 (1723), no. 166 (1726),
no. 186 (1754). There are many provisions regarding clothes, feasts, and family ceremonies in the
Statute of the Kraków community (1595) and also in regulations issued by the Lithuanian Vaad and
the authorities of other communities (Lwów, Dubno) – Bałaban, Zbytek u Żydów polskich.
of the rabbi’s household as well as the physician and his wife. It was recorded in
1729 that outstanding scholars were the only ones allowed to wear silk
clothes.108
Sometimes what clothes were worn depended on one’s affluence, namely on
the amount of dowry or taxes.109 It also happened that the maximum worth of al-
lowed clothes was set, e.g., men were allowed to wear a hat with a sable tail pro-
vided its worth did not exceed 10 zł., and women could wear lace whose value was
not higher than 15 gr.110
Newcomers settling in a community were informed of the local dress code. In
1652 a Zalkind was allowed to bring his wife into the community; she would be
able to wear her clothes, provided they were not more luxurious than the ones
worn by other wives living in the community.111 When David, son of Wolf, was
making a past due payment for his citizenship in 1675, he was assured that his wife
would be able to wear her dresses without any limitation and that no supervisor of
regulations could oppose that. But if David wanted to sow new clothes for himself
in the future, then he would have to observe the regulations followed by the Poznań
community.112
Dress regulations were issued for a definite term (usually a period of a few
years) and afterwards they had to be verified and confirmed. The Poznań electors
recorded in 1729 that silk attires had been prohibited for more than eight years and
that period had already lapsed, while ornaments and silver as well as golden belts
had been prohibited for eighteen years and it was not necessary to confirm that
rule.113 Dress regulations were announced in all synagogues, as well as in wom-
en’s sections of synagogues, usually on the Sabbath of Passover.114 Memunim had
the responsibility to see to it that dress codes were observed,115 or special supervi-
sors of regulations (baalei takanot; sometimes also labeled as guards – shomrim)
108 AEP no. 2107 (Passover 5489/1729).
109 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 230v–231 (Poznań, Nisan 5430 / March–April 1670) – every person
whose dowry was equal to less than 500 zł. was not permitted to sow a coat lined with the fur of
squirrel or of ordinary camel hair, and someone who did not pay 1 zł. in taxes could not make Turk-
ish attire (from a Turkish fabric?) or attire from camel hair, and he who failed to provide his daugh-
ter with a dowry of 400 zł. was not allowed to make a Turkish dress for her.
110 Ibidem.
111 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 203 (Poznań, 23 Tevet 5412 / January 4, 1652).
112 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 246v (Poznań, 1 Nisan 5435 / March 28, 1675).
113 AEP no. 2107 (Passover 5489/1729).
114 Majer Bałaban writes that the Poznań shamesim were obliged to read those regulations in
synagogues on each Monday and Thursday (Bałaban, Zbytek u Żydów polskich, p. 7). On those days,
morning services were more solemn because fragments of the Torah were read. Israel Abrahams
writes that in the Italian communities sumptuary legislation passed by community authorities, which
prescribed what could and could not be worn, were sometimes put up on large boards on the syna-
gogue’s walls (Abrahams, Życie codzienne Żydów, p. 200).
115 AEP no. 1533 (Passover 5446/1686), AEP no. 1620 (Passover 5452/1692). The fines for the
violation of the rules were paid together with garbage removal charges.
SUMPTUARY LAWS 177
were appointed to perform this function. They were to insure that all regulations
were implemented, not only those regarding clothes. In time, it was also prescribed
that they should be “strong and have a heavy hand.” In Poznań two or three of
them were usually appointed by the kahal116 or by the eleven men117 (the very
same who nominated the thirty-two men). They were expected to punish severely
(e.g., by fines) all those who violated bans and to show no favors to anyone, to
which they were committed by an oath. Violators of the law were to provide them
with liens, which were then sold and the money was distributed among the poor.
Silver and golden ornaments were to be taken away and handed over to gabaim
who were to sell them. Confiscated dresses were to be burnt in the synagogue’s
yard.118 The parnasim and kahalniks were forbidden to interfere with the decisions
made by supervisors, particularly the punishments they had imposed.
Different restrictions were imposed on feasts. In family life there were many
events that were celebrated with a feast: a circumcision and its eve,119 after the
woman in confinement left her bed (three days after circumcision), buy back of the
first-born child, bar-mitzva, engagement, the eve of a wedding (the counterpart of
a maiden or stag party), a wedding and the seven-day period following the wed-
ding (when feasts were staged every day).
On the occasion of such major events as a circumcision or wedding, it was
mandatory to hold a feast, as it was a religious duty which was appreciated by God
(seudat mitzva).120 People were reminded of that duty in Swarzędz in 1780 in con-
nection with rumors that many residents were not able to hold feasts on the occa-
sion of their child’s circumcision because of poverty. They were reminded that
circumcision was a mitzva but so too was the feast to celebrate that event, and that
every one who forgot about it would be fined.121
(Passover 5475/1715). The eleven men also issued regulations regarding clothes and other important
community matters.
118 AEP no. 1798 (Passover 5461/1701).
119 Israel Abrahams writes that the night preceding the circumcision ceremony, when, as it was
believed, Lilith was most dangerous to a child, was an all-night vigil, hence its name Wachnacht.
That custom was followed by Jews as early as the 13th century (Abrahams, Życie codzienne Żydów,
p. 113). The Swarzędz pinkas refers to a feast preceding a wedding which was labeled as vakh nakht
(Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 16–17, Swarzędz, 27 Adar II 5502
/ April 2, 1742).
120 Israel Abrahams mentions the following occasions on which religious feasts could be given:
1. circumcision of a child; 2. redemption of the first-born child; 3. engagement; 4. wedding; 5. siyum,

when a Talmudic treatise was completed or when other family events were celebrated (e.g., when
a boy was to deliver haftarah in the synagogue); 6. the Saturday night preceding the circumcision,
which is known as Shabat Zaḥor; 7. a visit paid by a scholar (Abrahams, Życie codzienne Żydów,
pp. 104, 114).
/ March 6, 1780).
Feasts were also given for more secular reasons, other than religious occa-
sions (seudat reshut). The pinkas of Poznań electors includes regulations that ei-
ther restrict or even prohibit any such feasts (e.g., by officials or in the slaughter-
house122). Other meetings that could involve expenses either on food or presents
were also restricted. In 1668 the Poznań electors recorded that it was customary to
invite the bridegroom to the bride on each Sabbath and at the beginning of a new
month (rosh ḥ odesh). The custom was banned on the grounds that it was a waste
of money, but also for other reasons “which were not to be written down.”123
To downsize feasts, a limit of guests was imposed, which depended on the
amount of taxes paid by the host (baal seudah) and also a feast’s type.124 It was
recorded in Poznań that in the case of a circumcision feast a person paying prop-
erty tax of less than 45 gr. could invite 20 people; those paying tax from 45 gr.
(inclusive) to 3 zł. could invite 25; from 3 zł. (inclusive ) to 5 zł., 30; and in excess
of 5 zł., 45 guests. When a feast was given on the occasion of a wedding, the lim-
its were increased by 5 people: those who paid less than 45 gr. were allowed to
invite 25 guests; those paying from 45 gr. (inclusive) to 3 zł. could invite 30; and
those paying 3 zł. and more could invite 50 people.125 In 1670 the Poznań electors
allowed a child’s father to invite to a circumcision feast only the sandak (an honor-
able function, the man holding a newborn child on his lap all throughout the cir-
cumcision ceremony), the mohel (who performed circumcision), and the first gen-
eration of relatives as well as neighbors with whom he shared his house.126
It was decided in Swarzędz that anyone who paid the property tax of less than
3 gr. (a week) was allowed to invite 10 people to a religious feast; less than 6 gr.,
15 people; less than 10 gr., 20 people; more than 10 gr., 30 people.127
Usually no such limits applied to the rabbi, darshan, cantor, and shames.128
Sometimes it was recommended that a specific percentage of the poor should also
122 AEP no. 1605 (Passover 5450/1690); AEP no. 1730 (Passover 5458/1698); AEP no. 1882
(Passover 5466/1706) – non-religious feasts which were given by officials were to be “like a ban to
eat pork,” and when breached, an official would be deprived of his office; AEP no. 2090 (Passover
5484/1724); AEP no. 2111 (Passover 5489/1729).
123 AEP no. 1097 (Passover 5428/1668).
124 The Council of Four Lands tried to regulate that problem by setting limits on the number of
guests that could be invited on the occasion of circumcision: those paying a property tax of less than
2 zł. could invite 15 people; of less than 4 zł., 20 people; of less than 6 zł., 25 people. In the case of
wedding feasts, the limits were raised by 5 people, and every group of ten guests should include one
poor person. It was forbidden to invite more than 10 people to an engagement and bar-mitzva feast
(Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 235, Lublin, 5419/1659).
125 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 230v–231 (Poznań, Nisan 5430 / March–April 1670).
126 AEP no. 1158 (14 Kislev 5431 / November 27, 1670) – regulations issued by the seven
supervisors.
127 JTS 3652, p. 110 (Swarzędz, Passover 5480/1720); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 230v–231
(Poznań, Nisan 5430 / March–April 1670) – it was emphasized that the rule did not apply to the
rabbi, but it did apply to other officials.
128 AEP no. 931 (Passover 5420/1660).
SUMPTUARY LAWS 179
be invited. The monthly parnas was frequently forbidden by Poznań electors to

take part in feasts, especially during daytime. The exception was granted some-
times when he was a relative of the head of household.129
Abidance by the rules was under strict control as only a shames was allowed
to invite guests. A person giving the feast would provide him with a list of guests.
He would check if their number complied with regulations and if the financial
standing of the host permitted their invitation. When everything was found to be
in order, the monthly parnas signed the guest list. Sometimes signatures of other
people would also be required, e.g., two out of five men collecting bardon or the
bardon’s trustee.130 The same procedure was followed when women invited guests
to their feasts. The shames was not allowed to accept a list other than the one
signed by the monthly parnas or to invite someone who was not on the list. If any
guest was invited by someone else than the shames, the host would be punished in
the same way as when prohibitions regarding bardon were disregarded.131 It was
also forbidden to give two feasts in a row, thus trying to evade the guest limit.
Musicians (klezmers) and sometimes the cantor’s singing added luster to
feasts.132
There were also restrictions on dishes that could be served at the time of
feasts. In Poznań it was decided in 1670 that if someone paid 2 zł. or more in
property tax, he was allowed to serve one kind of fish (and only one fish dish, so
that each guest would get only one piece of fish) and two meat dishes, fruit and
only cookies, when it comes to sweets. Those who paid the property tax of less
than 2 zł. were not allowed to serve any fish, but only two meat dishes (of beef or
lamb, poultry was forbidden), and when the feast was given on the Sabbath, they
were allowed to serve one fish dish (one kind of fish cooked one way).133 In the
following year, the menu was limited to one fish and one meat dish on the grounds
that meat cost nearly twice as much as fish.134 In 1688, the Poznań electors ordered
the giving of fish feasts (seudat dagim), without meat and poultry, and also forbade
inviting more than ten people. Musicians were also forbidden.135 In 1720 they
invoked an older regulation whereby it was prohibited to drink wine and mead at
religious feasts.136 Only vodka (yain saraf ) could be served at the ceremony when
129 AEP no. 1066 (Passover 5427/1667).
130 AEP no. 1153 (Kislev 5431/1670), AEP no. 1643 (Passover 5453/1693).
131 AEP no. 1153 (Kislev 5431/1670).
132 AEP no. 1156 (14 Kislev 5431 / November 27, 1670) – regulations issued by the seven super-
visors forbade cantors from singing at feasts, except for a blessing after the meal and wedding blessings.
133 AEP no. 1154 (Kislev 5431/1670) – regulations issued by the seven supervisors.
134 AEP no. 1185 (5431/1671).
(Passover 5450/1690). This probably did not apply to the most important feasts (on the occasion of
circumcision or wedding), but only to less important ones (cf. the regulations of the Council of Four
Lands referred to in footnote 124).
136 AEP no. 2048 (Passover 5480/1720).
an engagement contract was concluded. Serving fruit and various sweets was al-
so prohibited; this regulation was to apply to everybody regardless of financial
status.137
Supervisors of regulations were to see to the observance of feast rules. When
in 1722 the Poznań electors ordered the appointment of the supervisors, they ar-
gued that it was necessary because many people had breached the regulations.138
Feasts presented an opportunity to charge special fees and collect donations
that would finance a community’s needs. The Poznań electors prescribed that at
the time of each religious feast the shames would collect donations for the brother-
hood visiting the sick and for the synagogue’s building.139 An order was issued in
Swarzędz in 1742 that a person giving a feast should offer 1 gr. per each guest and
that every guest was obliged to pay 1 gr. Only poor people, whose property tax was
less than 2 gr. a week, were exempted. Such collections were to finance the con-
struction of beit midrash.140
Feasts were accompanied by the so-called “plate sending,” i.e., a custom of
sending food, especially sweets, after the feast to relatives, the rabbi, or the com-
munity’s elders. The Poznań electors took note of the fact that guests used to take
feast leftovers home. Such a practice was forbidden on the same grounds as of-
fered in Deuteronomy 23, 24 (but thou shall not put any in the vessel).141
There was also a custom that a woman who had given birth to a child would
send food presents (usually vodka, challah, pastries, and jams). This usually hap-
pened before circumcision or the first visit to the synagogue or on the first Sabbath
after delivery. The custom was strictly forbidden by the Poznań electors who or-
dered the kahal to appoint guards who were to see to it that the regulation would
be observed and to punish those who breached it.142 Only the rabbi’s wife and the
midwife were usually exempted, and in 1697 further exemptions were granted by
the Poznań electors to the collector of donations, the darshan’s widow and wife.143
Women who would break that regulation were to be fined.144 The Poznań electors
also forbade women after childbirth to practice an old custom of sending meat and
fish to their guests.145
supervisors.
138 AEP no. 2069 (Passover 5482/1722).
139 AEP no. 2091 (Passover 5484/1724).
II 5502 / April 2, 1742).

141 AEP no. 1589 (Passover 5450/1690).
142 AEP no. 2016 (Passover 5477/1717).
143 AEP no. 1710 (Passover 5457/1697) – it was also added that they should accept the gifts
with “a happy face” no matter if they were small or big.

145 AEP no. 2115 (Passover 5490/1730).
SUMPTUARY LAWS 181
According to a record made in Swarzędz in 1706, no woman after delivery

was allowed to send vodka, honey cookies, or anything else to anyone, including
the midwife and the collector of donations. The prohibition was introduced so that
people who could not afford a present would not feel embarrassed. Should this ban
be ignored, the woman’s husband would have to pay a fine of at least 2 thalers. It
was also forbidden to circumvent this prohibition by sending presents on some
other day than was customary. The Swarzędz electors appointed a guard to insure
observance of that rule and to confiscate all presents; he was allowed either to take
home or pour out such things as vodka.146
People were also forbidden to send gifts to a woman who had delivered a child
(the Swarzędz pinkas mentions jams and sugar sprinkled cookies), or on other oc-
casions, such as a wedding or engagement.147 The Poznań electors forbade pre-
senting the sandak with any fish on the Sabbath night and sending gifts to relatives
and other people on the Sabbath and on holidays.148 Gifts sent by messengers were
to be confiscated by guards.
When sumptuary legislation was passed or invoked, this was usually done for
numerous reasons. Most frequently it was justified by poor financial standing,
“great poverty and bitter penury,” the requirement of the moment, and by hard
times. This is why it was considered to be improper to spend, or even squander
money, which, as it was added, was frequently done without moderation. Luxury
was viewed as improper also for another reason: rich attires and lavish feasts made
people pay less attention to the bitterness of exile and forget about the hardships
of their life in the Diaspora. Sometimes, sumptuary laws were justified by the
mourning after great disasters, e.g., the pogroms of Jews at the time of Chmiel-
nicki’s uprising. One may even read in the pinkas of Poznań electors that luxury
is a profanation of God’s Name (ḥ ilul ha-shem).149
Another important reason offered when dress bans were introduced was that
the people of Israel should remain inconspicuous among other peoples and should
not provoke their hostility by ostentatious wealth. According to several records,
this was the reason why the community was afflicted by many attacks and disas-
ters, sometimes very specific ones. The Poznań electors wrote that luxurious dress-
es led to problems with creditors who would go to court against Jews arguing that
since they walked in royal attire embellished with silver and gold, then they were
certainly capable of paying their debts contracted from nobility and clergy.150

147 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 75 (Swarzędz, 2 Shvat
5544 / January 25, 1784).
supervisors; AEP no. 2070 (Passover 5482/1722).

149 AEP no. 2210 (5523/1763).
150 AEP no. 1965 (Passover 5473/1713).
Excessive splendor and wealth were also said to result in greater poverty of
community residents who competed in spending, sometimes much above what
they could really afford. It was a great financial burden to a poor family to give
a feast that was a religious duty. And it was most probably with the poorest resi-
dents in mind that the Poznań electors prescribed that when a feast was given by
a household head who paid less than 2 zł. in the property tax, each of the guests
should send him 18 gr. Those who did not abide by this rule were prohibited from
going to the feast. Only the dayan was exempted from that “gift.”151
In 1699 the Poznań electors offered another reason which was very important
to the community: if people squander their money on clothes, then when they are
to pay the property tax and other community charges, they will not be able to do
that and will claim that they have no money.152
The ultimate rationale was as follows: sumptuary regulations were also issued
by our forefathers, so it is right to “follow in their footsteps,” to invoke the old
rules and to see that they are observed.
4. METHODS OF EXERTING INFLUENCE: AN OATH AND A CURSE
The first and the most common way in which obligations were imposed on
community residents was an oath (shvuah, alah) used in various circumstances.
The first type of oath was taken by officials who vowed that they would hon-
estly perform their duties.153 When electors were selected, they were committed
under an oath to conduct elections honestly, to follow the promotion rules that ap-
plied in the hierarchy of officials, etc. On the other hand, the kahal members vowed
to electors that they would, first and foremost, implement their regulations. The
text of their oath included provisions that could be disclosed to the public and that
were confidential (written down in a secret letter), which was discussed in the
chapter devoted to elections.
And the kahal, in turn, put lower-ranking officials, whom it elected, and func-
tionaries under an oath.154 Especially important was the oath taken by people deal-
ing with finances and taxes: men collecting bardon, trustees, tax estimators, and
supervisors.
152 AEP no. 1760 (Passover 5459/1699).
153 An oath was also taken by town officials. Witold Maisel offers the texts of oaths adminis-
tered in Poznań by the newly elected mayor, town councilors, judges, president of the town court
(wójt), guild elders, public prosecutor, town scribe, defense counsels, janitors, and town guards
(Maisel, Sądownictwo miasta Poznania, pp. 404–412, source annex).
154 For example, AEP no. 1688 (Passover 5456/1696) – the electors ordered the kahal to put all
the kahal officials and functionaries under the oath that they would act with integrity to meet the
community’s needs, but also that they would not take precedence over other community residents
and pay their taxes honestly.
AN OATH AND A CURSE 183
collectors. Apart from a general promise to fulfill one’s duties diligently, an oath
would sometimes also include highly specific commitments, such as, e.g., the one
made by tax estimators that they would assess the appropriate property tax.155
Oath breaking was punishable by dismissal from the post. An oath was also taken
by people who were invited to join community assemblies, and the most important
commitment they would make was to keep the subject matter discussed there con-
fidential.
People who were granted community citizenship took an oath to behave im-
peccably and pay taxes. Should they default on their commitments, they would
have to leave the community without any delay and protests.
An oath was also taken in connection with taxes, which topic will be dis-
cussed in the following chapter. It regarded the amount of the income tax or was
administered when a property tax was assessed, when a household head did not
agree with the estimates made by tax estimators. Also bankrupts took oaths that
they had no property left.156
An oath was also taken to reiterate other solemn commitments. For example,
in 1666 Avram, son of Lipman Petlitser, and goldsmith Tovi, son of Itsek, made
a commitment in Poznań that they would not enter any more partnerships and
pursue trade the way they had done so far. Should they default on this commit-
ment, they would face a punishment by ḥerem, like anyone else who would break
an oath, and would be deprived of their citizenship.157 Oaths were also taken by
the community residents that they would repay their debts in due time, especially
to Gentile creditors. When the kahal or electors responded to some plea, they
would sometimes put the applicant under oath that he would not ask for more.
An oath was not a trifle to a pious Jew and it had to be given some thought.
Some rabbinical pundits prohibited to take any oaths, even if one swore on truth.158
This is why it was insisted that oaths be administered quickly; an oath by a person
appealing the tax was to be taken within three days. Not everyone could take an
oath, though: excluded were minors, the mentally ill, people who had administered
a false oath and those who committed a crime for profit (e.g., theft, usury, etc.).159
Not allowed to take an oath were people who had once abused it by vowing, even
though truthfully, two or three times a year.160 Such a practice was punished by,
e.g., depriving the culprit of the right to take an oath. In Poznań the seven supervi-
155 AEP no. 802 (5415/1655).
156 In Kraków, a bankrupt had to take an oath before the aron ha-kodesh in the synagogue that
he had nothing: neither cash nor gold and silver jewelry, neither books nor clothes, neither down quilt
nor pillow, and that his property would not suffice to sustain his family for a month. The bankrupt’s
wife took an oath before the shames (Bauminger, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa, p. 13).
157 AEP no. 1054 (5426/1666). The editor, Dov Avron, is of the opinion that what is meant here
are most probably partnerships and trading with non-Jews.

158 Lisser, “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce,” p. 128.
159 Ibidem.
160 Bauminger, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa, p. 13.
sors of bardon punished those who failed to report to the bardon trustees to pay the
tax. A ḥerem was put on them and they were deprived of their right to testify as
witnesses.161
Oaths were taken in the synagogue. In minor matters, the aron ha-kodesh was
opened, and in major ones, the scrolls were taken out and the oath was taken with
one’s hand placed on the Torah scroll (which was referred to as be-nekitat ḥ efets,
“when the holy object is held”).162 The ceremony was usually performed in the
presence of electors or the kahal and two shamesim.163 An oath could also be
taken by women.164
Despite the solemnity of that ceremony, some people failed to tell the truth
under oath. The Swarzędz pinkas prescribes that a person questioning his tax
should reach out a hand and that an oath should be taken in absolute honesty.
Those who did not pay taxes and did not fulfill what they had promised to do, or
who administered a false oath, were no longer viewed as credible either by Jewish
or by non-Jewish courts. They would also be severely punished for their fraudulent
behavior, ḥerem included.165 The Poznań electors ordered the thirty-two men to
punish one of the community members, Gershon Kiner, who took several oaths but
continued to misbehave (he did not pay the marketplace tax).166
But there is a record made by Poznań electors and community leaders dating
from 1706 that although in the previous year the parnasim and kahalniks of the
Swarzędz community had been sworn in, they not only did not deliver, but even
violated a few regulations. An instruction was therefore issued to prevent anything
like that from happening again, so that they would not ignore the oath again, and
it was ruled that every Swarzędz resident was allowed to turn to the “clean table”
of Poznań with a complaint against officials transgressing regulations.167
Sometimes an oath was secured by a money deposit. Those who took oaths
also wrote drafts to guarantee that their commitments would be met. Should the
oath be broken, then the drafts were cashed. The community also exerted financial
pressure by means of property confiscations. Shmuel Shilo writes that Jewish law
laid down a rule whereby the community was allowed to sequester a disputed
161 AEP no. 1149 (Kislev 5431/1670). One of the entries in the Swarzędz pinkas informs that reb
Moshe had been forbidden to take an oath, but the ban was lifted by dayanim – Michałowska-Myciel-
ska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 111–113 (Swarzędz, 25 Elul 5508 / September 18, 1748).
162 Leon Bauminger writes that the holy object that was touched at the time an oath was admin-
istered was usually the Torah scroll, but a scholar could take an oath holding phylacteries (Baum-
inger, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa, p. 5).
163 AEP no. 1054 (5426/1666); JTS 3652, p. 148 (Swarzędz, 12 Tevet 5507 / December 25,
1746).
164 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 203v (Poznań, 5412/1652) – it follows from an entry that tax estima-
tors had the right to take an oath from wives together with their husbands.
166 AEP no. 1052 (5426/1666).
167 JTS 3652, p. 140 (Poznań/Swarzędz, 54 Iyar 5466 / June 18, 1706).
object or amount of money from a natural person without any prior legal proceed-
ings.168 The communities of Poznań and Swarzędz confiscated the property of
those people who had left them without paying their debts. For example, in
Swarzędz, the kahal confiscated the house of Zalman, son of reb Sh., in 1783 (to be
used as a poorhouse because the existing one was almost completely damaged),
with the proviso that should the worth of the house be higher than the debt payable
to the kahal, the surplus would be paid out to other creditors.169
Another measure that a community’s authorities could resort to in order to af-
fect the behavior of its residents was punishment. For the most serious crimes one
could be deprived of citizenship and expelled from the community. For less serious
offenses people were to pay fines, the prevailing form of punishment. Apart from
the foregoing there were also other punishments which were viewed as a dishonor
and which are labeled in the source documents as “disgrace and shame.” One of
them was dismissal from office, the kahal, or the assembly, and thus ousting from
public life. This punishment was devised for the kahal members who instigated
quarrels at its meetings, for officials and functionaries neglecting their duties, for
household heads who left the community before tax estimators had assessed the
property tax, for officials who gave feasts to their cronies, for those who rebelled
against the community authorities or disclosed matters of the people of Israel to
Gentiles. Sometimes pinkasim offer very enigmatic reasons for somebody’s ousting
and the usual comment is that it all happened for a few “legitimate reasons.”170
But the most important of all punishments which had by far the greatest con-
sequences was a curse.171 This meant ousting from a community with all its mor-
al, social, and financial consequences. The Talmud refers to 24 crimes that should
be punished with a curse, but the list was by no means closed, as later on further
crimes were added. One may also come across testifying under pain of curse:
a testifying person would consider himself to be punishable by a curse should his
testimony turn out to be false or should he fail to meet his commitments.172
As Izak Lewin puts it, it was a widespread practice to issue regulations under
pain of curse and it was a means to insure that they would be observed.173 This
168 Shilo, “Stosunki prawne pomiędzy jednostką a gminą w prawie żydowskim,” p. 94.
169 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 110–111 (Swarzędz, Pass-
over 5543/1783).
171 According to Izak Lewin, the impulse that strengthened the importance of the curse was the
fact that at the beginning of the 16th century the king ordered the use of the curse as an enforcement
instrument in tax collection (Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, p. 10). The author also points out that
the curse was similar to a church excommunication; the main difference between the two was that the
former was of the avenging and the latter of a correctional nature.
172 For example, JTS 3652, p. 103 (Swarzędz, 9 Iyar 5460 / April 28, 1700) – the trustee
made a commitment under the ḥerem to pay out a weekly allowance for the poor from the kahal’s
coffers.
173 Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, p. 26.
instrument was used especially by Poznań and Swarzędz when they issued taxes
and citizenship regulations. When violation of a regulation was punishable by
ḥerem, it was frequently emphasized that it was effective for some time and that
the whole matter would be examined again in the future.
Jewish courts also resorted to a curse as the means of enforcement to make
a defendant arrive in court or a borrower pay his debt, etc. The Poznań electors
complained about the decline of justice due to the laziness of litigants and they
ordered defendants who would be summoned by the shames to arrive in court on
the same day. Should they fail to do it and be unable to provide the rabbi with
a legitimate excuse, the shames was to put a curse on them on the following day
without asking the rabbi or the parnas for permission. A person who was under
a ḥerem for more than three days would be punished by the parnasim of the market-
place with a high fine.174 In 1654 the kahal threatened Yeshaya Segal, who had left
the community without notifying the authorities and without their permit, of ḥerem
and punishments to make him return to Poznań.175
Initially two curses were distinguished: a minor curse (nidui, shamtah) and
a major curse, or h.erem. They differed in that a person under the first curse was
allowed to study or to teach and work, which was prohibited when a ḥerem was
put. Gradually, this distinction began to blur. Izak Lewin writes that in time, due
to the excessive use of ḥerem, it was necessary to make it harsher when a more
serious crime was committed. So then a great (ḥ erem gadol) or severe ḥerem
(ḥ erem ḥ amur) would be put. It was the third, and the most serious, type of curse.
In source documents it is also referred to as the ḥerem of Joshua the son of Nun,
in memory of the curse put on the town of Jericho (Joshua: 6, 17). The difference
between the ordinary and great ḥerem lay in the ceremony that accompanied it,
which was very solemn in the second case.176
In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim all these terms are used side by side
(usually ḥerem and shamtah, sometimes three of them at the same time) or in-
terchangeably, except that ḥerem is used most frequently. Although differences
in their meaning are not specifically clear, the initial gradation of the curse’s
severity continues to be noticeable. In the case of minor offenses shamtah was
used (it was to be put on those who did not repair their houses and fences); in
more serious ones, ḥerem, and in the most severe crimes, the great ḥerem. But
from time to time other terms of similar meaning, such as kelalah and gadah
rabah, were also used.177 Once, three curse names were used to remind those
174 AEPno. 2253 (5552/1792).

175 AEPno. 767 (Passover 5414/1654).
176 Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, pp. 36–38.
5515 / June 8, 1755) – a reference is made to all curses which are in Mishne Torah (kol ha-kelalot
she-be-mishne torah); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 257v (Poznań, 1 Ḥeshvan 5443 / November 2, 1682).
indebted to nobility of the need to remember about timely repayment of their

debts.178
People who violated regulations, especially tax (mostly bardon) laws, were
frequently warned of ḥerem. Warnings that listed crimes for which one could be
cursed were announced in synagogues. In 1708, the Poznań electors issued an
order that in the evening of the month of Iyar a list of offenses punishable by the
great ḥerem, including breach of the trade and bardon regulations that had just
been adopted, should be announced.179 According to another entry, the kahal was
told to announce in the synagogue at the time of fasting that ḥerem would be put
for bardon evasion.180 Punished by a curse were also those who left the commu-
nity to evade tax payment and who took their property with them.181 Those who
transgressed sumptuary laws or gift rules were also at risk of ḥerem. It could also
be put in individual cases. For example, it could be put on parnasim or kahalniks
who wanted to change the last will of the deceased Rafael, son of Bedit, who be-
queathed a sum of money to a Talmudist studying in beit midrash so that he would
commemorate his soul.182
Izak Lewin identifies two types of curses by applying different criteria: feren-
dae sententiae, which had to be put on each man individually, and latae sententiae,
which came into effect at the moment a specific fact occurred. The first type was
a risk of a curse, a declaration that some kind of behavior may result in a curse,
and the second one was a statement that the curse would be in effect from the mo-
ment a crime was committed. However, sometimes it is really difficult to distin-
guish between the two.183
A curse could be put both on individual residents and a community. Collective
curses were put on communities, their branches, settlements, etc. It is exactly that
kind of curse that was put by the Council of Four Lands in 1725 on the commu-
nity of Swarzędz for its conflict with the Poznań community.
Sex did not matter when curses were pronounced, and only clerics could be
treated in a special way. Under the Jewish laws, rabbis (and later on also scholars)
were not to be cursed in public, except in cases of paramount apostasy, and instead
they were to be separated from the rest of the community without resorting to
a curse. But as Lewin has observed, in modern times this rule was not observed,
and the community regulations and decisions of Jewish councils do include warn-
178 AEP no. 1136 (Kislev 5431 / November–December 1670) – regulations issued by the seven
supervisors.
179 AEP no. 1902 (Passover 5468/1708).
180 AEP no. 1954 (Passover 5472/1712).
1 Ḥeshvan 5522 / October 29, 1761).

183 Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, pp. 39–40.
ings of a curse addressed to rabbis. They were, however, allowed to testify under
pain of a curse rather than under an oath.184
The authority to put a curse was vested in the rabbi, and although initially it
was accepted that any rabbi could put it, later on a different interpretation was fol-
lowed, namely that it was to be the local rabbi. Such decision was taken by the
Council of Four Lands in 1583, as mentioned in the statute of the Kraków kahal
(1595).185 A curse could also be put by parnasim together with the rabbi, although
sometimes they would do it on their own. Moreover, sometimes the rabbi’s right to
put a curse was curtailed by the requirement that it should be first approved by the
kahal. Such provision was included either in the contract that was signed when a
rabbi was hired or in the regulations issued by the community authorities.186 A con-
tract concluded with the rabbi hired to work in Poznań in 1631 provided that he
was not allowed to put a curse on any man, either a resident of the community or
coming from Poland’s other communities, except together with the parnasim and
after they had agreed.187 The Poznań electors recorded in 1668 that a great ḥerem
might be announced after the rabbi had been informed about it.188 Parnasim’s ap-
proval was a condition precedent, but it did not make a curse valid or not. A rabbi
who would put a curse on someone without the kahal’s permission was to be fined,
and the curse was considered to be null and void. The two Jewish Councils de-
cided, the Crown’s in 1624 and the Lithuanian one in 1628, that rabbis were not
allowed to put a curse on anyone on their own without the kahal’s consent.189
In the Poznań pinkas there are a few records about a curse put by the parnasim
or the kahal which do not mention if it was done with the rabbi’s involvement or ap-
proval. The same information is missing when a curse put on thieves in Poznań,
which is discussed further on, is described. We learn from the Swarzędz pinkas that
the kahal vested a lessee and bardon collector, reb Meshel, with a right to put the
great ḥerem and to fine people at his discretion. He was also authorized to put under
an oath (with the kahal’s permission) someone who honestly did not pay bardon.190
A culprit was usually reprimanded before a curse was put two days later
(in Kraków). Thus a person at risk of being cursed could try to change the decision
of community authorities. It was usually the responsibility of the shames to make
the curse public in the synagogue,191 but sometimes he was substituted by the can-
184 Ibidem, pp. 47–48; the Council of Four Lands warned a rabbi of the curse because he tried
to get his position in return for money and he took it up before the claims pressed by his predecessor
had been settled.
185 Ibidem, pp. 55–56.
186 Ibidem, pp. 61–62.
187 Lewin, Louis, Die Landessynode, pp. 72–73.
188 AEP no. 1080 (Passover 5428/1668).
189 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 141 (5384/1624); Dubnow, ed., Pinkas ha-
medinah, no. 212.

190 JTS 3652, pp. 83–83v (Swarzędz, 6 Iyar 5460 / April 25, 1700).
191 Kraków had it recorded in a contract concluded in 1632 between the community authorities
and synagogue shamesim (Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, p. 344).

tor.192 As a rule, it was not the rabbi’s duty. A standard text of the curse was some-
times included in prayer books, and when it was read aloud, only the name of the
cursed person was inserted as well as details of the crime that he had committed.193
In major communities with several synagogues, a particularly important curse
would be announced in all of them, and a less important one only in the main
synagogue. When a woman was cursed, it was also announced in the women’s
section. It was also the shames’ duty to display the text of the curse next to the
entrance to the synagogue.194 Holidays were the most convenient occasion to put
a ḥerem, as the majority of the community’s residents would then attend the syna-
gogue.195 Later on an order was issued that the text of a curse should be announced
several times (the Lithuanian Vaad decreed in 1623 that a curse was to be repeated
three times a week: on Mondays, Thursdays, and on the Sabbath over the entire
period when it was in effect196), but this rule was not observed due to the fact that
curses were pronounced frequently.
A curse was announced in a ceremonious way, to the accompaniment of a sho-
far.197 Candles were put out to symbolize the end of the life of the cursed person
and to create the atmosphere of dread. When a great ḥerem was pronounced, the
scrolls were taken out of the aron ha-kodesh. The formula of ḥerem must have
made a strong impression on people living in those days, because they attached
great significance to the magic power of words, especially the holy ones.198
The pinkas of Poznań electors includes information that a ḥerem was put on
three thieves. The main criminal was butcher Wolf, son of Leib, notorious for
stealing from several synagogue collection boxes and other synagogue items. His
accomplices were tailor Yosef, son-in-law of Gumprikht, and Leib, son of Yeshaya
Kreskis. Quoted is also the text of the ḥerem (in Yiddish) which was to be read to
the public in all synagogues.199
192 AEP no. 756 (Passover 5414/1654).
193 Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, pp. 79–80; Lewin quotes texts of curses (in his own transla-
tion into Polish) recorded in the handwritten prayer book in Rzeszów in 1712. The text, according to
the author, is the longest of all that are known (ibidem, pp. 93–97).
194 An entry made in 1719 in the Opatów pinkas reads that there are people who tore curse an-
nouncements off the synagogue door. They were warned of a public curse and a high fine payable to
the town’s owner (Bauminger, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa, p. 56).
195 AEP no. 951 (Passover 5423/1663) – the ḥerem put on Yakov and his son-in-law Leib, who
lagged behind in payment of their property tax, was to be announced in three synagogues on the first
day of the Feast of Weeks.
197 JTS 3652, p. 67 (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5459 / April 27, 1699) – ḥerem accompanied by sho-
far blowing could be put on people who cheated at bardon.

198 Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 85.
199 AEP no. 1614 (Poznań, no date). The text was published by Louis Lewin (see Lewin, Louis,
ed., “Ein Bannfluch,” pp. 162–166), and dated as coming from 1691/92. Izak Lewin offers its Polish
translation which is not, however, of the whole text (Lewin, Izak, Klątwa żydowska, pp. 91–92).
The text (plus its translation into Polish) is available in Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie,
pp. 142–145.
It follows from the announcement how painful a ḥerem could be. And this is
why the symbolic end of life, which accompanied every curse, at least of the life
in a community, was by no means exaggerated. It was prohibited to approach
cursed people at a distance of less than four ells, to feast with and greet, marry, and
do business with them. Animals such people would slaughter would be viewed as
impure by Jews and they were not allowed to eat their meat. People under a curse
were also excluded from religious life and prohibited access to synagogues; they
were not to take part in the gathering for minyan or to be called to the Torah read-
ing; they were refused circumcision of their newborn sons and to give names to
daughters; their children were expelled from schools; and they were refused
a wedding ceremony. They were also usually viewed as unfit to testify in court and
to take a credible oath. Anyone who would contact them risked a similar punish-
ment.200
Debtors who failed to pay their liabilities despite three warnings were de-
clared as obstinate (be-sarvanut) or under a ḥerem. The Poznań electors ordered
their punishment should they arrive in the synagogue. The shames was then to tell
the public, mentioning them by name, that they had been cursed and excluded
from the community of Israel, and then put them in jail.201
Death of a cursed person did not bring the curse to an end. Cursed people had
a special kind of funeral that was referred to as “a burial of an ass” (kvurat
ḥ amor).202 It consisted in leaving the corpse unattended by the members of the
ḥevrah kadishah, absence of the funeral cortege, laying a stone on the casket,
corpse profanation at the time it was carried to the cemetery, burial next to the
cemetery wall or at a distance from other graves, prohibition on saying kaddish,
mourning and building a tombstone.
The names of cursed people were obliterated, thus to bury any memory about
them. Examples of such practices may be found in the Poznań and Swarzędz
pinkasim.203
Other punishments were imposed to add to the negative consequences of
a curse: deposition from office or function, fine, confiscation of property, flogging,
imprisonment, loss of citizenship and exile, etc. Exceptionally dangerous crimi-
200 It is interesting that in 1558 the authorities forbade Poznań residents to give shelter to rebel-
lious Jews who had been expelled by their communities. People who breached that rule were to be
punished with a fine of 100 grzywna payable to the town (Maisel, Poznańskie prawo karne, p. 82).
202 This term comes from the Book of Jeremiah 22, 19: He shall be buried with the burial of an
ass, drawn, and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, and it is also used in the texts of the Church
excommunications (Latin sepultura asinorum).
203 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 238v (Poznań, no date) – the criminal, whose name was obliterated,
traded in suspect things, most probably the stolen ones, and thus exposed the community to a danger;
CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 270 (Poznań, no date) – refers to a man who “inflicted damage both in the
community and at fairs.”
CONFLICTS 191
nals were deprived of their rights (hatarat dam), which meant that their life and
property were no longer under the protection of the law.
A curse would not expire automatically and in order for it to be no longer in
effect, it had to be lifted. After the offender had shown remorse and had improved,
the kahal and the rabbi were allowed to lift the curse. But sometimes when a curse
was pronounced it was with the proviso that it was to be eternal (ḥ erem olam) and
could not be lifted. Records in the Poznań pinkasim show that sometimes it was
the kahal that lifted the curse (1643), but in one case recorded in 1642 it took
a rabbinical court to do it.204 The shames informed the public in the synagogue that
the curse had been lifted.205
In early modern times a curse was frequently abused and not always applied
the way it should. Then non-Jewish authorities intervened as evidenced by the
regulation issued for the Orla kahal in 1780.206
The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim frequently include warnings that a curse
would be pronounced. It is likely that the widespread use of both an oath and
a curse diminished their seriousness. In 1705, the Poznań electors instructed the
seven men for bardon to punish criminals severely “so that the great ḥerem is not
perceived by people as a lenient one.”207
5. CONFLICTS BETWEEN
THE AUTHORITIES AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTS
It may be said that the system of control exercised by the community au-
thorities over its residents was very comprehensive, which is not, however, tanta-
mount to saying that an individual was vested with no rights. When a person felt
aggrieved by a decision taken by the community leadership, he was able to appeal
it to Halakhic pundits. Although frequently hired by the community authorities,
they were obliged to pass impartial verdicts granting no favors to anyone.208

205 According to Leon Bauminger, it was accompanied, the same way as when a curse was
pronounced, by a special ceremony. To begin with it was said “you are our brother, you are our
brother,” and then “you are being absolved, you are forgiven;” the curse certificate was symboli-
cally torn at the end and absolution was announced (Bauminger, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa,
pp. 60–61).
206 Leszczyński, ed., “Ustawa kahału orlańskiego.” The rabbi was prohibited from putting
a ḥerem on his own, except with the under-rabbi (i.e., darshan) and three dayanim chosen in a draw
who were to give their permission by a majority vote. It was also necessary to draw up a substantia-
tion in writing (ibidem, p. 115). It was also prohibited on pain of a punishment that the rabbi and the
kahal scared people off with ḥerem from any appeals to the non-Jewish authorities (ibidem, p. 121).
207 AEP no. 1857 (Passover 5465/1705).
208 Jacob Katz emphasizes the psychological pressure exerted on the rabbi by the community
authorities (Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 80).

In 1650, the Poznań electors recorded that recently there were more and more
rebels who “opened their mouths unlawfully” speaking against the community
authorities, and their tongue is as an arrow shot out (Jeremiah 9, 8).209 According
to the Swarzędz electors, the fact that nominees refused to accept their offices and
assume the responsibility for community problems could be attributed to a grow-
ing number of people who did not fear God, who were impudent, who showed no
respect for the honor of the kahal’s leaders, and who leveled accusations against
those in power.210
People were warned on numerous occasions that those who rebelled against the
kahal would be severely punished, i.a., with a curse and other severe penalties.211
The Poznań electors wrote in 1689 that those people who blamed parnasim and
kahalniks and who spoke about them in an arrogant and rebellious way, both within
the community limits and at fairs, should suffer both corporal and pecuniary punish-
ment, and that a great ḥerem should be put on them in the synagogue and they
should be deposited from their offices, also during their term in office.212 The kahal
was also instructed to pay attention to people who hatched conspiracies and pro-
voked quarrels as well as to informers and denunciators disclosing Jewish secrets.213
Supervisors of regulations were ordered to beware of people who would rebel and
denounce Jews to non-Jewish authorities (srarah) and to punish them.214
Contempt of the parnasim was punishable. It was recorded in Swarzędz in
1699 that an elector who would offend a parnas would be liable to a fine of 20
thalers.215
The pinkasim take note of the discontent that accompanied office filling both
by electors and the kahal.216 The Poznań electors recorded in 1696 that a “disgust-
ing and dirty man” named Mordekhai had criticized electors and was brought to
the kahal for punishment.217
209 AEP no. 628 (Passover 5410/1650).
210 JTS 3652, pp. 116–116v (Swarzędz, 5485/1725).
211 AEP no. 687 (Passover 5411) – it was also added that God would not forgive their deeds;
AEP no. 807 (5415/1655). There is an entry from 1789 in the pinkas of the Działoszyn kahal that
Kopel, one of the local citizens living in Praszka, was one of those who complained and rebelled
against the kahal, for which he and his offspring were deprived of their citizenship. Another resident
of Praszka, Herts, who spoke about the Działoszyn kahal in an offensive and disrespectful way, was
deprived the privilege of a permanent seat in the Działoszyn synagogue (Goldberg, Wein, eds.,
“Księga kahału w Działoszynie,” part 1, p. 95).
212 AEP no. 1570 (Passover 5449/1689).
213 AEP no. 804 (5415/1655), AEP no. 1357 (5437/1677).
214 AEP no. 993 (5424/1664).
215 JTS 3652, p. 66 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5459 / April 23, 1699). Penal sanctions for improper
behavior towards the town authorities, the council, and the court, and also for insulting and beating
the town janitor were laid down in the Poznań town regulations – Maisel, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie,
part 1, nos. 52–53 (prior to 1462), no. 92 (1534).
216 AEP no. 1609 (Passover 5451/1691).
217 AEP no. 1693 (Passover 5456/1696).
CONFLICTS 193
Taxes were another cause of complaints about community authorities. It fol-

lows from a record made in 1653 that the community’s problems with debt repay-
ment were due, i.a., to the fact that some community residents did not pay taxes.
They rebelled against shamesim, beat them up and disregarded them, refused to
pay the property tax, and complained about the parnasim. This is why the officials
working for the tax collector were ordered to resort to all forms of coercion and to
prosecute the stubborn ones.218
A record in the Swarzędz pinkas dating from 1771 refers to a conflict between
the kahal and important community residents who paid taxes but did not hold any
offices (yeḥ idei sgulah). They argued that excessive spending in the previous year
had not been necessary. This is why the kahal asked the trustee to provide it with
his pinkasim which were then delivered to the rabbi for checking, and then it was
explained to yeḥidei sgulah that every grosz was spent in an honest and legitimate
way. It follows from those explanations, however, that the accusations were not
completely unfounded, as it turned out that some amounts booked were higher
than the actual expenses, which was due to the fact that they included those ex-
penses which could not be itemized “for a number of secret reasons.” It was for-
bidden to return to the matter in the future and an order was issued to punish
anyone who would mutter against yeḥidei sgulah accusing them unfairly about
challenging the kahal, and who would provoke controversies and quarrels in the
community.219
In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim there are a few “rebels” mentioned by
name, but, unfortunately, their offenses were frequently described as “unfit for the
record.” The most commonly offered justification was that they said bad, disgust-
ing, or even untrue things about the community’s authorities. Sometimes their
names are obliterated, which indicates that a curse was put on them.220
Court disputes between a community and an individual were settled in ac-
cordance with applicable laws which, at least theoretically, did not give the com-
munity any favors.221 The Poznań electors instructed that in disputes between the
218 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 208 (Poznań, 5413/1653); like AEP no. 1068 (Passover 5427/1667),
AEP no. 1779 (Passover 5460/1700) – the Poznań electors wrote that many people rebelled and did
not pay any taxes, AEP no. 1817 (Passover 5463/1703).
20 Nisan 5531 / April 4, 1771).

220 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 215 (Poznań, no date) – the criminal whose name was obliterated was
incarcerated, i.a., for disclosure of secrets; CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 215v (Poznań, 1 Ḥeshvan 5418 /
October 8, 1657); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223 (Poznań, 5429/1669).
221 Shilo, “Stosunki prawne pomiędzy jednostką a gminą w prawie żydowskim,” p. 92. The
author points to changes in the legal system that put the community in a favorable position (in case
of any doubts, a standard more beneficial to the community was chosen), which was frequently due
to its difficult financial situation. For example, one such measure was the extortion of an earlier tax
payment, putting off any potential disputes about its amount or legitimacy (ibidem, pp. 94–95). Jacob
Katz is also of the opinion that this theoretical treatment of the community and an individual as
kahal and a resident the court should proceed as in the disputes between individu-
als and, at the same time, ordered the kahal to arrive in court within 48 hours. That
responsibility rested on the monthly parnas.222 Should the kahal ignore a com-
plaint lodged by someone, then he would be allowed to interrupt the public prayer
in the synagogue and publicly accuse the community’s authorities. Such a man and
his sons would also be allowed to stop paying taxes until the kahal arrived in court.
And if the kahal failed to appear in court after three warnings, the court was al-
lowed to listen only to the complaint of one party and give a binding ruling.223
A significant number of conflicts between the kahal and community residents
were of a financial nature. One of the situations which usually gave rise to such
disputes is described in the pinkas of Poznań electors. In 1654, the electors told the
kahal that when it borrowed money from someone, it should observe repayment
deadlines, and should there be any delays, the creditor would be allowed to collect
the debt by not paying the property tax. At the same time, the kahal was prohibited
from forcing such a person to pay the tax.224 It was to the electors that the widow
of rabbi Moshe turned for help to get back the money she had lent the kahal, com-
plaining about humiliations that she had to face and that none of the leaders would
listen to her.225 Other creditors also lodged their complaints, including orphans and
widows whose money was used by the kahal and never paid back.226 It was prob-
ably because of money that Shlomo, son of reb M., complained to electors in 1665
that the kahal broke the custom and did not act on its guaranties.227
In 1671 a dispute broke out between the Poznań kahal and Meier, son of Tsvi,
about a house, and the latter was allowed to buy the disputed house back.228
In 1697 there was an amicable settlement of a dispute between an Avram and
the Poznań kahal about 7000 ducats that the kahal was bequeathed by Leib,
Avram’s father-in-law. Prior to that Avram was prepared to take the kahal to the
tribunal of the Council of Four Lands, and this is why it was recorded that any
summons that he made or would make was no longer valid.229 A settlement also
closed a similar case brought by Avraham, son of rabbi Yeshaya Segal, about pay-
ment of the bill of exchange bequeathed by his father. The “clean table” took
a decision and assured Avraham that his case would be examined by the commu-
“partners” by the law was slightly biased in favor of the former, and the Halakhah experts were
consistent in giving favors to the community rather than an individual and opposed the leadership
when they demanded decisions that undermined fundamental rules of ownership and justice (Katz,
Tradition and Crisis, p. 80).
223 Gawurin, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie, p. 59.
224 AEP no. 754 (Passover 5414/1654).
225 AEP no. 625 (Passover 5410/1650).
226 AEP no. 714b (Passover 5413/1653).
227 AEP no. 1032 (5425/1665).
228 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 233v (Poznań, 5 Ḥeshvan? 5432 / October 9, 1671).
229 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 898 ([Poznań], 27 Kislev 5458 / December 11,
1697).
CONFLICTS 195
nity and that it was not necessary to take it to the Council.230 It follows from yet
another record that the Poznań kahal turned to the Council of Four Lands asking
it not to examine its litigation with Hirsh, son of reb M., but to refer it to the lead-
ers of the Wielkopolska district who lived much closer to the holy community of
Poznań and were more familiar with the nature of such problems.231
But the judges of the Council of Four Lands did examine a dispute between
the leaders of the Poznań community and Ber, son of reb Avraham Halevi, in 1654
and ordered the latter to pay 2000 zł. to the other party.232
Not all disputes were about money, though. In 1650 at the fair in Jarosław the
Council of Four Lands ruled in a case between the Poznań kahal and its resident
Mikhael, son of reb Yosef, who wanted to leave the city in contravention of its
authorities and without their permit.233 There is no record what decision was then
taken, but it follows from later proceedings that Mikhael was ordered to stay in the
community. There is an entry in the Poznań pinkas coming from 1651 that Mikhael,
son of Yosef, wanted to leave Poznań and settle in another community, and that he
was ready to pay all the taxes. But the community authorities did not agree to that,
arguing that the community was poor and it was indebted to noblemen, priests,
merchants, and Jews, and that it could not allow taxpayers to leave. Although the
arguments put forward by Mikhael were accepted, it was decided that he would
not be allowed to leave the community in the coming three years and after that
deadline his case could be examined by the Council of Four Lands at a fair in
Jarosław that would be held in 1654. He was also promised that the Council’s
decision would be honored and carried out.234
In 1661 the Council had to examine the case brought by Avraham, son of
Yosef Segal from Hannover. Leaders of the Poznań community complained that
Avraham had left Poznań and settled in Hannover or another German community.
Avraham had made a commitment in writing to return to Poznań and he did return,
but only to take along his wife and to leave the community in deep secret for good.
It was emphasized that he was one of the community’s residents and taxpayers.
The Council put a ḥerem on Avraham and asked the German rabbis to do the same,
warning of an appeal to non-Jewish courts. This was to make Avraham return to
Poznań and pay his taxes as he used to.235 More insight about Avraham is offered
in the memoirs of a Jewish woman, Glückel from Hameln.236 Avraham was re-
230 Ibidem, no. 522 ([Poznań], 27 Elul 5459 / September 21, 1699).
231 Ibidem, no. 879 ([Poznań], no date).
232 Ibidem, no. 222 (no place, 23 Ḥeshvan 5415 / November 3, 1654).
233 Ibidem, no. 214 (Jarosław, 5410/1650).
234 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 199v–200v (Gniezno, 24 Iyar 5411 / May 15, 1651).
235 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 272 (Poznań, 18 Nisan 5421 / April 17, 1661); Halperin, ed., Pinkas
vaad arba aratsot, no. 241 (Poznań, 18 Nisan 5421 / April 17, 1661).
236 The fact that Avraham is mentioned in Glückel’s memoirs was first pointed out by Philipp
Bloch (see Bloch, “Aus dem Posener Ghetto”). The fact that charges against Avraham were brought
to the Council of Four Lands is evidence, in his opinion, that the Poznań community had significant
financial needs in the mid-17th century, mainly due to high debts.
lated to her: his son, Samuel Hameln, married Glückel’s daughter, Hanna. Glück-
el wrote that Avraham was an intelligent and learned man, as full of the knowledge
of the Torah “as a fruit of pomegranate cut open.” He was sent by his father to
study in Poznań as a young man, where his knowledge gained him appreciation
and where he married Sulka, daughter of Ḥaim Boaz who was held in high regard.
After his marriage, Avraham continued with his studies of the Talmud and gained
high esteem in the Poznań community. Several years later, when Jewish communi-
ties of the Commonwealth found themselves in dire straits due to Chmielnicki’s
uprising, Avraham, then deprived of any means of living, went to visit his father
together with his wife and daughter. His father found him a place to live in Han-
nover, from which he then moved to Hameln.237 In Glückel’s memoirs there is no
mention of the ḥerem put on Avraham for leaving the Poznań community.
The Council of Four Lands also examined the case of shtadlan Borukh
Halevi in 1700,238 a man “dishonest and bloodthirsty,” whose name, as it was re-
corded, did not suit him at all (Borukh means “blessed”). His deeds were described
as disgusting and destructive, aimed at ruining the entire Poznań community. His
case was examined by the assembly of the community’s authorities enlarged to 75
people who agreed to banish Borukh from Poznań, authorized to do that by the
Council of Four Lands. To ensure that their decision would be carried into effect,
members of the Poznań kahal, taxpayers and all important people in the commu-
nity wrote drafts. It was recorded on that occasion that, since Borukh had owed his
safety to the non-Jewish authorities, to pay him back in the same coin the com-
munity turned to the same authorities to catch him. His property and money were
sealed. Borukh left for Toruń (even though he was forbidden to do that under pain
of a ḥerem), where he accused the kahal to local authorities, hurling abuse and
blasphemy, and also handed Jewish money to Gentiles. All that brought about his
final demise, as he was once and for all exiled from the community (which deci-
sion was sworn in before the rabbis of the Council of Four Lands), and the verdict
was recorded in the municipal book of the city of Toruń.239
Sometimes conflicts between the kahal and community residents were exam-
ined by non-Jewish authorities, the voievode or a town owner, which subject will
be discussed further on.
237 Feilchenfeld, ed., Denkwürdigkeiten der Glückel von Hameln, pp. 39–41.
238 Louis Lewin wrote in his article that Borukh, who was a shtadlan in 1695–1700, complained
in 1696 that the community residents transgressed his authority (Lewin, Louis, “Der Schtadlan im
Posener Ghetto,” p. 36). Borukh’s complaints that household heads were acting as intermediaries and
brokered contracts between people living inside and outside the community, thus depriving him of
his income, were recorded in the Poznań electors’ pinkas (AEP no. 1692, Passover 5456/1696).
239 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 530 ([Poznań], 5460/1700).
CHAPTER NINE
COMMUNITY’S FINANCIAL POLICY
1. TAXES AND THEIR COLLECTION
Community residents paid two major taxes: the property and income (bardon)
tax. The property tax (skhum) is also referred to as sympla by non-Jewish sourc-
es (and the officials who estimated it were labeled as symplarze). Its name derives
from the way it was assessed: first the needs of the community budget were esti-
mated, and then it was apportioned among individual taxpayers.1
The property tax was levied on possessions which are meticulously listed in
an entry dating from 1652: cash, jewelry, gold, precious stones, pearls, silver,
goods, and debts, but also on houses, ḥazakot, stores, butchers, wife’s, sons’, and
daughters’ money.2 It was recalled on several occasions that money lent to some-
one or invested in commercial activity was also viewed as property. The Swarzędz
pinkas includes a record made in 1732 that the amount of the tax should be 1 gr.
per each 100 zł. of capital and 1 szeląg (1/3 grosz) per each 100 zł. of the amount
borrowed from nobility (meot pritsim), whereas teachers of the Torah were to pay
1 szeląg per each one hundred of the capital they held.3 Another entry in the
Swarzędz pinkas illustrates that various elements of the property were differently
taxed: one third of one percent was charged on the house’s value, and half a per-
cent on silver and gold.4
The property tax was assessed by tax estimators (shamaim). When they were
appointed (a procedure discussed in Chapter 4), it was emphasized that they should
be wise and sensible and familiar with the nature of commercial activity and ways
of earning a living. Sometimes it was prescribed that each section of tax estimators
should include a kahalnik, dayan, gabai, or a person recruited “from the street,”
and it was stressed that the estimators should represent rich people, those with
1 Schiper, “Świadczenia Żydów,” p. 209.

4 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 65–66 (Swarzędz, no date,
about 5530/1770). The amounts of the property tax levied on various elements of assets in Dubno
(1717, 1745, 1762, 1781), Żółkiew (1660), and Pińczów (1685, 1698) are offered by Bernard
D. Weinryb (see Weinryb, “Beiträge zur Finanzgeschichte,” part 1, pp. 255–256).
198 COMMUNITY’S FINANCIAL POLICY
moderate incomes and poor residents of the community.5 Some of them should be
aged at least 40 and the section should include some people who had earlier worked
as tax estimators as well as new people to that job.6
In Poznań three sections of tax estimators were elected: higher-ranking esti-
mators (shamaim eliyonim) who assessed property tax of all community residents,
lower-ranking tax estimators (shamaim taḥ tonim) who assessed the tax payable by
higher-ranking estimators, and top tax estimators (shamaim she-le-maalah le-
maalah, shamaim le-maalah me-eliyonim or shamaim eliyonei eliyonim) who as-
sessed the tax payable by lower-ranking tax estimators. The section of higher-
ranking estimators consisted of seven people, and the section of lower-ranking or
top estimators, five people.
The Poznań pinkasim seldom offer a different number of tax estimator sec-
tions. In 1651 a reference was made to two sections: of higher-ranking tax estima-
tors (shamaim shel maalah), whose task was to assess the property tax of less
than 24 gr., and lower-ranking tax estimators (shamaim shel matah), who were to
assess the tax of 24 gr. and more and who also assessed the tax payable by func-
tionaries, shamesim, dayanim, and widows. Only a meeting of five tax estimators
was allowed to assess the property tax.7 The Poznań electors recorded in 1714
that since only one section of tax estimators had been elected for the entire com-
munity in the previous year, the property tax was not assessed adequately. This is
why it was prescribed that in future three sections should be set up, as in the
past.8
It was recommended that tax estimators, or at least some of them, should be
elected in secret so that no community resident knew their names before taxes
were assessed. After their appointment, tax estimators took an oath in the syna-
gogue that they would discharge their duties honestly, unbiased by hatred or sym-
pathy.9 Should they default on their obligations, e.g., lag behind in discharge of
their duties, the kahal was allowed to fine them. Sometimes tax estimators wrote
bills of exchange as a guaranty that they would act on their pledge.10 Immedi-
ately after their oath, tax estimators would proceed with property tax assessment,
for which they usually had eight days or from two to three weeks, though some-
times a specific deadline would be set. The Poznań electors paid a special allow-
(Passover 5481/1721).
6 AEP no. 1771 (Passover 5460/1700).
7 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 198v (Poznań, 2 Iyar 5411 / April 21, 1651). The list of elected officials
in the electors’ pinkas from 1651 includes no tax estimators.

8 AEP no. 1973 (Passover 5474/1714). The list of elected officials in the electors’ pinkas from
1713 offers three sections of tax estimators (CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 263).

9 The text of the tax estimator’s oath (in Yiddish with translation into Russian) comes from the
Witebsk pinkas from ca. 1700 and is quoted by P. S. Marek (see Marek, “Raskladchiki nalogov,”
pp. 164–165).
TAXES AND THEIR COLLECTION 199
ance to tax estimators to cover their food expenses at the time they were on the
job, not to exceed 20 zł.11 It was recommended that tax estimators should stay
locked up in the kahal house until they completed their task, and they were not
allowed to go home even at night.12 It follows from another entry, however, that
they would be allowed to go home after 9 p.m. (and return to work before noon).13
They were also reminded that many disasters had been due to the fact that tax
estimators hang in the streets and marketplaces before the property tax was as-
sessed.
Each section of tax estimators assembled separately and they were even ad-
vised to meet in different houses.14 The sequence in which the property tax was to
be estimated was also important: first they were to assess taxes payable by tax
estimators themselves (and inform the monthly parnas about it), and then the tax-
es payable by community residents.15 It was recalled on numerous occasions that
taxes were to be estimated from “top down.” This procedure was most probably to
prevent any insider dealing among tax estimators, in the event that one of them
would join another section.
Community residents were prohibited from leaving the community at the time
when tax estimators were assessing their property tax. Every household head was
obliged to appear before tax estimators when summoned by them, and if he did
not, then he was warned that his tax would be assessed in his absence, even if he
had been summoned only once.16 Another entry warned that such negligence could
result in deposition from office.17 Tax estimators were ordered to assess the prop-
erty tax payable by each man within two or three days after he had appeared before
them.18 The electors also prescribed that the tax of each individual should be as-
sessed separately, not jointly for a father and his sons, as such an approach would
decrease the property tax due. The same approach was taken to a father-in-law and
son-in-law as well as partners.19
People were warned in synagogues that no one should leave the community
until the tax assessment was over, even if one did not travel far. In the case of an
emergency, one had to appear before the “clean table” which was to take a decision
if he really had to leave the community immediately. Once permission was grant-
ed, the individual concerned had to assure that he would call up tax estimators to
11 AEP no. 1934 (Passover 5471/1711).
12 AEP no. 1851 (Passover 5465/1705).
13 AEP no. 2082 (Adar 5483/1723).
14 AEP no. 1557 (Passover 5448/1688).
15 AEP no. 1506 (Passover 5445/1685).
16 JTS 3652, p. 196v (Swarzędz, 24 Sivan 5506 / June 12, 1746).
17 AEP no. 1522 (Passover 5445/1685).
18 AEP no. 734 (Passover 5413/1653), AEP no. 1200 (Passover 5432/1672) – 2 days (48 hours),
AEP no. 1987 (Passover 5475/1715), AEP no. 1994 (Passover 5475/1715), AEP no. 2082 (Adar
5483/1723) – 3 days (72 hours).
assess his tax within two days of his return.20 In 1694, the electors recorded that
the oath taken by tax estimators should include a commitment that when assessing
a property tax they would summon every community resident without any excep-
tion. Should the summoned resident fail to turn up, then they would increase his
previous tax by at least one third without any favors to anyone.21 The obligation
to appear before tax estimators also covered those citizens who lived outside the
community.22 But it seems that people were not particularly concerned about
warnings, because the Poznań electors recorded in 1699 that the property tax had
continued to fall because taxpayers left for Leipzig and other fairs at the time when
taxes were assessed. Each year, as one can read in the entry, the situation continued
to get worse, and in the previous year the property tax had not been assessed for
top taxpayers until the second month of Adar. This is why the kahal was ordered
to hurry and to nominate tax estimators immediately after Passover, and should it
be impossible, then to select another appropriate time when all taxpayers stayed in
the community.23
Tax estimators were told to keep an eye on people trying to evade taxes by
claiming that they were leaving the community to live somewhere else.24 The
Poznań electors’ pinkas also mentions merchants who lived with their families and
conducted their business in the community but claimed that their settlement was
only temporary and this is why they did not pay the property tax. The electors
commanded the kahal to examine who such people were and told tax estimators to
summon them and to assess their property tax. They warned that if anyone refused
to arrive before tax estimators, he would have to leave the community.25 Another
way of tax evasion was by declaring that the house had been pledged, and thus it
could not be viewed as property for tax purposes. Money thus saved was at the
disposal of the household head who could use it for commercial activity. An order
was issued in 1651 that household heads who had money, owners of the houses
that had been encumbered, should be treated on a par with house owners without
any debts and that the property tax should be levied on both of them.26 The electors
recorded in 1670 that some people tried to evade taxes by buying a house, syna-
gogue seats and other things, and they warned that such purchase was not deduct-
ible. They also told that a new property tax would be assessed in the following year
and their arguments that they had sold their clothes or borrowed money from no-
blemen to make that purchase would be to no avail.27
20 AEP no. 1678 (Passover 5456/1696).

21 AEP no. 1649 (Passover 5454/1694).
22 AEP no. 892 (Passover 5420/1660).
23 AEP no. 1750 (Passover 5459/1699).
24 AEP no. 1608 (Passover 5451/1691).
25 AEP no. 1683 (Passover 5456/1696).
26 AEP no. 657 (Passover 5411/1651).
27 AEP no. 1150 (Kislev 5431/1670).
Should a person appearing before tax estimators be a relative of one of them,

then the tax estimator would be obliged to inform others about it.28 He would have
to leave the room when other tax estimators assessed his relative’s tax. When the
property tax did not exceed 20 gr., the higher-ranking tax estimators did not need
to work in a larger company, and when the tax was higher than that, they were
supposed to invite some lower-ranking tax estimators.29 A tax estimator would
also have to leave the room when the examined tax was levied on an individual
who was his or his relative’s partner.30 Tax estimators nominated by electors were
not allowed to assess their taxes.31
Attempts were made to protect tax estimators from any forms of pressure.
Electors frequently reiterated that the kahal was not allowed to intercede for any-
one with tax estimators or to comment about their calculations. An order was is-
sued in 1691 to inform people in synagogues that no one should intercede for
someone with tax estimators, both by offering a recommendation and filling a re-
quest.32 Tax estimators were prohibited from listening both to “positive” interven-
tions and to rumors, denunciations, and accusations.
Tax estimators put down their estimates in a special register or pinkas (pinkas
ha-skhum or pinkas ha-shumot) and signed it. The Poznań electors ordered higher-
ranking tax estimators in 1756 to put up their decisions on synagogue boards, and
synagogue shamesim were to see to it that they would be recorded in pinkasim
along with information about who had made the appeal.33
The assessed property tax could be appealed. As a result of such appeal the
tax could be decreased, but by no more than one third of the initial amount. But
a tax cut could be even higher under an oath.34 There is an entry in the Swarzędz
pinkas reading that when an oath is administered by a household head, he may be
accompanied by another household head so that they both swear on property tax.35
The oath mentioned the property and its value.36 The Swarzędz pinkas includes an
entry describing how such a property oath was taken according to a custom fol-
lowed by the ancestors of the holy community of Poznań. Before the ceremony,
a household head who was to take an oath had to make an inventory of his assets.
28 This held for relatives within the third and fourth degree of affinity – AEP no. 1994 (Passover
5475/1715). The duty to disclose family ties with a person who came for tax assessment is included
in the oath taken by tax estimators (e.g., in the above-mentioned oath included in the Witebsk
pinkas).
30 AEP no. 1729 (Passover 5458/1698).
31 AEP no. 735 (Passover 5413/1653).
32 AEP no. 1607 (Passover 5451/1691).
33 AEP no. 2189 (Passover 5516/1756).
34 AEP no. 2083 (Adar 5483/1723).
35 JTS 3652, p. 146 (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan 5492? / April 13, 1732).
36 The text of such an oath, recorded in the Drohobycz pinkas, is offered by Jakub Wikler (see
Wikler, Z dziejów Żydów w Drohobyczu, pp. 45–46).

He had to itemize the cash he held in various coins (gold, silver, and copper) and
goods (e.g., wool, fabrics, and silverware), offering their quantity and value. Such
inventory undersigned by the household head was to be handed to tax estimators
at the moment he entered the synagogue for the oath taking ceremony. The shames
was to read the text of the oath, and the individual taking the oath was to say
“Amen.” His wife should take the oath along with him, seated in the women’s
section of the synagogue.37
That some people could cheat on such occasions is evident in the oath that
Hirts, son-in-law of Eliezer, took on his property in Poznań in 1650. He assured
that he was in possession of 300 zł. in cash (to an accuracy of 10 zł.) as well as old
books and other chattels, as he had not bought any new things. He also added that
he had not expatriated any cash or bills of exchange, or silver and gold, that he had
not given a present (which would be returned) and that he had not committed any
fraud by trying to carry away any of his property. He assured that he had not given
any money or drafts to anyone, or any jewelry, and that his wife had no possessions
of her own.38
A specific time was reserved for an oath before the assessment made by tax
estimators came into effect. On the 6th day of Sivan 5492 (June 2, 1732) it was
recorded in Swarzędz that a household head who wanted to take an oath had time
to do it until the beginning of the month of Elul (1 Elul is equal to August 22).39
In 1738 it was recalled in Swarzędz that tax estimators were not allowed to reduce
anyone’s property tax without an oath, and it was added that the oath had to be
taken as quickly as possible, immediately after the tax had been assessed, no later
than before the forthcoming Feast of Weeks.40 A Swarzędz pinkas entry dating
from 1732 reads that should a household head be assessed a tax higher than he can
afford to pay, then he should value his property taking into account cash, money
borrowed from noblemen, silver, and gold and swear that his accounts were true.
After the oath he was to choose one man, the kahal was to choose the other man,
and the rabbi was to be the third man, and they were to decide together what tax
he would pay.41
In the evening of each Sabbath, tax estimators were obliged to send the
monthly parnas a note with estimated property tax (skhum tsetil).42 Sometimes it
was required that the note should be sealed or put in an envelope. In 1663, the
38 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 195v (Poznań, 18 Elul 5410 / September 14, 1650). The text of the oath
taken by household heads and recorded in the Witebsk pinkas in ca. 1700 is quoted (in Yiddish and
its Russian translation) by P. S. Marek (see Marek, “Raskladchiki nalogov,” pp. 168–169).
39 JTS 3652, p. 146v (Swarzędz, 9 Sivan 5492 / June 2, 1732).
40 JTS 3652, p. 175v (Swarzędz, 9 Iyar 5498 / April 29, 1738) – done as commanded by His
Highness the Prince.

(Adar 5483/1723). The editor, Dov Avron, noted that what was meant was the first week of each
thirty-two men were to decide whether tax estimators would assess the tax for the
whole year, as in the past, or every month, a practice followed in more recent
years.43 A record of 1763 reads that from then on the property tax, as prescribed
by the voievode’s letter, would not be kept secret, but would be disclosed to the
public, as ancestors used to do.44
Depending on the amount of property tax, community residents were divided
into high, medium, and low taxpayers (baal skhum gavoah (gadol), beynoni,
paḥ ut).
The amount of property tax also entailed a variety of other encumbrances and
charges levied on community residents such as a tax for debt repayment to nobil-
ity, the duty to host yeshivah students on the Sabbath or to buy mitzvot in the
synagogue. The property tax also determined the number of guests whom one
could invite to feasts. Door-to-door peddlers were also obliged to pay the proper-
ty tax.
In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim there are many entries that reflect the
difficulties that the community had in collecting the property tax and the growing
indebtedness of taxpayers. Tax collectors were frequently ordered to collect past
due taxes, and those who had been lagging behind in payments, as well as their
debts, were to be scrupulously recorded in new pinkasim, so that they would not
be forgotten. There are also many reminders that no one can be exempted from
taxes which have been assessed by tax estimators, as “there is only one Torah and
one Law” binding on everybody. Property tax was also paid by widows and or-
phans, and the only exemptions applied to some functionaries, mainly the rabbi
and his family.45
Exemptions from property tax payment could also be a remuneration of sorts
or a way the kahal paid its liabilities. There is an entry dating from 1666 that two
shamesim of the kahal, Katriel and Gumpil, will discharge their functions gratui-
tously, and in return for their work they will be exempted from their property
taxes and all other community taxes.46 In 1671 the kahal reached an agreement
with a teacher named Akiva who had lent the kahal 300 zł. As an equivalent for
the interest he would have otherwise charged on that amount, he was exempted
from all community taxes, namely, the property tax, poll tax, and payment for
soldiers (“soldier money”) as well as various mandatory loans extended to the
kahal. The agreement was to be in effect for three years and apart from that Akiva
was also allowed to use lodgings consisting of a small room where he lived. Each
month, but the entry from 1723 states clearly that a register of the property tax was to be made every
week. It is likely that earlier assessments were copied based on which tax was collected.
43 AEP no. 940 (Passover 5423/1663).
44 AEP no. 2212 (5523/1763) – the entry refers to the letter of His Highness the Great Lord.
45 In 1696 the kahal was to bind tax estimators by an oath to estimate the property tax of Avra-
ham Segal, son of rabbi Yeshaya Segal – AEP no. 1680 (Passover 5456/1696).
46 AEP no. 1044 (5426/1666).
of the parties was allowed to terminate the agreement by notifying the other one
in appropriate advance.47
Frequently, agreements concluded with the kahal specified the amount, for
example, when a permit for temporary stay in the community was issued in return
for an exemption from the property tax. Such exemptions were often granted with
the proviso that bardon, and sometimes also other charges (e.g., for garbage col-
lection in the streets), were to be paid as usual.48
The electors recorded in 1703 that many household heads who were able to
pay their property tax were nonetheless lagging in payments or paid only a fraction
of what was due. Many of them asked parnasim and kahalniks for tax exemptions.
A warning was therefore issued that no parnas or kahalnik was allowed to exempt
anyone from tax payment, and they were reminded that it was their duty to support
the tax collector in his job and to tell their own fathers that, to quote after Deuter-
onomy 33, 9: I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor
knew his own children.49
People who provoked quarrels or spoke against tax estimators risked severe
punishment, mainly by the great ḥerem. Some complaints might not have been
completely unfounded as evidenced by the pinkasim records referring to the abus-
es and negligence of some tax estimators. The Poznań electors recorded in 1709
that the collection of property tax had been declining for some years due to favors
granted to people who had sufficient funds and were affluent. They usually did not
take an oath on the worth of their property, and tax estimators themselves tended
to assess a small tax, quite incommensurate with their possessions. The electors
observed that such an approach was taken to many people whose affluence was
evident to every community resident. This is why an order was issued that in the
future tax estimators should take an oath from the people who were known to be
affluent, rather than confine themselves to the assessment of their taxes.50 In 1712,
the electors observed again that the property tax proceeds were falling every year
because tax estimators had been chosen prior to all other officials, but also because
they were negligent about their duties and favored some people.51
In 1672, the Poznań electors ordered the kahal not to levy any new taxes until
all past due ones had been collected, unless urgent circumstances required other-
wise.52
Sometimes an additional property tax was collected for specific purposes.
Basically, it was quite a different tax or a one-off charge which, maybe for the sake
of convenience, was in a form and amount of the property tax. In 1654 a decision
47 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 229 (Poznań, 7 Av 5431 / July 14, 1671).
48 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 195 (Poznań, 21 Iyar 5410 / May 22, 1650).
49 AEP no. 1816 (Passover 5463/1703).
50 AEP no. 1918 (Passover 5469/1709).
51 AEP no. 1950 (Passover 5472/1712).
52 AEP no. 1214 (Passover 5432/1672).
was taken in Poznań that in order to remunerate the teachers two units of property
tax would be collected, one in summer, and the other one in winter, and in the fol-
lowing year the kahal was told to levy two property tax units again to support poor
maidens.53 In 1671, one property tax unit was to be collected to carry the necessary
pipe repairs and to dig wells in two streets.54 In 1724, the proceeds from an addi-
tional property tax were to be spent on the revamping of the High Synagogue.55
And people who had not bought any mitzvot were committed to pay two property
tax units to charity once every half a year, before Passover and the Feast of
St. John.56
There was also an income tax or bardon (pardon, bardahen), which is also
referred to as krupka (korobka, which means a basket) by non-Jewish sources.
According to Ignacy Schiper, initially krupka was a consumer tax levied on such
goods as meat, wine, milk, etc., but in time it began to cover all activities that
generated an income.57 Hence in the 18th century all communities levied two types
of krupka: the previous consumer tax (on meat, milk, bread, candles, etc.) and
a new one levied on income.58 It follows from an entry in the electors’ pinkas,
which prescribed to lease bardon levied on commercial activities as well as food
and drinks, that those two taxes were clearly distinguished, even though one term
was used to refer to them.59
A bardon levied on income had to be paid by merchants, craftsmen, and fac-
tors. Its amount depended on the type of goods they made or traded.
Officials supervising bardon were chosen by electors, discussed in Chapter 4.
Poznań had either five or seven such officials, while Swarzędz had five. This is
why they were referred to as the five or seven men (ḥ amishah anashim or shivah
anashim). Apart from them, the community also employed a trustee (or two),
a bardon collector, as well as a scribe (or two); these were the functionaries remu-
nerated by the kahal. Bardon trustees were obliged to spend two hours a day col-
lecting the tax.60 Bardon supervisors were to gather once a week, supervise the
trustee and tax collector, and to square the accounts. A bardon trustee was also
under the supervision of account supervisors. The Poznań electors instructed in
1677 that the five men should take turns and spend every Saturday evening and

54 AEP no. 1171 (5431/1671).
55 AEP no. 2085 (Passover 5484/1724).
57 Schiper, “Świadczenia Żydów,” pp. 209–210. The author writes that in some communities
there were several dozen types of krupka: Opatów had 30 types of krupka in 1665, Kraków had
26 types of krupka in the 18th century, and according to a tariff developed by the Drohobycz com-
munity in 1753, there were as many as 71 types of krupka there.
59 AEP no. 1503 (Passover 5445/1685).
60 AEP no. 1241 (5433/1673).
Sunday with the bardon trustee and oversee tax collection.61 In another entry, the
electors directed that two (out of seven) bardon supervisors should sit down and
verify the pinkas of bardon from beginning to end every day, jotting every item
that gave rise to any doubts.62
Craftsmen usually paid a lump sum bardon. It follows from the records that
in 1717 in Swarzędz especially tailors and wheelwrights were to pay a tax of 10 zł.
on what they had earned. The trustee was to collect money at the end of the year.63
In 1734, it was recalled that bardon should be paid by all craftsmen: tailors, physi-
cians, coachmen, liquor sellers, furriers, and glaziers; unless they made a different
disclosure, their tax was to be equal to 10 zł.64
Pinkasim also list goods and the amounts of the bardon payable on them.65
These are most frequently wool, fabrics, hides, spirits, mead, meat, herring, salt,
grain, spices, furs, and horses. It follows from the text of an oath that a merchant
was obligated to bring the goods he had bought in front of the synagogue in or-
der to, as an entry in another pinkas puts it, “display them before the eyes of
everyone.” He also had to tell if the goods were partially or fully owned by
someone else, without protecting anyone.66 It follows from another record that
every resident returning to the community from a fair had to bring his goods in
front of the synagogue in order to show them to bardon lessees.67 Many other
rules were enforced to make people pay the tax. For example, porters were
obliged under an oath not to unload wine until the trustee was paid the bardon
by a merchant.68
61 AEP no. 1358 (5437/1677).

62 AEP no. 1857 (Passover 5465/1705). Three pinkasim with bardon of the Swarzędz commu-
nity have survived. They come from 1775, 1777/78, and 1779/80 and include a separate page for
each household head, where a special table was filled with information about the type and quantity
of goods, the amount receivable, and the amount actually paid (CAHJP, PL/Sw 21, PL/Sw 23,
PL/Sw 24).
63 JTS 3652, pp. 109–109v (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5477 / April 12, 1717).
/ May 4, 1734).
65 Such an itemization may be found in the Swarzędz pinkas: ibidem, pp. 88–91 (Swarzędz,
6 Av 5540 / August 7, 1780). The amount of bardon depended, i.a., on whether a specific commod-
ity was then sold in wholesale or retail. When goods were brought by third parties, the bardon de-
pended on the amount of profit, and once the profit was low (of no more than 1 zł. per each thaler),
the merchant would be exempted from the tax. Similar tariffs were also used by other communities.
Jakub Wikler describes the rules of the “great krupka” collection in 1742 laid down in the Drohobycz
pinkas (Wikler, Z dziejów Żydów w Drohobyczu, pp. 51–54). Majer Bałaban offers fragments of the
krupka tariff followed in Opatów in 1665 and the Kraków tariff from 1771 (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału
w Polsce,” pp. 45–48).
/ March 7, 1763).
68 Ibidem, pp. 69–70 (Swarzędz, 20 Kislev 5532 / November 27, 1771).
A merchant would have 72 hours to pay bardon on the goods he brought or

imported into the community from the moment they crossed town limits.69 It fol-
lows, however, from other entries made by the Poznań electors that bardon had to
be paid within two or three weeks.70
Many rules applied to trading partnerships, especially those established with
the residents of other communities. A community resident was obligated to pay the
entire amount of bardon, even if a half of the goods was owned by his partner. In
1788 it was decided in Swarzędz that the same rule applied to partnerships with
residents of the Poznań community.71 There is a record dating from 1784 that each
household head who imparted appropriate information about the partnership would
be exempt from bardon payable on the portion of his partner’s goods, or otherwise
he would have to pay the entire amount. The entry quotes the example of a partner-
ship between brothers David and Wolf, sons of reb M., and their brother Israel,
who lived in Poznań. As all the community residents knew about their partnership,
and both brothers referred to it clearly and did not try to cheat, they did not have
to pay bardon payable by their brother-partner.72
Bardon was a tax from which no exemptions were usually allowed, e.g., when
a rabbi and his family received such an exemption, it was with a proviso that
should they become involved in commercial activity, they would have to pay bar-
don like other community residents.73 When a permit for a temporary stay was
issued by a community, the payment then made was viewed as a property tax, and
the applicant was reminded that bardon would have to be paid as well, depending
on the scope of his commercial activity. Bardon was not levied on compensations
earned by women in return for their work or sale of foodstuffs, as well as remu-
nerations for a court verdict, a settlement, on deposits and gifts. A warning was
issued, however, that should anyone accept a “gift” in return for interest, he would
be punished with a curse.74
The tax was paid based on an income disclosure made by a taxpayer. Every
man was obliged to appear before bardon trustees once every fortnight; those who
failed to turn up at least once a month were to pay a high fine.75 The obligation to
appear before trustees also applied to those who had no income to disclose. Indi-
vidual disclosures were entered in a special pinkas (pinkas shel hagadah). There
is an entry in the Swarzędz pinkas dating from 1736 that many disasters were due
69 AEP no. 1976 (Passover 5474/1714).
70 AEP no. 1404 (Passover 5439/1679): two weeks; AEP no. 1633 (Passover 5453/1693): three
weeks.
5549 / November 10, 1788).

73 Whereas in 1734 the Swarzędz rabbi was exempted from bardon payment – ibidem, pp. 6–7
(Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5494 / May 4, 1734).

74 Ibidem, pp. 11–12 (Swarzędz, no date).
75 AEP no. 1149 (Kislev 5431/1670), AEP no. 2198 (5520/1760).
to the fact that people disclosed their bardon to the trustee any place, and then their
disclosures were not always recorded in the pinkas. Therefore, the trustee was
committed not to accept such disclosures, and household heads were ordered to
appear where the pinkas was, or their disclosures would be null and void. And
should it turn out that no income disclosure of a household head was to be found
in the pinkas, then he would be treated as someone who concealed his bardon.76 It
was probably with a view to eliminating abuses that each evening the trustee was
to send bardon lessees a note with information about bardon disclosures made that
day. They were to record everything in a pinkas and to make a note even if some-
one had not disclosed any income.77
Everyone was bound by an oath to make an honest disclosure of bardon, and
it was up to bardon supervisors to order anyone to take such an oath. The oath in
Yiddish, which was in effect for two years (1757–59), is recorded in the Swarzędz
pinkas. It lists all profits earned from trade and loans by the taxpayer himself and
with the help of other people, both in the community and at fairs, or in some other
locations.78 Disclosed earnings were the basis for tax estimation. Tax assessment
could be appealed, again by taking an oath. The text of the oath taken in Yiddish
by those appealing the assessed property tax and bardon is recorded in the Swarzędz
pinkas. A person taking such an oath disclosed his assets and profits, goods, and
money. He would vow that he did not overlook any debt which he had considered
as “a bad debt,” nor did he give a present to any one that would be returned after
the taxes were assessed.79 The Poznań electors prescribed that the oath should
include information about coins in which an income was earned, as evidently at-
tempts were made to underestimate the amount of payable tax.80
Withholding of information about one’s earnings or any delay in their disclo-
sure was punishable by the great ḥerem, which is also referred to in the sources as
bardon’s ḥerem (ḥ erem bardon). The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim frequently
mentioned that penalty, emphasizing that the tax was decisive for the community’s
standing and situation. The bardon’s ḥerem was announced in synagogues. People
on whom that curse was put were not allowed to run for any positions.81 A fine was
frequently imposed as well and there is a record in the Swarzędz pinkas dating
from 1706 invoking Poznań regulations that such fine should be equal to five times
76 JTS 3652, pp. 172v–173 (Swarzędz, Nisan 5496 / March–April 1736).

/ May 4, 1734).
78 Ibidem, p. 37 (Swarzędz, no date [5518/1758]). The text was also published (along with its
translation into Polish) by Anna Michałowska (see Michałowska, Gminy żydowskie, pp. 103–104).
79 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 65–66 (Swarzędz, no date
[about 5530/1770]). The text was also published (along with its translation into Polish) in
Michałowska, Gminy żydowskie, pp. 104–106.
80 AEP no. 2211 (5523/1763).
81 AEP no. 1569 (Passover 5449/1689).
the bardon that had not been paid.82 In 1670, the Poznań electors recorded that
many people did not pay bardon commensurate with their earnings, and thus they
violated the rules. Bardon trustees punished them with fines rather than with pen-
alties imposed for crimes, mindful of their family’s honor. They also warned that
the proper punishment should be in the form of the great ḥerem; they would be
deprived of the right to take oaths and to testify and expelled from the communi-
ty.83 It was recalled in 1705 that bardon supervisors had the right to apply fines and
punish by imprisonment so that the great ḥerem would not be perceived as a leni-
ent punishment by people.84
It was also possible to enter an agreement on bardon with electors or the ka-
hal. The Swarzędz pinkas reads that in order to conclude such an agreement valid
for one year the electors should check the pinkasim of bardon covering the last
three years and pick the highest amount that was paid in that period. Under such
agreement no one was allowed to check a person’s bardon, he did not have to take
any oaths, and the bardon’s ḥerem did not apply to him. But the same person had
to undertake under an oath, which was taken at the time the agreement was exe-
cuted, that he would not cheat by assuming the goods of someone else and disclos-
ing them as his own possessions to which the agreement pertained.85
It was also possible to conclude a similar agreement about bardon payable on
fair earnings. This is what Yehoshua Pozner did with the Swarzędz electors in
1743 by agreeing a lump sum that he would pay for his brokerage services and
trade at the Wrocław fair, with the proviso that the amount would not cover the
goods he would bring from Wrocław to Swarzędz or sell on his way back, on
which a separate tax would be levied.86
To fend off any problems with bardon, the kahal leased the collection of either
the whole tax or its portion, e.g., a half or three quarters. Although it could be
leased only by one person, it was more frequently leased by two or three people.
Such form of lease would expose them to a lower risk of loss in the event that trade
declined or that the collected tax turned out to be lower than expected. In 1698,
when bardon collection was leased to Meier Segal in Swarzędz, he was warned not
to file any excuses or complaints with the kahal should he incur any losses, and
that he would have to pay the agreed amount out of his pocket without any un-
necessary delay. When someone hid goods and paid no bardon, for which Meier
had two witnesses, he was to take them to the monthly parnas. The parnas then
invited two kahal members to levy a fine on the culprit. The fine, which was an
82 JTS 3652, p. 140 (Swarzędz, 4 Iyar 5466 / June 18, 1706); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed.,
Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 69–70 (Swarzędz, 20 Kislev 5532 / November 27, 1771).
83 AEP no. 1149 (Kislev 5431/1670).
84 AEP no. 1857 (Passover 5465/1705).
5495 / April 20, 1735).

86 Ibidem, p. 14 (Swarzędz, 24 Nisan 5503 / April 18, 1743).
equivalent of one tenth of the goods’ value, was then split between the kahal,
which kept half of it, and the lessee.87 In view of the risks involved, no wonder that
three bardon lessees from Swarzędz declared in 1747 that they no longer wanted
to discharge their functions and expose themselves to possible losses. The kahal
agreed with their line of reasoning and decided that in the event of any losses they
would not be obligated to pay, but then they should not expect the kahal to remu-
nerate them for their efforts.88
Orders to collect past due bardon were frequently issued. In 1699 the Swarzędz
kahal selected three men who were to review the bardon pinkasim and force peo-
ple to pay their past due bardon.89 The Poznań electors prescribed in 1705 that
neither the property tax nor bardon should be collected at the time of fairs. The
only exception that was allowed was when a person who had long been in arrears
in tax payments came to a fair; then, the fair officials had the right to collect the
amounts due.90
In Poznań attempts were made to separate bardon and property tax, after the
electors had recorded in 1664 that high losses were incurred due to the fact that the
bardon trustee was the property tax estimator at the same time and they ordered
the abandonment of such practices.91 An order was also issued that the property
tax collector and bardon collector should not perform their duties in the same
house.92 But the Swarzędz community employed one tax collector (Yoḥanan, the
dayan, and the rabbi’s son-in-law) in 1745, who was to collect the property tax,
bardon, poll tax, and hearth tax.93
The property tax and bardon were the two main taxes which allowed the com-
munity to pay various taxes and charges levied by external authorities.94 But in
time, gradually, due to the poor financial standing of communities, payments due
to external authorities were collected separately.
The first such tax was poll tax (keraga, gulgolet, Polish pogłówne, Yiddish
kop gelt, poglivni) which was also referred to as the royal poll tax (keraga de-
malka, gulgolet ha-melekh) or poll tax of the Lands (gulgolet aratsot).95 In 1651,
87 JTS 3652, p. 67v (Swarzędz, 14 Iyar 5458 / April 25, 1698).

88 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 24 (Swarzędz, 24 Tamuz
5507 / July 2, 1747).
90 AEP no. 1860 (Passover 5465/1705).
91 AEP no. 976 (5424/1664).
92 AEP no. 1176 (5431/1671).
94 Ignacy Schiper observed that until the Swedish invasion of Poland proceeds from the
property tax usually sufficed to cover community expenses (Schiper, “Świadczenia Żydów,”
p. 209).
95 A general poll tax was levied on Jews in 1549. In 1579, due to the problems with its collec-
tion, a lump sum payable by all the Jews of the Commonwealth was set (it was then equal to 10,000 zł.
in the Crown and 3000 zł. in Lithuania). After the lump-sum tax had been introduced, Jewish com-
when the poll tax was raised, the thirty-two men were to examine whether it should
be collected jointly with the property tax or not.96 In the same year the kahal was
ordered to keep a special pinkas in which each household head had his own sepa-
rate page on which the payment of his property tax and poll tax were recorded.97
There is a record in the Poznań pinkas dating from 1677 about Yosef who would
be granted citizenship should his next wife come from the community; then he
would have to pay taxes (including poll tax) like other household heads.98
In 1694 the Poznań electors recorded that each year a poll tax of 1 thaler was
collected.99 And in 1723 they wrote that the poll tax was commensurate with the
property tax.100 The amounts of the assessed poll tax are offered in the Swarzędz
pinkas: people paying the property tax of less than and 5 gr. were to pay 13 gr. in
poll tax, from 5 to 10 gr. – 1 zł., from 10 to 15 gr. – 2 zł., and more than 15 gr. –
3 zł.101 Lodgers (komornicy) paid a slightly lower poll tax than household
heads.102
Similar to the collection of the property tax, the poll tax was collected as an
extraordinary, one-off tax whose purpose was not to square the accounts with ex-
ternal authorities, but to cover a community’s urgent needs. In 1724 a decision was
made in Poznań that people listed as payers of the property tax should pay at least
two units of the tax and a corresponding poll tax. And those who were not listed
in the property tax pinkas, including the community’s functionaries, were obliged
to contribute no less than twice the poll tax equal to 1 zł. 18 gr. The collection was
to help carry the repairs of the destroyed High Synagogue.103
The second tax was the hearth tax (Polish podymne, Yiddish podimne, di-
movi), which is also referred to by source documents as a poll tax on houses
(gulgolet batim) or house money (meot batim). It follows from an entry made in
the Poznań pinkas in 1653 that the diet in Warsaw ordered the collection of 13 poll
taxes and 15 szos taxes (a tax levied on houses situated in royal towns).104 The
munities had to collaborate in apportionment of the amount, and this is why the Council of Four
Lands was established.
96 AEP no. 654 (Passover 5411/1651).
97 AEP no. 670 (Passover 5411/1651).
99 AEP no. 1648 (Passover 5454/1694).
100 AEP no. 2077 (Passover 5483/1723).
101 JTS 3652, p. 73, a note attached to the property tax list (Swarzędz, no date).
102 JTS 3652, p. 65 (Swarzędz, 5458–59 / 1698–99) – in 1699 the poll tax paid by a household
head and his lodger was equal to 1 zł. and 20 gr., 1 zł. 10 gr. and 27 gr., 1 zł and 28 gr., 27 gr. and
18 gr., respectively.
103 AEP no. 2085 (Passover 5484/1724).
104 The 1652 Constitution of the Diet only refers to the collection of 70,000 zł. in poll tax from
the Jews living in the Crown, and they were to pay other taxes like other citizens (Michałowska-
Mycielska, ed., Sejmy i sejmiki koronne wobec Żydów, no. 90). The 1643 Constitution of the Diet
was invoked on that occasion which levied the poll tax on Jews and did not exempt them from pay-
authorities of the Poznań community contacted the tax collector (who was not
Jewish) to try, “with the help of money,” to put off the payment deadline after the
dietine (sejmik) in Środa had been held. Their efforts were to no avail and the
amounts due were to be paid at the time of the dietine. Each household head own-
ing a house, but also the dayan, shames, and other functionaries, were obliged to
pay the hearth tax and szos, and if someone had a lodger, the latter was also obliged
to pay a fraction of the amount by which he then could decrease his rent.105
It follows from an entry made in the Swarzędz pinkas in 1747 that no house-
hold head was exempt from the hearth tax, and should he become poor and un-
able to pay the amount assessed based on his house’s value, then the arrears
would be treated as a debt. The debt would be collected after his house was sold,
and should the household head die, it would encumber the widow.106 There are
examples in the Poznań pinkas that the kahal demanded past due poll tax from
inheritors.107
Due to growing arrears in poll tax and hearth tax payments, steps were taken
in Swarzędz to make their collection more efficient. A decision was taken in 1784
that taxes would be collected by two people, whose names would be drawn from
a ballot box with the names of household heads paying their dues. They were to
be accompanied by people drawn from the second ballot box with the names of
impoverished household heads unable to pay taxes, and their number was to be
decided at a meeting at which the lots were to be drawn. Those tax collectors were
obliged to deliver to the kahal the entire amount, and if they failed to collect it,
they had to pay it out of their own pockets. The function of such a tax collector
was to be discharged by other residents until there were no more names left in the
ballot box.108
Another charge levied by external authorities was the payment for soldiers
– “soldier money” (meot zelnir). It was usually included in the property tax or poll
tax,109 although it was also collected separately. Among the amounts payable by
midwife Yentil, the wife of Henokh, the Poznań pinkas from 1677 mentions the
“soldier money” (apart from the fee paid to the shames, a tax for garbage collec-
tion in the streets, the property, and poll tax).110
ment of any other taxes such as czopowe (a tax on alcoholic drinks), podymne, szos (a tax on im-
mobilities paid by townsmen), etc. (ibidem, no. 80).
105 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 208 (Poznań, [5413]/1653); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 208v (Poznań,
6 Adar II 5413 / March 5, 1653).

106 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 19 (Swarzędz, 16 Sivan
5502 / June 18, 1742).

107 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 223 (Poznań, 5429/1669); CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 228v (Poznań, 11
Sivan 5431 / May 20, 1671).

108 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 78–79 (Swarzędz, 23 Ni-
san 5544 / April 14, 1784).

109 JTS 3652, p. 65 (Swarzędz, 5458–59 / 1698–99), JTS 3652, p. 118v (Swarzędz, 29 Tamuz
5486 / July 28, 1726).

110 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250v (Poznań, 29 Tevet 5437 / January 3, 1677).
Community residents were also obliged to pay the garbage collection tax
(meot ashpah). When memunim were ordered to collect this tax from all residents
in 1680, it was stressed that no one would be exempt, even the members of the
“clean table,” with the exception of the rabbi, darshan, cantors, and shamesim.111
An earlier entry exempts, however, the physician from this tax.112 It was empha-
sized on another occasion that nobody was exempted from garbage collection
charges and memunim were allowed to resort to coercion, should anyone refuse to
pay. An oath taken by memunim put them under an obligation to pay that tax and
also to collect it from the kahal members. Memunim wrote bills of exchange as
a security for the performance of that duty.113 On the occasion of a complaint that
the shames of memunim was sluggish in collection of the garbage tax, it was re-
called in 1704 that pursuant to a decision made by ancestors, which had been re-
corded in the pinkas, only the rabbi was exempt from the tax, while all other
functionaries had to pay.114
There was also another regular tax which was collected to pay community
debts, or rather an interest on them. As recorded by the Poznań electors in 1713 it
was collected every year and was equal to 1 thaler.115
The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim have many entries that illustrate prob-
lems that these communities faced with tax collection. They were due, i.a., to the
fact that some residents lived outside their communities. In a dispute between the
community authorities and residents living outside its limits that arose in 1656, it
was ruled that the latter should return to the community and that the matter would
be examined again after war hostilities were over. Those who were suspected of
wanting to leave the community in secret were to be bound by an oath that they
would not do it without the kahal’s permission. At the same time they were re-
minded that everybody, including people living outside their community, was
obliged to pay all taxes.116
Quite different tax-related problems arose between the Poznań and Swarzędz
communities, which will be discussed in the following chapter.
Taxes were to be paid and collected in cash. The Poznań electors recorded in
1690 that vodka sellers had not paid a single grosz of their property tax in cash,
but only issued vouchers allowing the purchase of vodka. Such practices were
strictly forbidden in the future, and people were reminded again that taxes should
be paid in cash.117
Such tax abuses as, e.g., hiding of goods, were another problem. The Poznań
electors observed that meat and salt were smuggled into town hidden in sacks that
111 AEP no. 1428 (5440/1680).
112 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 252 (Poznań, 5? Ḥeshvan 5436 / October 25, 1675).
114 AEP no. 1835 (Passover 5464/1704).
115 AEP no. 1962 (Passover 5473/1713).
117 AEP no. 1592 (Passover 5450/1690).
were tied under wagons.118 However, not all tax abuses were treated in the same
way, as evidenced by an entry in the Poznań pinkas. It reports with indignation that
the Poznań Jews suffered because of Itsek, a Swarzędz resident, whom they told
about various “hidden things” and who immediately reported them to customs
duty and tax collectors. He was strongly condemned and punished by being de-
prived of his citizenship and ordered to leave the community.119
Quite a different problem was posed by growing tax arrears. To make commu-
nity residents pay taxes, an announcement was issued that people who lagged behind
in their payment would not be nominated as electors or for other offices. Communi-
ties resorted to coercive measures, usually by accepting pledges as guaranties.
Attempts were made to make tax collection more efficient by conclusion of
agreements with household heads on lump-sum payments. Such a lump-sum
amount usually included the property tax, poll tax, hearth tax, and “soldier
money.” Less frequently, bardon would also be included along with the charge for
garbage collection, though such agreements were also concluded.120 The sums
thus raised might have been lower than what could have been collected otherwise,
but had the important advantage that at least a major portion of the amounts due
was paid immediately after the agreement had been signed.
As mentioned above, another way to ensure payment of taxes was by leasing
their collection. The lessee concluded an agreement with the kahal whereby he
was obliged to pay a specific amount by the agreed deadline. He would also be
vested with a right to resort to coercive measures toward taxpayers who refused to
pay. But this approach involved major financial risk, as a tax collector would have
to pay the balance still outstanding out of pocket. In the absence of people willing
to take such a lease, communities appointed tax collectors.
It also happened that a tax collector would have his share in tax proceeds in-
stead of being paid a remuneration by the kahal. But this solution was adopted with
regard to smaller amounts. Then the functionary would be motivated to collect the
amounts due.
2. COMMUNITY EARNINGS AND EXPENSES
Apart from the above-mentioned taxes, a community’s income was generated

by a variety of charges. The first group consisted of fees charged for ḥazakot, or
118 AEPno. 1699 (Passover 5457/1697), AEP no. 1844 (Passover 5465/1705).
119CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 250v (Poznań, 20 Sivan 5436 / June 1, 1676).
120 An agreement covering the property tax, bardon, poll tax, and hearth tax was concluded in
Swarzędz by Itsḥak, son of Yoel, from the holy community of Poznań (Michałowska-Mycielska, ed.,
Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 29, Swarzędz, 1 Nisan 5519 / March 29, 1759). The agreement
concluded by the Poznań kahal with teacher Akiva covered property tax, poll tax, and “soldier
money” (CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 229, Poznań, 7 Av 5431 / July 14, 1671).
COMMUNITY EARNINGS AND EXPENSES 215
permits and licenses.121 One could become a community resident after a citizen-
ship or permanent stay permit had been granted. The appropriate ḥazakah allowed
the buying or leasing of a house. A permit was also required to practice a profes-
sion: to trade, open a store, or a workshop. It was also necessary to get a ḥazakah
in order to get engaged (or to break an engagement), to marry, or to bury someone
in the community’s cemetery. All of the foregoing had to be paid for.
It was the kahal that set charges for ḥazakot. Sometimes such a fee would
depend on the amount of regular taxes a resident paid, e.g., a payment made on the
occasion of a wedding or a house purchase depended on the property tax paid by
an individual. There is a record in the Poznań pinkas reading that if a house or
a ḥazakah is bought by an average taxpayer (whose property tax is less than 15 gr.),
he will pay a purchase tax levied on 3/5 of the price (7 and a half złoty per each
one hundred złoty paid), and should he be in the top tax bracket (15 gr. and more),
then the tax assessed on 3/5 of the price will be equal to 5 zł. per each one hundred
złoty.122
Fees paid on the occasion of an engagement (meot tnaim) or wedding (meot
ḥ upah) depended on the amount of the dowry. In Poznań, a wedding fee was fre-
quently part of the cantor’s remuneration. The Poznań electors wrote in 1704 that
a fee for an engagement permit would be equal to 25 zł.123 The kahal also charged
a fee on the dowry that the bridegroom received accounting for 10% of its worth.124
But there were also extra payments made on top of such fees, e.g., in 1787 it was
decided in Poznań that both parties, the bridegroom and the bride, should pay the
equivalent of a half percent of the dowry’s worth, to support two scholars studying
at beit midrash.125 The Poznań electors complained in 1651 that the number of
household heads lagging behind in what they should have paid for the dowry had
been growing.126
Fees were also charged for food and drinks served at the time of wedding or
circumcision feasts and they were relative to how much had been spent to throw
such a feast.127 One also had to pay for the title of ḥaver.128
121 Ignacy Schiper observes that until the Swedish invasion of Poland ḥazakot were relatively
cheap. It was in the second half of the 17th century that they were used to patch up gaps in the kahal’s
budget, both by making an increasing number of areas of life require a ḥazakah and by charging
increasingly more for one (Schiper, “Świadczenia Żydów,” p. 209).
122 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 260 (Poznań, 14 Ḥeshvan 5443 / November 15, 1682).
123 AEP no. 1831 (Passover 5464/1704).
124 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 199 (Poznań, 18 Nisan 5411 / April 9, 1651); JTS 3652, p. 105 (Swa-
rzędz, 18 Nisan 5467 / April 20, 1707).

125 AEP no. 2248 (Passover 5547/1787).
126 AEP no. 656 (Passover 5411/1651).
127 AEP no. 2088 (Passover 5484/1724) – the amount of 1 gr. was charged on fish worth 1 zł.
and 6 gr. were charged on a barrel of beer.

128 AEP no. 1831 (Passover 5464/1704) – a charge for the title of ḥaver was equal to 15 zł.
The responsibility to collect the wedding, engagement, house buying, and

ḥazakah charges and for the title of ḥaver rested on the bardon trustee who was to
record them on a special page of his pinkas.129 Synagogue shamesim were forbid-
den under pain of being deprived of their functions to announce a house purchase
or ḥazakah or to write down the terms of engagement without a receipt from the
bardon trustee confirming that all the charges had been paid. The scribe was not
allowed to execute a transaction document without a similar receipt issued, this
time, by the monthly parnas.
The kahal also charged fees on loans. An announcement was made in Poznań
in 1681 that young men who had been paid a dowry of 400 zł. were not allowed
to lend more than 200 zł. of that money, so that they had means to sustain their
families. They were also obliged to pay the kahal a fee on each loan, excluding the
first one hundred, and 10% on the second one hundred złoty they would bor-
row.130
It was also necessary to seek the kahal’s permission, and accordingly, to pay
a fee, when money was expatriated from the community. The kahal also charged
a fee on a bequest.
A special ḥazakah, a counterpart of an excise duty paid in towns, was re-
quired when someone wanted to trade in goods for which the community had
a monopoly, such as, e.g., salt, herring, wine or snuff. When such goods were
imported into the community, a duty (mekhes) had to be paid, whose collection
was usually leased. It was also necessary to pay an excise tax when running an inn
or distillery.131 In 1705, the Poznań electors levied duties on imports of salt and
herring that were then used by charity gabaim.132 It follows from an entry in the
Poznań pinkas that excise was also levied on trade in wool, and its amount dif-
fered depending on whether it was exported from Poznań or bought or sold out-
side the community.133
The kahal also profited from such transactions as real estate sale and lease or
sale of synagogue seats. They could be purchased or their ownership could be
transferred to the kahal under the execution of debts, e.g., arrears in tax payments.
The kahal also transacted in money which it had borrowed from residents, as well
as the funds of widows and orphans. In the latter transactions their terms and the
interest charged had to yield a profit to the kahal.134 Sometimes community resi-
dents were forced by the kahal to lend it money which they then would find hard
129 AEPno. 1856 (Passover 5465/1705).

130CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, pp. 258v–259 (Poznań, 22 Ḥeshvan 5442 / November 3, 1681).
131 Weinryb, “Beiträge zur Finanzgeschichte,” part 1, p. 259.
132 AEP no. 1844 (Passover 5465/1705).
134 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 198 (Poznań, 20 Kislev 5411 / December 14, 1650); AEP no. 714b
(Passover 5413/1653), AEP no. 814 (5415/1655).

to get back.135 This sometimes resulted in litigation between a resident and the
kahal.
A significant portion of the community’s budget consisted of the proceeds
generated by slaughterhouses.136 Slaughterhouse supervisors were obliged to
maintain a pinkas where they were to record their income and expenses, and
a slaughterhouse trustee had to square the accounts every quarter.
People who bought their meat in the slaughterhouse also had to pay a tax
(meot basar), which is referred to by non-Jewish sources as the butcher’s krupka
(krupka rzeźnicza). It was collected in a special locked-up box standing in the
slaughterhouse. Each buyer had to pay one grosz per one złoty worth of meat he
had bought and only the rabbi was exempted from that payment. This tax, apart
from bardon, also had to be paid by those who brought meat in other locations.137
A special fee was also charged on the ritual slaughter of poultry, depending on its
species. Apart from a ḥazakah that was required to practice their profession, butch-
ers also paid bardon relative to the number of slaughtered animals and sometimes
also a special fee when they slaughtered an animal for their own family.138
Regulations included in the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim, mainly moti-
vated by financial reasons, either prohibited or restricted the import of meat from
other locations.139 Attempts were also made to restrict the sale of live animals by
butchers. When no bardon was paid, butchers were required to pay half of the
amount that would otherwise have been paid based on slaughter bills. Butchers
were also obliged to send animals to the slaughterhouse, instead of merely selling
animals, and a ratio of slaughtered to sold animals was set.140
The Poznań electors recorded in 1685 that butchers had to give the kahal hides
of all big animals that had been slaughtered and pay for the hides of such smaller
animals as calves or lamb as they used to do before. Hide collection was leased to
three people who were reminded that it was customary that a portion of their in-
135 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 241 (Poznań, 23 Sivan 5424 / June 16, 1664) – dayan Yeḥiel Segal
tried to get his money and his books back from the kahal.
136 According to Gershon David Hundert, in Opatów the meat tax proceeds were the second
highest item of the community’s revenues (Hundert, The Jews in a Polish Private Town, p. 97).
137 AEP no. 2087 (Passover 5484/1724).
138 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 97–98 (Swarzędz, 4 Elul
5555 / August 19, 1795).

139 In 1780 Swarzędz completely banned meat imports “very much like eating of pork” (ibi-
dem, pp. 88–91, Swarzędz, 6 Av 5540 / August 7, 1780). Similar restrictions were also imposed by
other communities, mainly by means of very high fees. Salo Wittmayer Baron writes that Lwów
raised its charge for the import of one head of cattle from 1/3 of a floren in 1651 to 31 florens in 1774.
In Dubno, too, the same tax increased from 10% of an animal’s worth in 1745 to 47.4% in 1774
(Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, pp. 258–259).
II 5535 / March 31, 1775).

come went to gabaim.141 There is a record dating from 1720 that the kahal would
trade in hides of big animals, and that parnasim and kahalniks, as well as their sons
and sons-in-law, were not be allowed to get involved in it.142 Apart from providing
the kahal with an additional income, the foregoing regulation was to provide it
with control over butchers. Their pay partly depended on the number of animals
they sent for slaughter, and they sometimes cheated at slaughter bills.
Principal communities also derived their income from charges paid by subor-
dinate communities. Payments made by the Swarzędz community to the Poznań
one will be discussed in the following chapter. The agreement concluded between
the Swarzędz and Pobiedziska communities illustrates the kinds of charges that
had to be paid. The representatives of the Pobiedziska community arrived in the
Swarzędz community in 1781 and expressed their interest in returning to Swarzędz.
In the past they were subordinated to Swarzędz, but then to Kórnik. Accordingly,
a new agreement was concluded between Swarzędz and Pobiedziska communities
which listed, i.a., charges and dues that would be paid by the subordinate com-
munity. The Pobiedziska community was therefore obliged to pay 2 florins a year
for charity (half of that amount during the Feast of Tabernacles, half during Passo-
ver). Charity gabaim were obliged to provide it with the Torah scroll which was to
be used during the period of its subordination. The residents of Pobiedziska had to
pay the rabbi an annual fee of 6 zł. and also a fee for burial of their deceased in the
Swarzędz cemetery (its amount depended on the age of the deceased) as well as
the bardon each time they sold something to Gentiles in Swarzędz. The Swarzędz
court was to settle all disputes between the residents of both communities, and the
residents of Pobiedziska were obliged to appear before the court (which involved
payment of court charges). The agreement was to be in effect for three years and
afterwards it was either to be prolonged or terminated.143 Similar terms of subor-
dination to the Swarzędz community were accepted by the Jews from Nekla lo-
cated about 20 km east of the town.144
The kahal was paid fines each time it adjudicated disputes and sometimes also
a portion of or the entire fine imposed by other officials (any surplus would go to
the kahal).145 Some fines were to cover the community’s urgent needs. In 1724, the
electors decreed that half of the fines levied by officials, the kahal, and the five men
for bardon would be spent on synagogue repairs.146
A wide variety of minor charges also added to the community budget. In
1698, the Poznań electors instructed to collect a tax on silver jewelry and golden
141 AEP no. 1505 (Passover 5445/1685).

142 AEP no. 2046 (Passover 5480/1720).
143 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 74 (Swarzędz, 24 Tamuz
5541 / July 17, 1781).

144 Ibidem, pp. 74–75 (Swarzędz, 18 Av 5549 / August 11, 1789).
145 AEP no. 841 (5415/1655).
146 AEP no. 2089 (Passover 5484/1724).
rings (3 zł. per each one hundred złoty of its worth), emphasizing that no one was
exempt, not even cantors, shamesim, functionaries, and widows, and the only ex-
ception that was allowed was the rabbi. The funding thus raised was to cover the
interest accrued on the debts payable to noblemen on the Feast of St. John.147
Community residents also had to make one-off donations (nedavah, netinah)
for urgent needs, e.g., for the reconstruction of synagogues, candles and firewood
for beit midrash, and repairs of the Torah scrolls. Some of them were mandatory,
and then their minimal amount was set, or it depended on the property tax. When
a collection of donations for the reconstruction of the High Synagogue was an-
nounced in 1719, it was made clear that everyone, including functionaries, was
obliged to contribute at least 1 zł., and only the poorest who lived on an allowance
were exempted.148 Donations were collected in synagogues on the Sabbath and
holidays, and they usually went to charity.
When it comes to expenses, their first group consisted of payments made to
external authorities. Those were generally state taxes, such as a poll tax, soldier
billeting, hearth tax, szos, and czopowe. In the period discussed here, poll tax was
paid as a lump-sum tax levied on all Jews living in the Crown and Lithuania, and
it was apportioned among individual communities by the Council of Four Lands
and the Lithuanian Vaad. After they had been dissolved in 1764, the responsibility
to pay the poll tax, whose amount was assessed based on the census of the Jewish
population, was directly delegated to kahals.
Extraordinary taxes were also levied, such as the coronation tax (also referred
to as szpilkowe), donations to cover the Commonwealth’s debts, for military expe-
ditions, payments to voievodes and their officials, taxes on trade and crafts, pro-
towszczyzna (a tax to maintain synagogues and cemeteries), and also a variety of
tributes paid to military units stationed in the neighborhood. The latter were par-
ticularly hard to bear in the middle of the 17th and also at the beginning of the 18th
centuries when the Poznań community was forced to pay high ransoms during the
Tarnogród confederacy. Communities also paid city authorities for allowing Jews
to live in Christian houses and for the slaughterhouses owned by the community;
in private towns, they paid the owners of the area.
Apart from taxes, it was also customary to offer “gifts” to officials, military
commanders, and clergy. Such expenses were particularly high in the days of tur-
moil and unrest, e.g., when there was a risk of trials for ritual murder. Because of
such allegations, the Poznań community incurred such high expenses in 1736 that
later on it had to seek the support of other communities, also across Poland’s bor-
ders. Sometimes it was necessary to bribe executioners so that they were not cruel
and did not torture accused Jews. Money was also needed to bail Jewish debtors
out after they had been caught by their creditors.
147 AEP no. 1724 (Passover 5458/1698).

148 AEP no. 2033 (Passover 5479/1719).
The second group of expenses consisted of those that were needed to cater for
the community’s internal needs. The kahal financed, at least partly, the construc-
tion and repairs of buildings and public amenities: synagogues, beit midrash, the
kahal house, mikvah, pipes, fences, etc. The kahal also provided the gabaim with
a specific weekly amount for the poor.
Although officials discharged their duties free of charge, sometimes they were
handed cash to cover the expenses they had incurred in connection with their of-
ficial duties. Electors and tax estimators were paid specific sums of money for the
food they were served at their meetings when they were not supposed to leave
them. Community functionaries were paid regular remunerations every week.149
Apart from cash, they could also get some extras: an apartment or rent, shoes,
flour, and wine for Passover, etc.
In the Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim there are quite frequent complaints that
the community’s financial situation is hard, that the income is dwindling and ex-
penses continue to rise, and in effect proceeds do not cover even a third or one
quarter of what is needed. The communities took steps to address this problem by
raising the charges, imposing obligatory performances, and by cutting expenses.
It was with savings in mind that people combined functions, which practice
was as widespread as discussed in Chapter 3. Functionaries who combined posi-
tions were paid less than the kahal would have to pay two different people. For
example, a decision was made in Swarzędz in 1750 that cantor Yoel would also be
the community’s trustee. Seeing that he knew little about accounting, it was de-
cided that his remuneration would be reduced, and the balance would be paid out
to the tax collector Yoḥanan who would help Yoel keep pinkasim.150 In 1791, the
Swarzędz authorities ordered the reduction of the number of functionaries, leaving
only the six most indispensable ones: the rabbi, the trustee and first shames, the
first shoḥet and second cantor, the first cantor, the shames in beit midrash, and the
second shames. They were also deprived of any allowances that they were paid on
top of their remuneration.151
Cuts also affected unnecessary spending. In 1700, the Poznań electors directed
that the community’s already high encumbrances should not be made even higher
by expenses that were neither urgent nor indispensable. This is why it was decided
that a man collecting bardon would not be paid a weekly remuneration of 2 zł., as
it was unnecessary and in no way contributed to a higher bardon collection.152
149 Joseph Perles offers the following weekly salaries paid to the functionaries of the Poznań
community: the cantor in 1746 – 8 guilders; the shtadlan in 1711 – 7 and in 1758, 1768, and 1775
– 9 guilders; the shames in 1775 – 3, in 1794 – 2.5, and in 1797 – 6 guilders; the darshan in 1758 – 5,
in 1775 – 6, and in 1779 – 14 guilders; the trustee in 1764 – 10, and in 1775 – 8 guilders; the yeshi-
vah rector in 1775 – 9 guilders (Perles, “Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” p. 258).
150 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 30–31 (Swarzędz, 23 Ni-
san 5510 / April 29, 1750).

152 AEP no. 1773 (Passover 5460/1700).
Savings also affected charity spending, which was sometimes contrary to

ideological declarations. On the one hand, charity was a glorious act, a mitzva, and
the responsibility of every community, but on the other hand, it was an enormous
burden on the community’s budget. This is why communities tried to cut charity
spending, at least by confining it to local needs. People who were not community
residents had a restricted access to charity. A list of obligations by which the sec-
ond shames was bound by the Swarzędz community when he assumed his position
in 1789 included keeping an eye on poor visitors who were not allowed to stay in
the community for more than 24 hours. He especially had to see to it that those
who arrived on Thursday, even at dusk, would leave the community on Friday, as
otherwise they would have to stay on until Sunday and be a burden to the com-
munity’s budget.153 When faced with an influx of numerous beggars from other
communities and towns, Poznań set a maximum amount of alms at 15 gr. Only
when a beggar would be a scholar who wanted to preach in public, the commu-
nity authorities could treat him in a special way.154 The Poznań electors warned in
1672 that from then on no wagon would be offered to carry “alien” beggars to
other communities.155
When district councils and the Council of Four Lands were convoked, com-
munities warned their neighbors not to send them any beggars, or they announced
that poor people from other locations could not count on them due to general im-
poverishment.156
Kahals also incurred expenses because they were obliged to protect commu-
nity residents: they repaid their debts or bailed them out after they had been caught
by their creditors and also offered them support in court litigation. They tried to
recover that money later on, i.a., by pressing claims to real estate.157
A community’s financial policy was not only geared to savings, but it was also
marked by efforts to make tax collection more efficient. It was frequently reiter-
ated that the monthly parnas had to be informed of all expenses and that the trustee
was not allowed to spend a single grosz out of the kahal’s coffers without his sig-
nature. A community’s trustee was obliged to show the parnas a register of reve-
nues and expenses every day. The parnas along with three tovim summed the ac-
counts at the end of the week.158 Each monthly parnas had to prepare a statement
of the community’s revenues and expenses during his term in office which, at least
theoretically, was a condition for him to hand his office over to another parnas.
A report of the commission that examined the debts of the Wielkopolska com-
munities in 1774 (which will be discussed further on in this chapter) lists the
153Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 92–93 (Swarzędz, 20 Ta-
muz 5549 / July 15, 1789).
155 AEP no. 1204 (Passover 5432/1672).
157 See, e.g., CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 254 (Poznań, no date).
158 AEP no. 1792 (Passover 5461/1701).
revenues and expenses of the Poznań kahal.159 Its r e v e n u e s included the fol-
lowing items:
1. annualized combined merchant krupka and annual tax 20,000 zł.
2. kozik or butcher’s krupka 15,000 zł.
3. silk krupka 630 zł.
4. paper krupka 120 zł.
5. salt krupka 520 zł.
6. on new dresses 140 zł.
7. on glass 63 zł.
8. poll tax 2600 zł.
total 39,073 zł.
In the same time the e x p e n s e s were the following:
1. poll tax (paid to the Commonwealth and the regiment) 6102 zł.
2. to the Poznań voievode 1900 zł.
3. to the undervoievode 1800 zł.
4. to Poznań town authorities pursuant to the Radom decree 900 zł.
to the same for exemption from troop stationing 1300 zł.
to the same to their coffers (szafarnia) 250 zł.
to the same for spices 1500 zł.
5. to the regent (of the starosta’s chancellery) for transactions 160 zł.
6. salaries of community functionaries 4000 zł.
7. poor Jews 500 zł.
8. to the garrison commander 600 zł.
9. various hospitals 4200 zł.
10. to the priest-head of the Poznań bishop’s court (oficjał) 60 zł.
11. to the parish priest at St. Adalbert’s church 30 zł.
12. to the parish priest at St. Martin’s church for the cemetery 24 zł.
160
total 23,356 zł.160
The above expenses could be fully covered by the community revenues were
it not for the community’s debts and interest it paid on them. The budget surplus
(15,717 zł.) was sufficient to pay only a half of the contracted debts (which were
equal to 27,800 zł. 25 gr.).
159 APL, Lubl. Cast. RMO, no. 422/21582, p. 674. Unfortunately, the pinkas of the Swarzędz
community’s revenues and expenses dating from 1771 (marked in the CAHJP catalogue with the
ref. no. PL/Sw 20) is lost. The structure of revenues and expenses of the Wolsztyn community
in 1791/92 is discussed by Krzysztof Modelski (see Modelski, “Z dziejów gminy żydowskiej
w Wolsztynie”).
160 This number (as well as the amount of the budget surplus) is given in the document. The
above listed expenses give the total sum 23,326 zł.

COMMUNITY’S DEBTS 223
3. COMMUNITY’S DEBTS
During the period under discussion, communities spent most of their funds to
repay their debts or, rather, to pay accruing interest. Many authors emphasize that
until the mid 17th century revenues raised by communities were sufficient to cov-
er most of their expenses; it was later on, after their economic situation had dete-
riorated, that they had to draw loans.161 Jewish communities were granted the
cheapest loans by religious institutions,162 which usually offered them for an in-
definite term, while loans extended by laymen were predominantly for a definite
term and exposed communities to many problems and litigation. Creditors would
claim their receivables from community parnasim under bills of exchange, and
even from community merchants by catching them and confiscating their goods.
Parnasim were in charge of community debts, and when they were not repaid,
a creditor was allowed to carry execution from their property or even to imprison
them.163 Parnasim were frequently the ones to guaranty debt repayment by mort-
gaging synagogues, but a tangible guaranty did not rule out personal liability. The
community was also accountable for the repayment of loans drawn by individual
residents. Their repayment, as the Poznań electors put it in 1709, was an addi-
tional burden on the community and this is why the kahal was prohibited from
dealing with the debts of individual people in the future. An order was also issued
to ruthlessly collect what people had been due, if the community had paid their
debts or written any drafts.164
The problem of debts is a recurring theme in the Poznań and Swarzędz
pinkasim. There are many records reading that the community is drowning in the
“enormous depths of debts,” which recommend that this problem be addressed, the
receivables be counted, etc. Kahals usually registered all debts in special
pinkasim.165 Frequent reminders were issued that the amounts due should be ready
and repaid in time; it was even suggested that money be “packed and tied” or
161 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 3 (1939), p. 6. A list of the debts contracted by the Poznań Jews
(including also the community’s elders) in 1650–60 is offered by Leon Koczy (see Koczy, “Studia
nad dziejami gospodarczemi Żydów poznańskich,” 13 (1935), pp. 226–227).
162 Interest of 10% was usually charged on the money borrowed from noblemen, and of 7%
when it was lent by clergy or church institutions. See Hundert, The Jews in a Polish Private Town,
p. 105. The Poznań pinkasim refer to the rate of 15% paid on the debts to nobility. The register of the
Swarzędz community’s debts refers to 5, 6, and 8.5% paid on the loans granted by clerical institu-
tions (Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 56–57, Swarzędz, no date).
163 According to Salo Wittmayer Baron, in 1650 the Poznań parnasim opted for incarceration
rather than debt repayment (Baron, The Jewish Community, vol. 2, p. 273).
164 AEP no. 1919 (Passover 5469/1709).
165 The Poznań pinkas with records of debts contracted from 1772 to 1793 has survived
(CAHJP, PL/Po 4), as well as the documents from Swarzędz which are the records of contracted
loans and the interest paid (CAHJP, PL/Sw 28 – from 1793 to 1804, PL/Sw 42 – from 1730 to
1861).
locked in a special box which was to be opened on payment day. There was a cus-
tom that the interest on the debts contracted from noblemen was to be paid on the
Feast of St. John (yohani, yohana), the day on which fairs were held all over the
Crown, including Poznań, but liabilities were repaid at other fairs, too.166
Some of the regulations, e.g., prohibiting expensive clothes, were substanti-
ated by the need to go unnoticed by creditors in order not to make them upset by
the community’s ostentatious affluence. For such behavior could make them press
their claims more vehemently.167
When officials were directed to be more diligent in tax collection, especially
the property tax, it was frequently added that the money they would collect would
be spent on the interest payment. Sometimes an extra collection of taxes was de-
creed for the community to be able to pay the interest. And it would be explained
on such occasion that no resident opposed it, as the tax was in the community’s
best interest. In 1670, the Poznań electors ordered the kahal to elect five men who
would carry the valuation of every house, because a tax was to be levied on each
of them equal to 1% of its value, which would allow the community to repay its
debt to nobleman Tomnicki. The five men were to be elected and houses were to
be valued before the festival of Hanukkah, so that the right amount of money
would be ready by St. John’s Feast.168 In 1698, the Poznań electors directed the
eleven men to levy a tax so that the community could repay its debt by the forth-
coming St. John’s Feast and it would not have to contract any more debts.169 The
funds that were to cover the interest were collected from merchants heading for
fairs who were promised that their property tax would be decreased by the col-
lected amounts. Anyone who would refuse to pay was warned in 1653 that fair
officials would deliver him right into the hands of creditors and say: “He would
pay you the amount due.”170
Debts were also the reason why some people were not allowed to move out
of the community, especially the more affluent ones who paid high taxes. Such
bans triggered conflicts between the community and individuals, which were de-
scribed in the previous chapter.
The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim also reflect a variety of measures that
a kahal could resort to in order to find new sources of income and borrowing.
Apart from the nobility and clergy, loans were also drawn inside the community,
from its richer residents. In 1670 the five men were told to identify 10 (but no more
than that!) community residents who could lend the kahal 1500 zł. to pay noble-
man Tomnicki his interest. The kahal promised potential lenders to pay exactly the
same interest as born by the loans granted by the noblemen. The debt was to be
166 On when the fairs were held, see Grochulska, “Jarmarki w handlu polskim.”
167 AEP no. 1965 (Passover 5473/1713).
168 AEP no. 1137 (Kislev 5431/1670).
169 AEP no. 1723 (Passover 5458/1698).
170 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 207 (Poznań, 10 Shvat 5413 / January 8, 1653).
repaid from the bardon levied on food and drinks over the whole year, and should
tax proceeds be lower, then the creditors would be allowed to decrease their prop-
erty tax.171 It follows from this record that such “internal” loans had additional
assets: they were much safer, they could be repaid from community taxes, and they
exposed the community to no risk of intervention by non-Jewish authorities or to
no other problems. When only Jews were parties to a loan agreement, it was cus-
tomary to put off payments during the Sabbatical year (shmitah),172 which was
very advantageous to the kahal when it was the borrower.173
People who extended loans to the kahal would, however, sometimes have
problems getting their money back. So in 1654 the Poznań electors decided that
should the kahal lag behind in debt repayment to an individual, he would be al-
lowed to recover it by not paying the property tax.174 In pinkasim there are also
records of complaints lodged by orphans and poor people whose families had
entrusted their money to the kahal that they were not paid the interest due or had
problems of getting their money back. There are also requests made by fathers who
wanted to see their daughters married and had to pay a dowry and who tried to
recover at least a portion of what they had lent to the kahal.175
Community authorities would also plea with state authorities to intervene
with creditors. In 1650, the Poznań community tried to obtain in Warsaw a docu-
ment securing its safety because of its debts to noblemen. Should it turn out that
such a document would not be issued, then the thirty-two men were to convene a
counsel as to what should be done next. They were to decide whether to make the
community’s hard financial standing public and declare it bankrupt, mindful that
creditors might resort even to imprisonment of debtors, or to hope that the credi-
tors would be prepared to enter an arrangement with them.176 In 1667, the Poznań
electors directed to ask the voievode for help in the form of reference letters to
noblemen, their creditors, regarding debt repayment.177 In 1705, the electors again
recommended that the thirty-two men debate on seeking protection from creditors
with central authorities.178 That those efforts were effective is evidenced by the
fact that in 1737 King August III declared a three-year moratorium on debt repay-
ment by the Poznań community, which, however, did not cover its debts to nobil-
171 AEP no. 1141 (Kislev 5431/1670).

172 The Sabbatical year (shmitah) was every seventh year in which it was forbidden to till
land and trade in goods, as they were the property of God and not man. In the Sabbatical year it
was prohibited to earn any profits from the money lent (Book of Judges 25, 36–37, Deuterono-
my 15, 1–3).
173 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 218 (Poznań, 14 Shvat 5443 / February 10, 1683).
174 AEP no. 754 (Passover 5414/1654).
175 For example, CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 241 (Poznań, 5434/1674).
176 AEP no. 627 (Passover 5410/1650).
177 AEP no. 1069 (Passover 5427/1667).
178 AEP no. 1852 (Passover 5465/1705).
ity.179 In 1741, the community was provided by the King with a guarantee of safe
conduct which was to protect it against any claims and persecutions by credi-
tors.180
That the relations with creditors were very important is best illustrated by the
entry dating from 1659, referred to earlier. Physician Moshe offered his services
to the thirty-two men and said that he was highly influential with local noblemen,
the community’s creditors. He proposed his services in many matters, including
debts to the noblemen and to act as an intermediary provided his nephew would
be issued a permit to preach. He also warned that should his offer be turned down,
he would refuse to help, go nowhere on community business, contact no creditors
or authorities. After some debate, the thirty-two men accepted his offer.181
The debts of the Poznań community continued to grow in the 17th and 18th
centuries: in 1649 they totaled 60,000 zł.,182 to reach more than 400,000 zł. in
1750.183 Granted the inflation, this was an enormous increase.
After the Poznań kahal declared in 1774 that it was insolvent, the state au-
thorities decided to intervene. A special commission was set up to deal with the
debts of the Poznań Jews because, as it was written down, due to its enormous
debts the community was no longer able to pay its dues (neither the principal nor
the interest) and continued to contract further debts, which could be harmful both
to its creditors and the Commonwealth.184 Another commission was set up to
count those debts and to reduce them. The community parnasim were obliged to
appear before the commission and present it with a register of their community’s
revenues and debts, and to do it under an oath. All creditors were summoned to
appear (personally or by proxy) with documents confirming their receivables, and
they were warned that should any one of them fail to come on the defined day, he
would not be allowed to press his claims. The commission’s report lists many
names of lay creditors and of religious institutions. The results of summations are
in the form of tables which offer the principal and interest. After the total debt
to laymen (161,960 zł. 21 gr.) had been decreased by the amounts for which
no evidence existed or which were due to the community, the debt was equal to
72,532 zł. 37 gr. After a similar deduction, the initial debt to religious institutions
(491,548 zł. 20 gr.) was downsized to 433,548 zł. 23 gr. and the debts to Jesuits
(293,744 zł. 25 gr.) to 180,000 zł. The commission also set the interest payable on
those debts: of 5% in the case of the debts to laymen and Jesuits, and of 3.5% on
the debts to clergy. When annualized, the interest on the debts to laymen was to
179Horn, Regesty dokumentów, vol. 1, no. 306 (Saxony, January 16, 1737).
180Ibidem, no. 520 (Moritzburg, September 18, 1741).
181 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 204v (Poznań, Iyar 5419 / April–May 1659).
182 Izbicki, Zagadnienie długów kahalnych, p. 30.
183 Schiper, “Finantsieler ḥurbn,” p. 18; the Poznań community’s debts to Jesuits and other
church institutions were equal to 403,022 zł.

184 APL, Lubl. Cast. RMO, no. 422/21582, p. 665v.
amount to 3626 zł. 18 gr., on the debts to the clergy to 15,174 zł. 6 gr., and on the
debts to the Jesuits to 9000 zł. (totaling 27,800 zł. 25 gr.).185 The commission also
cut the expenses that the Poznań community had to incur in favor of state and
municipal authorities.
But it failed to address the problem of the community’s debts and found no
efficient means to ensure their repayment. Eventually, the community’s debts were
forgiven in 1870.186
185 Ibidem, pp. 674v–675.

186 Jacobson, “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” p. 248.
CHAPTER TEN
RELATIONS
BETWEEN POZNAŃ AND SWARZĘDZ
From its institution, the Swarzędz community was closely tied with Poznań.
Jewish settlement in Swarzędz was discussed above in Chapter 1. In 1621, the
owner of the area, Zygmunt Grudziński, concluded an agreement with the au-
thorities of the Poznań community whereby Poznań Jews were allowed to resettle
to his estate. Money needed to build houses and a synagogue in Swarzędz was
provided partly by the town’s owner and by the parent community of Poznań
whose contribution, in theory offered as a loan, was equal to 8000 guilders. It is
for this reason that Swarzędz was then obliged to make an annual payment (of
2100 guilders) in favor of Poznań.
The Swarzędz community was a branch (przykahałek, it was also referred to
as parafia, a parish) of the Poznań community. Accordingly, it was obliged to
observe the regulations issued by the principal community, seek Poznań’s approv-
al of the officials it had nominated, and pay taxes. This latter duty was due to the
fact that a blanket tax was levied on the principal community and its branches.
Both communities also had a common rabbi, synagogue, and cemetery.1 As
a branch community developed, it was in time allowed to have its own synagogue
and cemetery and to employ its own rabbi. These developments were accompanied
by aspirations to become fully independent of the principal community.2 But the
1 Jakub Goldberg writes that those factors were crucial in cementing the local markets and
economic revival of smaller and bigger towns (Goldberg, “Gminy żydowskie (kahały),” p. 168).
2 Majer Bałaban describes the gradual development of the Jewish community in Żółkiew,
a branch community of Lwów, from a small settlement to a fully organized community which became
independent of the principal community in the 17th century. The author also describes problems that
Przemyśl had with its branch communities, i.a., Dynów, Mościska, Sambor (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału
w Polsce,” p. 51). Jacob Katz propounds an opinion that initially the dependence between Jewish
settlements and the community was beneficial to both. Residents of such settlements were allowed
access to public prayers, kosher food, and schools for their children; they could marry and divorce
and, most importantly, be buried in the Jewish cemetery. From the community’s perspective, a settle-
ment allowed it to share some of its burdens with the residents of such settlements, community
functionaries could collect a portion of charges from them, and the community was able to manifest
its position owing to such expansion. Conflicts began to arise when settlements became numerous
and strong enough to finance their own institutions (Katz, Tradition and Crisis, pp. 95–96).
RELATIONS BETWEEN POZNAŃ AND SWARZĘDZ 229
situation in Swarzędz was different, because in spite of its dependence on Poznań,

it had its own synagogue and cemetery right from the beginning and its own rabbi
and authorities. There are many similarities in the way both communities were
organized, which is due to the fact that settlers followed the model of the parent
community.
Because of its dependence, the branch had to comply with the regulations is-
sued by the principal community. In 1706 a regulation was recorded in the Swarzędz
pinkas, which was issued by the Poznań electors and intended for the Swarzędz
community. It reminded that Swarzędz was bound by the same rules of bardon
collection as the Poznań community. It also emphasized that all regulations entered
in the Swarzędz pinkas had a legal effect and that it was unfortunate that in the
previous year the Swarzędz leaders had not taken an oath to follow those rules, as
some of them had been infringed. A warning was also issued that anyone who
breached the regulations would be punished with high fines and other penalties that
would need to be paid to the Poznań leaders and which would be imposed at their
discretion. It was also added that each resident of Swarzędz would be allowed to
turn to Poznań’s “clean table” and file a complaint about each parnas, kahalnik, tax
collector or trustee who would breach the regulation.3 The regulation was ap-
proved by the Swarzędz electors and appended with a note that they had examined
the foregoing and ordered the kahal to comply with it. They also confirmed that
a fine levied on a prospective culprit would be paid to the Poznań kahal.
The entries made in the Swarzędz pinkas show that the regulations issued by
the Swarzędz authorities were approved by the Poznań kahal.4 Sometimes the
Swarzędz authorities would resort to the solutions adopted by Poznań.5 In 1724,
the kahal was instructed in one of the Poznań pinkasim how to approach the prob-
lem of family ties among the kahal members and that Poznań regulations were to
be followed even if the local ones had been different.6 There is a note attached by
the Swarzędz electors under their regulation regarding weddings and religious
feasts that should the kahal take an oath to abide by a regulation issued by the
Poznań community, then it would not have to comply with their regulation.7 A par-
ent community would also be approached with questions on how to resolve spe-
cific problems. For example, wise men studying at the Poznań yeshivah were
3 JTS 3652, p. 140 (Swarzędz, 4 Iyar 5466 / June 18, 1706).

4 JTS 3652, p. 140v (Swarzędz, 5 Adar II 5475 / March 10, 1715), JTS 3652, pp. 109–109v
(Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5477 / April 12, 1717).
5 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 69–70 (Swarzędz, 20 Kislev
5532 / November 27, 1771) – when the amount of the fine was set, it was done with a comment that
this is how it was regulated by the holy community of Poznań; CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 70v (Swarzędz,
19 Adar 5555 / March 10, 1795) – similar fees on ritual slaughter were applied as in the Poznań
community.
230 RELATIONS BETWEEN POZNAŃ AND SWARZĘDZ
asked about a circumcision feast that was to take place on 20 Sivan which is a day
of fasting.8
The Poznań kahal approved the officials elected in Swarzędz. The authorities
of the Swarzędz community, most probably the electors, were obliged to deliver
a list of officials to Poznań. It was approved by the Poznań kahal, or rather, as was
stressed in the Poznań pinkasim, the latter nominated them for their positions.9
The right to approve the Swarzędz authorities also entailed the right to dismiss
them. An entry from 1651 made in the Poznań pinkas reads that, due to the “in-
gratitude” of the Swarzędz kahal, a decision about its dismissal is about to be
made. But a different decision was made to show the principal community’s con-
fidence in its branch with a warning that should the kahal fail to observe the regu-
lations and pay taxes, it would be dismissed during its term in office and new
people would be hired to replace its present members.10 The Poznań electors en-
closed a list of the Swarzędz community officials nominated in 1668.11
The Poznań kahal also kept track of what functionaries were hired by Swarzędz
and it was particularly interested in the person of the rabbi. In 1673 it directed the
Swarzędz kahal, under pain of ḥerem and coercion, to send for the rabbi who had
already been hired or to hire another rabbi.12 In 1746, a letter from Poznań parna-
sim helped a young man, Itsek, son of Alexander, to get the citizenship of
Swarzędz.13
Another problem that stemmed from the dependence on principal community
was that the citizenship of the latter was also valid in branch communities. This
means that citizens of Poznań enjoyed in Swarzędz the privileges the latter grant-
ed to its own citizens. That posed a major threat to the branch community, mainly
for economic reasons. This is why branch communities tried to protect themselves
against such practices by restricting the rights that citizens of principal communi-
ties could enjoy in the area under their jurisdiction. For example, they limited ac-
cess of Poznań citizens to Swarzędz offices, as discussed earlier in Chapter 4. The
authorities of the Swarzędz community decided in 1759 that only those residents
of Poznań could take part in local elections who had lived in Swarzędz for at least
three years. They were also allowed to hold a limited number of community of-
fices.14 The regulation was justified by the well-being of the Swarzędz community
and its breach was punishable by a curse.
However, extension of the territorial range of Poznań’s citizenship was unidi-
rectional as evidenced by an entry in one of the Poznań pinkasim explaining that
8 JNUL, 8º2469, p. 5 (Poznań, 5 Av 5470? / August 1, 1710).

10 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 197v (Poznań, 9 Ḥeshvan 5412 / October 24, 1651).
11 CAHJP, PL/Po 1, p. 128.
12 AEP no. 1240 (Passover 5433/1673).
13 JTS 3652, p. 192v (Swarzędz, 13 Tevet 5506 / January 5, 1746).
Aharon, son-in-law of Shmuel, had only the citizenship of Swarzędz, and not of
Poznań.15 This is not tantamount to saying that the Swarzędz citizens were treated
in Poznań as “outsiders.” Sometimes the Swarzędz Jews enjoyed equal rights with
the Poznań Jews, e.g., the Swarzędz butchers had been vested the same rights as
the Poznań butchers and one third or one fourth of taxes that they paid in Poznań
was sent to Swarzędz.16
The residents of Swarzędz were allowed to file their appeals with the Poznań
community in disputes with their own authorities. In 1666, the Poznań electors
instructed that should any dispute between the Swarzędz kahal and resident be
examined by the Poznań kahal, then the kahal member involved in the trial who
would have a son or son-in-law in Swarzędz would have to leave the session.17
The authorities of the Poznań community were involved in the settlement of a con-
flict between the Swarzędz rabbi and the kahal because the latter had not repaid
a debt to the rabbi. In 1684, the Swarzędz rabbi, Elikim Gets, son of Mordekhai,
lodged a complaint with the electors of Poznań about its kahal and its verdict. He
was assured by them that the Poznań kahal would examine his case,18 and in the
following year both parties, possibly after an intervention by the Poznań kahal,
concluded an agreement.19 In 1711, it was recorded in the Swarzędz pinkas that
a dispute between the Swarzędz authorities and store owners who put out their
tables with goods in the streets and in the marketplace was settled by the Poznań
parnasim and kahalniks.20
Most disputes regarded the collection of taxes from the subordinate communi-
ties, mainly the property tax. Its amount payable to the Poznań community de-
pended on the amount of the local property tax and was agreed between both
communities. It was therefore agreed in 1651 that the property tax of less than
15 gr. would in its entirety go to the Swarzędz budget and one third of the taxes
ranging from 15 gr. to 1 zł. would be kept by Swarzędz, while two thirds would be
handed to Poznań. The tax of more than 1 zł. would be in full transferred to
Poznań.21 But in the very same year a different solution was adopted, which was
to be in effect for the following five years: when the property tax was of 10 gr.,
Poznań received nothing, the tax from 10 gr. to 1 zł. was to be split in half, and
when the tax was higher than 1 zł., one third would be retained by Swarzędz and
two thirds would be handed over to Poznań.22 That arrangement between the two
16 Weinryb, Texts and Studies, p. 58.
17 AEP no. 1041 (5426/1666).
18 AEP no. 1498 (5444/1684).
19 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 81–82 (Swarzędz, 1 Tamuz
5545 / June 9, 1785).

20 JTS 3652, p. 27 (Swarzędz, 5 Tevet 5472 / December 15, 1711).
21 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 198v (Poznań, Passover 5411/1651).
22 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 199 (Poznań, 2 Iyar 5411 / April 23, 1651).
communities was recalled in 1679, and it was reiterated that the Swarzędz resi-
dents who paid less than 10 gr. in taxes were exempt from any payments to the
Poznań community.23
Still other problems arose in connection with property tax assessment. Ini-
tially, the residents of the Swarzędz community had to go to Poznań and appear
before the local tax estimators to have their property tax assessed.24
Later on a different solution was adopted: two tax estimators selected in
Poznań were sent to Swarzędz. Their job was to assess taxes together with their
Swarzędz counterparts. It follows from a record in the pinkas of the Poznań elec-
tors that the same tax estimators were allowed to assess the property tax in both
communities; having done their job in Poznań, they would go to Swarzędz.25 In
1667, the Poznań electors instructed that sensible people were to be nominated as
tax estimators, and that especially those working in Swarzędz were to be marked
by sagacity.26 By reference to an earlier regulation, it was stressed in 1676 that
those tax estimators who would then go to Swarzędz had to be selected both among
the kahal members and “people in the street.”27 The Poznań electors took note of
the fact that the Swarzędz community always selected three tax estimators who
were able to outvote the two sent by Poznań. Accordingly, the kahal was ordered
to revise the previous regulation either in court or by way of a new agreement.28
It follows from a record dating from 1715 that a meeting of two tax estimators
from Poznań and five from Swarzędz was convened, as earlier agreed. But it was
also stressed that should that arrangement be questioned in the future, it would be
necessary to return to an earlier verdict issued by the country’s rabbi (rav de-
medinah) who set the number of tax estimators sent by Poznań at two and those
coming from Swarzędz at three.29
But the system discussed above must have not been working as expected. In
the following year a decision had to be made in Poznań whether to proceed along
the lines adopted in the past or perhaps set a lump-sum property tax payable by
Swarzędz. However, no matter which solution would be adopted, it was stressed
that four units of the property tax collected in Swarzędz would be spent on the poor
in Poznań.30 Eventually, a decision was taken to set an overall amount of tax pay-
able by the Swarzędz community. In 1681, it was decided not to send any more tax
estimators to Swarzędz who would assess the property tax of each citizen, but that
the Poznań kahal would set one amount to be paid by the entire Swarzędz com-
23 AEP no. 1405 (Passover 5439/1679).

24 AEP no. 989 (5424/1664), AEP no. 1013 (5425/1665).
25 AEP no. 1471 (Passover 5443/1683).
26 AEP no. 1064 (Passover 5427/1667).
27 AEP no. 1323 (Passover 5436/1676).
28 AEP no. 1322 (Passover 5426/1676).
30 AEP no. 1351 (5437/1677).
munity. That amount was then to be apportioned by the Swarzędz kahal at its
discretion, so that the rich would pay more than the poor.31
But it seems that the problem had not been finally addressed, because in 1685
the Poznań electors asked the thirty-two men to decide about the way taxes should
be collected from Swarzędz, noting that under the current system it was very hard
to exact money from individual people and that “a lot of ink gets spilt and quills
are broken” before it was eventually done.32 An instruction was issued in 1692 that
one property tax payable by the Swarzędz community should be assessed, the way
it was done across the Commonwealth. Should the Swarzędz community disagree,
they directed to take the matter to court. They also ordered to see to it that the
residents of Swarzędz paid their past due poll tax (of 1 thaler), the way people in
Poznań did.33 It was recorded in 1699 that the Poznań community had no profits
from the Swarzędz property tax and the kahal was ordered to address this problem
in a definite way: either by concluding an agreement with the Swarzędz authorities
about a lump-sum payment or by going to court, so that one more tax estimator
from Poznań be co-opted.34
Even when a lump-sum of the property tax was assessed, the Poznań authori-
ties did not refrain from the exercise of its control over assessment of taxes in
Swarzędz. The “clean table” sent its representatives to attend a meeting of Swarzędz
tax estimators. They approved the property tax assessed by the latter by undersign-
ing their estimations. This kind of approval dating from 1722 may also be found
in the Swarzędz pinkas, and it is also enclosed with a comment that no taxpayer
should question it and appeal it to the “clean table,” and that the trustee is obliged
to collect the tax as it has been assessed.35 A similar approval granted in the fol-
lowing year was attached with a note that the Swarzędz kahal should not listen to
anyone questioning the amounts of taxes as they had been assessed correctly.36
Generally speaking, and regardless of the system adopted, there were always
problems with collection of taxes in favor of the parent community. Swarzędz
would frequently lag behind in payments, and the Poznań electors directed the
collection of all amounts due on numerous occasions. A note dating from 1697
reads that the Swarzędz community has rebelled against tax payment in favor of
Poznań for many years. So the Poznań kahal was told to send its emissaries to
Swarzędz and to demand firmly that its representatives appear before the “clean
table” with all the amounts due in their hands. Should it refuse, it was warned of
the execution of debts by some “severe master.”37 A few years later, in 1704, the
31 AEP no. 1439 (Passover 5441/1681).

32 AEP no. 1520 (Passover 5445/1685).
33 AEP no. 1623 (Passover 5452/1692).
34 AEP no. 1754 (Passover 5459/1699).
35 JTS 3652, p. 39 (Swarzędz, 16 Tevet 5482 / January 5, 1722).
36 JTS 3652, p. 41v (Swarzędz, 12 Shvat 5483 / January 18, 1723).
37 AEP no. 1705 (Passover 5457/1697).
electors ordered the Poznań kahal to be particularly watchful as Swarzędz tried to

free itself from any future tax payments to Poznań.38
The Poznań kahal charged the Swarzędz parnasim with the duty of collecting
taxes payable to the Poznań community. They were allowed to resort to any means,
including the imprisonment of reluctant taxpayers. The parnasim who would turn
out to be slow and lazy in tax collection were warned that they would have to pay
what is due out of their own pockets.39
Apart from the property tax, the Poznań community also collected poll tax
from the Swarzędz Jews. Poznań was also paid a portion of fees for ritual slaugh-
ter charged in Swarzędz.40 The Poznań gabaim exercised supervision over the
lease of seats in the Swarzędz synagogue in its sections reserved for men and
women, and two thirds of the sums thus raised went to the Poznań community’s
poor and one third to the Swarzędz poor.41 The Poznań kahal also controlled some
sources of income such as, e.g., sale of beer licenses or lease of customs duties: in
1651 it leased the collection of a customs duty levied on mead inside both com-
munities.42 It also granted trade permissions in both communities.
The “oppressive” nature of taxation imposed by the parent community was
particularly evident when it comes to a fee that Poznań should pay the voievode.
The Poznań kahal encumbered the Swarzędz community with a portion of that fee
even though it had a different legal status: Poznań was a royal town and its Jews
were to make payments to the voievode, while the Jews of Swarzędz, a private
town, were only obliged to pay the owner. In 1663 the Poznań electors directed
that attention should be paid to the collection of taxes in the Swarzędz community
and ordered trustees to calculate the community’s share of dues payable to the
voievode.43 The Poznań community also demanded that Swarzędz should pay
a portion of other charges imposed by non-Jewish authorities, e.g., in 1714 it
pressed to be refunded one tenth of its expenses incurred at the dietine convoked
in Środa.44
In addition, the Swarzędz community was also obliged to make an annual
payment of 2100 guilders to refund the amount paid by the Poznań community in
1621. Swarzędz stopped paying it in 1764 and continued to lag in its payments for
the following 40 years.45
38 AEPno. 1837 (Passover 5464/1704).
39CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 196v (Poznań, 1 Tevet 5411 / December 25, 1650).
40 AEP no. 1014 (5425/1665).
41 AEP no. 1446 (Passover 5441/1681).
42 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 201v (Poznań, 6 Av 5411 / July 24, 1651).
43 AEP no. 950 (Passover 5423/1663).
44 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 903 (Poznań, 21 Tevet 5475 / December 27,
1714).
45 Heppner, Herzberg, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden und der jüdischen Ge-
meinden, pp. 973–974.

The disputes between both communities were examined by the Council of

Four Lands on several occasions. One dispute was over the dependence, mainly
the financial one, between both communities: Poznań demanded all its money due
back. We know the verdict passed in that dispute in 1651: the Poznań community
was granted an unlimited right to manage its branch community as it used to do in
the past. The same verdict was issued in 1714 and 1728.46 The Council of Four
Lands convened in 1714 and 1778 decided that Swarzędz would pay one seventh
of taxes levied on Poznań.47
In 1725, the Council of Four Lands cast a curse on the Swarzędz community
for its conflicts with Poznań.48 Since the curse was viewed as an event of particu-
lar significance, it was made public in all synagogues of Poznań and also in all the
communities of the district and the Commonwealth, as well as at fairs.49 A curse
put on a community had grave consequences: its religious services were suspend-
ed, it was prohibited any ritual slaughter and deprived of privileges it had been
vested (which was especially important when it was a principal community, as
thus it was deprived of its supremacy).50
The disputes between the Poznań and Swarzędz communities persisted until
the early 19th century. At the beginning of the Prussian rule, the Poznań commu-
nity demanded to be repaid 60,000 guilders, as the arrears of the Swarzędz com-
munity had grown to so high amount. In January 1805, the litigation ended with
an amicable agreement of the parties. In its aftermath, the communities were al-
lowed to finally split in return for a pledge made by the Swarzędz community that
it would repay in installments a lump sum of 2000 thalers until 1820.51
46 Halperin, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot, no. 615 (Poznań, 9 Tamuz 5488 / June 16, 1728).
The rabbinical decrees issued in 1714 and 1728 were invoked by a commission set up in 1774 to
reduce the debts of the Poznań community. The commission established beyond any doubt that the
Poznań community incurred high expenses (of more than 60,000 zł.) when the Swarzędz commu-
nity was established and even had to contract debts on that occasion. Moreover, the Swarzędz mer-
chants were trading in Poznań, an additional reason why they should make payments in favor of the
Poznań community. The commission also noted that once the Swarzędz community pays its past due
liabilities of more than a decade (equaling 21,000 zł.) and makes its annual payments regularly in
the future, the funds thus raised would allow the Poznań community to repay some of its creditors
and to cut its debts gradually (APL, Lubl. Cast. RMO, no. 422/21582, pp. 675v–676).
50 Ibidem, pp. 115–117.
51 Warschauer, “Die Entstehung,” p. 181.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
RELATIONS WITH NON-JEWISH AUTHORITIES
Policies of Jewish communities were strongly affected by the outside world.

This is why, in my opinion, featuring a Jewish community in isolation from local
circumstances and structures, as in some studies, is not the right approach. Inter-
dependences between those two worlds were in fact very strong, especially when
it comes to economic relations.1 Hence it is necessary to examine the policies
pursued by Jewish communities in a broader context, even though the analysis of
the relations that Jews had with Christians, town authorities, dietines, and diets of
the Polish nobility is not the focus of this study.
1. CONTROL EXERCISED BY A VOIEVODE AND TOWN OWNER
In large royal towns Jews were under the jurisdiction of a voievode; in the
smaller towns, of a starosta; and in private towns, of a local landowner.2 Kahals
were a representative body of the Jewish community and without them it would
be impossible to collect taxes and exercise supervision over communities. This is
why both state authorities and the owner supported Jewish authorities. An edict
issued by King Jan III Sobieski in 1677 ordered Jews to obey local kahals and pay
taxes, and the community’s elders were instructed to confiscate the goods and
property of rebels, and to bring to court and punish offenders in accordance with
their laws.3 In 1718, King August II reiterated in his acts of law regarding the
1 This aspect is emphasized in works by Jacob Goldberg (see, e.g., Goldberg, “Poles and
Jews”).
2 The parliamentary constitution from 1539 vested local nobility with power over the Jewish
population residing in their estates. But how this right was exercised by owners largely depended on
their views and approach. On the whole, the kahals in private towns were more dependent on domin-
ion authorities, being a link of their administrative apparatus, than on starostas and their officials in
royal towns (Goldberg, “Gminy żydowskie (kahały),” p. 155). The relations between Jews and pri-
vate owners are the subject of a recent book by Adam Kaźmierczyk (Kaźmierczyk, Żydzi w dobrach
prywatnych).
3 Leszczyński, “Organizacja i ustrój gminy Żydów ziemi bielskiej,” pp. 110–111.
A VOIEVODE AND TOWN OWNER 237
Crown’s Jews that they should listen to appointed rabbis.4 Prior to that, in 1665,
in another act of law addressed to civil and military officers, King Jan Kazimierz
instructed that they should help Jewish elders with tax collection from Jews.5
The control exercised by non-Jewish authorities over Jewish communities
came down to the approval of officials they elected, sometimes also of commu-
nity functionaries, approval or issue of regulations binding on communities, super-
vision over their accounts and finances, and interventions in the aftermath of com-
plaints filed both by Jews and non-Jews. The judiciary will be discussed in the
following section of this chapter.
When Poznań and Swarzędz source materials are compared, it is clear that the
control the owner exercised in a private town of Swarzędz was stronger and cov-
ered more areas of the Jewish community’s life than the one exercised by the
voievode over the Poznań Jews. It is, however, possible that such conclusions stem
mainly from the specificity of those sources.
This control consisted, first and foremost, in annual approval of community
authorities, especially of parnasim who were accountable for the community to
external authorities. Newly elected parnasim did not assume their duties in the
initial 14 days following their election, but they first tried to get the approval of
external authorities. Should they be refused such approval within the said 14 days,
they could nevertheless assume their duties, except that the previous kahal would
continue to hold the office in the eyes of external authorities.6
In royal towns, parnasim were approved by the voievode, but it follows from
the records in Poznań pinkasim that the approval was also granted by under-
voievodes. Newly elected parnasim took an oath of allegiance to the King and the
Commonwealth. The text of such an oath dating from the first half of the 17th
century, which survived in the Kraków archives, is quoted by Majer Bałaban. The
parnasim pledged to obey the voievode and his officers and to discharge their du-
ties with honesty and diligence.7 It is likely that in other royal towns of the Com-
monwealth, including Poznań, the oath was similar.
In private estates elected community officials were approved by the owner or
his plenipotentiary. Such approval may be found in Swarzędz pinkasim, recorded
in Polish, next to the list of elected officials. It varied as to its form: from a brief
“I hereby confirm the above-mentioned elders”8 to more elaborate entries includ-
ing various admonitions and prohibitions. But usually it was appended with a note
that elected officials should be fair, show no favors to any community residents,
follow the owner’s rules, see to a timely collection of taxes (especially bardon),
4 Horn, Regesty dokumentów, vol. 1, no. 96 (Dresden, March 31, 1718) as well as no. 99
(Warszawa, May 4, 1724).

5 Bersohn, Dyplomataryusz dotyczący Żydów, p. 161.
7 Idem, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, pp. 347–348.
8 JTS 3652, p. 123 (Swarzędz, May 2, 1729).
238 RELATIONS WITH NON-JEWISH AUTHORITIES
contract no new debts, and pay the interest on the existing ones. In 1746, a pro-
viso was added that Marcus, the rabbi of Gdańsk, should join the elders and com-
missionaires who should not convene without him.9 And community residents
were told to obey elected officials.
In Swarzędz, parnasim were sometimes mentioned by name, sometimes also
tovim, men supervising bardon (referred to as krupkarze or komisarze do krupki)
or account supervisors. Those who were approved in 1779 were all listed by name,
and the hierarchy of their offices was also mentioned, to prevent any quarrels.10
It was also common to nominate the most important parnas, who was also
referred to as the “primate,” and an official who was to oversee all operations of
the kahal, especially its finances. In 1745, the town owner appointed Mosiek
Avram as “the top elder and the commissionaire from the castle” (he was called
parnas rishon and his name was clearly added at a later time) and Mosiek, son-in-
law of the rabbi, as the “first among elders.” It was the job of Mosiek Avram to
control other offices and his vote was decisive.11 Similar overseers were also ap-
pointed in 1747 and 1753. They were to sign all bills, and the parnasim were not
allowed to spend even a single grosz without informing them and getting their
signatures.12
Sometimes, when newly elected community authorities were approved, their
composition or the order of nominations was altered. When Stefan Korczyński, the
Poznań voievode, was approving the officials chosen by electors in 1752, he or-
dered three people to be stricken off the list (two parnasim and one tovi) and re-
placed by others. That must have been the initiative of the electors themselves
because the voievode explained that those initially chosen did not want to listen to
the electors and follow their instructions. They were to be offered no other office,
under pain of a fine. The new kahal was to act with integrity, as the voievode willed
and instructed, especially to take care of the poor and hire the rabbi.13
The owner of Swarzędz also had his say about newly elected community of-
ficials. For example, in 1772 one parnas was replaced at his request, which trig-
gered an “avalanche” of changes to the list of elected officials.14
Approved were not only elected officials but also functionaries hired by the
kahal. It is likely that the posting of the most important function of a rabbi was
most frequently a focus of attention of external authorities.15 Rabbis were ap-
9 JTS 3652, p. 194 (Swarzędz, 1746).
10CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 33 (Swarzędz, October 27, 1779).
11 JTS 3652, pp. 191–192v (Swarzędz, May 2, 1745).
12 JTS 3652, p. 199 (Swarzędz, April 28, 1747) and p. 210v (Swarzędz, May 10, 1753).
13 AEP no. 2180 (Poznań, 26 Nisan 5512 / April 10, 1752).
14 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 27 (Swarzędz, 5532/1772).
15 This especially applied to private towns. Changes of the rabbi in Satanów that took place in
the first half of the 18th century due to external interventions are described by Majer Bałaban (see
Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” pp. 34–35). In 1781, Wolsztyn’s owner, Katarzyna Gajewska,
allowed the community to elect a new rabbi, a wise and learned man, known for his virtues and
proved by voievodes.16 In private towns, apart from approving a rabbi, the owner
also interfered in the verdicts of rabbinical courts, and would even demand of the
rabbi to cast ḥerem on specific people or institutions.17
In the Swarzędz pinkas there is an approval of the second scribe made by the
town’s owner, Maciej Koźmiński, the voievode of Kalisz. It is enclosed with an
instruction that both scribes should discharge their functions diligently, write eve-
rything down in an honest way and inform the owner about any acts of fraud. He
also prescribed that the kahal coffers should have three locks and the key to the
first of them was to be held by the monthly parnas; to the second one, by the first
scribe; and to the third one, by the second scribe.18 It follows from another record
made in the Swarzędz pinkas that the town owner not only approved functiona-
ries, but also had a say about their hiring. What is more, candidates to individu-
al offices tried to enlist his support! When approving the elected parnasim in
1741, Koźmiński wrote down a note that Jakob Ester was to be the shames and
serve the synagogue “at his own expense,” like he had offered and asked Koź-
miński.19
A town owner also had a say about “personnel” decisions made by the com-
munity authorities: in 1772 a decision was made in Swarzędz to punish Zalman,
son of reb I., who had imported and weighed meat without notifying the kahal, by
depriving him of his right to take part in community elections and meetings. The
decision was, however, repealed on the town owner’s orders, the earlier record was
deleted and appended with a note that Zalman was eligible for any nomination,
like other community residents.20 There is an entry dating from 1746 that Moshe,
the rabbi’s son, should be invited by the shames, without asking the permission of
the parnas or kahalnik, to all the meetings of the kahal, also when tax estimators
and electors were elected, whenever he was willing to attend. A letter by the town’s
owner was invoked on that occasion.21 It is evident that the individuals concerned
must have sought the owner’s support, and sometimes even pleaded that the deci-
sions of the community authorities be repealed.
without any debts (as confirmed by a certificate). She made a reservation, however, that he would
have to be approved by her and that the community would have to pay 50 red zł. for her approval
(APP, Gmina żydowska Wolsztyn 18, p. 21).
16 For example, Aleksander Czartoryski, the Ruthenian voievode, approved the Lwów rabbi in
1763 and 1774 (Bałaban, “Ustrój kahału w Polsce,” p. 34).

17 Goldberg, “Gminy żydowskie (kahały),” p. 157.
18 JTS 3652, pp. 190v–191 (Swarzędz, 28 Nisan 5505/1745), approved on May 16, 1745. Ear-
lier on, when the elected community officials had been approved, the town owner included a reser-
vation: “I want to have only one scribe whom I hereby nominate” (JTS 3652, p. 191v, Swarzędz,
May 2, 1745).
5532 / January 30, 1772) and p. 69 (Swarzędz, 11 Nisan 5532 / April 14, 1772).
21 JTS 3652, p. 194v (Swarzędz, 25 Nisan [5506] / April 15, 1746).
A town owner also approved regulations issued by the community authorities

by attaching an approving note, like on the occasion of elections.22 Under a com-
pletely obliterated record in the Swarzędz pinkas, there is a note in Polish reading:
“This Jewish decree is superseded by the owner’s court decree, and this is why it
has been blurred.”23
The Swarzędz kahal attached many regulations with a note that the town
owner had been informed about them and agreed to them. When deciding to lease
half of the bardon collection to three people in 1747, the Swarzędz kahal added
that it was done pursuant to the owner’s consent and decree.24 He and his commis-
sionaire were notified that the kahal’s debtor, Leib, son of reb M., posted liens to
secure the repayment of his debts in the coming year.25
It also happened, usually due to disputes and quarrels inside a community, that
non-Jewish authorities had to intervene and issue rules regulating the operation of
community institutions. In royal towns this was done by voievodes and in private
towns by their owners. Such regulations would most often lay down the order in
which elections were to be conducted or the powers of officials, and they would
also curtail the kahal’s freedom to use tax funds or to levy new taxes.26 In 1698,
the Poznań voievode, Konstanty Breza, issued an act of law prohibiting the elec-
tion, in the coming elections, of the parnasim who had held that position for two
years.27 In minor matters, regulations binding on Jewish communities were issued
by undervoievodes.28
22 For example, CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 3–3v (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).
24 Ibidem, p. 23 (Swarzędz, 17 Iyar 5507 / April 27, 1747).
25 Ibidem, pp. 94–95 (Swarzędz, 1 Iyar 5550 / April 15, 1790) – it is interesting to note that
a robe, fur-lined overcoat, and hat were pledged.

26 Examples of such regulations: voievode orders issued by the Kraków voievode Stanisław
Lubomirski for the community of Kraków (1640); the Ruthenian voievode Stefan Czarniecki for the
Przemyśl community (1660); and the Ruthenian voievodes Stanisław Jan Jabłonowski (1691), Marek
Matczyński (1692), and Jan Stanisław Jabłonowski (1703) for the Lwów community (Schorr, Orga-
nizacja Żydów w Polsce, pp. 49–50, 87–89). Regulations were issued by town owners for the follow-
ing communities in private towns:
• Ostrów Wielkopolski (Wijaczka, ed., “Ustawa dla kahału ostrowskiego”).
• Krotoszyn (Michałowska, ed., “Porządek synagodze krotoskiej dany”).
• Opatów (Guldon, Krzystanek, eds., “Instruktarz dla kahału opatowskiego”).
• Orla (Leszczyński, ed., “Ustawa kahału orlańskiego”).
• Boćki (idem, “Żydzi ziemi bielskiej,” pp. 29–32; also published by Jacek Wijaczka – see
Wijaczka, “Instrukcja dla gminy żydowskiej w Boćkach”).
• Sokołów Podlaski (Wyrozumska, ed., “Ordynacja dla Żydów sokołowskich”).
• Tykocin (Nadav, ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin, vol. 1, pp. 682–684).
• Białystok (Hershberg, ed., “Przepis przyzwoitego w obywatelstwie dla kahału białostoc-
kiego”).
27 Leszczyński, “Metoda kontroli,” p. 22.
28 In 1703 the Poznań undervoievode, Kazimierz Franciszek Broniewski, issued a regulation
covering the Poznań Jews on acceptance of pledges from Christians. He ordered them to keep a spe-
The Swarzędz community was also bound by the regulations issued by the
town owner, but it cannot be deduced from the pinkas records that they were is-
sued in the aftermath of any acute conflicts inside the community. In 1756, the
community was sent “points” written down in Polish on parchment paper which
were handed to the tax collector who was to store them and be prepared to show
them should such a need arise.29 There is another entry in the Swarzędz pinkas that
the rights (ha-pravis) vested by the owner in 1764 have been received and that the
trustee will store them.30
Apart from privileges, the owner of Swarzędz also issued minor regulations
regarding the community’s operations. It follows from some of them that they could
have been inspired by complaints of Jews about their authorities. For example, the
owner’s instruction from 1738 prohibits tax estimators from decreasing anybody’s
tax without an oath.31 Recalled elsewhere is a regulation of the owner prohibiting
relatives from attending the same meeting.32 The commissionaire representing the
owner of Swarzędz ordered in 1759 that the kahal should not nominate as electors
or post offices people who lagged in tax payments. Should the kahal ignore this
rule, it would be punished with a fine of 50 thalers.33 A note by the Swarzędz
owner dating from 1780 speaks unequivocally about complaints against commu-
nity authorities: the commoners (pospólstwo) of the Swarzędz community com-
plain that officials do not pay their bardon, thus bringing the community into ruin
and transferring financial burdens on “people.” This is why the owner decided that
no one who had not paid his dues or bardon should hold an office.34
Breach of regulations was punishable by fines. The Poznań electors recorded
in 1763 that should a parnas, kahalnik, or any other man nullify one of the forego-
ing regulations, then he would be punished by fine which would not go the kahal’s
coffers, but would be paid in favor of the voievode or undervoievode.35 When
the latter approved elected officials, the Poznań electors recorded that anyone
who would turn down the nomination would be fined in favor of the voievode
and undervoievode, in addition to other punishments that would make him accept
the office.36
cial register of pledges with information about objects, sums of money, and transaction dates, which
a Christian pledger was to confirm with his signature. This procedure was to eliminate quarrels and
frequent oath taking and to prevent problems with the adjudication of any such cases (APP, Księgi
wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 5, p. 129).
29 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 28 (Swarzędz, 1 Adar II 5516
/ March 3, 1756).
30 Ibidem, p. 27 (Swarzędz, 18 Sivan 5525 / June 7, 1765).
31 JTS 3652, p. 175v (Swarzędz, 9 Iyar 5498 / April 29, 1738).
33 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 5v (Swarzędz, 13 Iyar 5519 / May 10, 1759).
34 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 35v (Swarzędz, August 10, 1780).
35 AEP no. 2218 (5523/1763).
36 AEP no. 2221 (5523/1763).
In Swarzędz, when a fine was imposed for the breach of the owner’s regula-
tions, it was paid to the latter. When the regulations of the kahal or electors were
infringed, then either the entire fine went to the owner or it was split in half be-
tween the owner and the kahal. Sometimes the owner would get one third of the
fine, one third would go to charity, and one third would be paid to the kahal or
would be spent on the cemetery.37
It has already been said that communities paid taxes to external authorities.
But pinkasim also mention “gifts” to officials and clergy, most frequently consist-
ing of spices and scents (besamim). The Poznań electors instructed that two people
should be dispatched with such gifts, i.e., that the shtadlan should be accompanied
by a kahal member.38 It is interesting that a gift had to be bought from Jews, unless
the person to be presented with it demanded goods coming from Christians.39
External authorities also exercised their control over community finances.
The owner of Swarzędz approved elected parnasim in 1752 on condition that after
their term was over a year later they would provide him with a register of revenues
and expenses in Polish, and if necessary, take a vow that it was true.40 They also
intervened in the case of debts, most frequently in response to requests and com-
plaints by the creditors of kahals or individual Jews, residents of a specific com-
munity. The parnasim were ordered to take an oath “on the scrolls” that they were
hiding no Jewish debtors or their property and would not do so in the future.41
External authorities also intervened in settlements and debts between Jews. Just as
in the case of the posting of offices and functions, such interventions were most
probably inspired by the efforts of the parties concerned. A decision was made in
1770 in Swarzędz that a loan extended by one of the community residents, Aron
from Poznań, which was to cover poll tax payment should be repaid from the bar-
don levied on butchers. The parnasim were prohibited from earmarking that tax
for other purposes until the debt was repaid on the grounds that such was the in-
struction of the town owner.42
Sometimes, a town owner would also lend money to “his” Jews. It is recorded
in the Swarzędz pinkas that a debt that the community contracted from the owner
for the construction of thirteen Jewish stalls in the marketplace was inherited after
his death by his wife Ludwika Koźmińska. After the amount due was increased by
37Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 50 (Swarzędz, no date);

CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 6v (Swarzędz, 18 Nisan 5519 / April 15, 1759).
38 AEP no. 1049 (5426/1666).
39 AEP no. 1457 (Passover 5442/1682).
40 JTS 3652, p. 208 (Swarzędz, May 5, 1752).
41 Morgensztern, “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej do historii Żydów,” no. 152
(Warsaw, July 9, 1660).

5530 / February 13, 1770).

NON-JEWISH COURTS 243
a commission and other charges, the interest on that amount, 7%, was bequeathed
by the widow to Poznań Jesuits.43
On some occasions a community would turn to non-Jewish authorities on its
own initiative. In 1760, when the Poznań electors had forbidden the kahal to cut
any tax assessed by tax estimators, they allowed every resident to petition the
voievode or undervoievode for its annulment.44 In 1783, a mayor and a carpenter
from Swarzędz, who attached their signatures in the pinkas, took part in the valu-
ation of the house of Zalman, son of Shmul, after the community authorities had
asked them to.45
The Poznań and Swarzędz pinkasim sometimes mention denunciations and
complaints about the kahal lodged with external authorities. Such behavior was
strictly prohibited on pain of severe punishment. The Poznań electors told the
kahal in 1664 that regulation supervisors should be allowed to punish those people
who rebelled against regulations and turned to non-Jewish authorities with com-
plaints.46 But despite such warnings there are examples in source documents that
Jews nonetheless petitioned non-Jewish authorities, even the king. A safe conduct
document issued by King August III must have been a response to such a com-
plaint: it protected two Jews, Jakub Israel and Joachim Binasz (their origins un-
known), from persecution by the parnasim of the Poznań community.47 The next
step that such a “rebel” would take would be to go to non-Jewish courts.
2. NON-JEWISH COURTS
Since courts were perceived as a component of a religious activity, as dis-

cussed in the chapter devoted to Jewish judiciary, it was a crime when a Jew turned
to a non-Jewish court.48 Anyone who did that was viewed as a dissenter and de-
nunciator acting to the detriment of the entire Jewish people. The Lithuanian Vaad
ruled in 1673 that a Jew who would not abide by a verdict of the Jewish court and
file his complaint about another Jew with his influential master or a non-Jewish
court would be cursed for life.49
43 Ibidem, pp. 29–30 (Swarzędz, May 5, 1750).

44 AEP no. 2200 (5520/1760).
45 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 110 (Swarzędz, 25 Shvat
5543 / January 28, 1783).

46 AEP no. 993 (5424/1664).
47 Horn, Regesty dokumentów, vol. 1, no. 104 (Moritzburg, July 23, 1738).
48 Jacob Katz is of the opinion that the term arkaot, used to refer to non-Jewish courts, acquired
negative connotations, which may be compared with the non-Jewish house of prayer. Katz writes
that seeking justice in non-Jewish courts was relatively rare in Poland but much more common in
German small towns and new communities (Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 83).
Such approach was taken not only when Jewish courts were omitted and when
one turned directly to a non-Jewish court but also to appeals from the rulings of
Jewish courts. Appeals were strictly prohibited by kahal authorities and rabbis,
even though state laws allowed one to appeal to the voievode, the supreme court
in this instance. Such bans not only tried to protect the authority of the Jewish
courts and the rabbi himself but, first and foremost, stemmed from a fear that ex-
ternal authorities might interfere with the competency of community authorities.
Oath taking by Jews before non-Jewish courts was also viewed with hostility.50 In
1653, the Poznań electors ordered the kahal to pay attention to those people who
appealed verdicts of the community courts to non-Jews and to punish them at its
discretion.51 Rabbis opposed the right of appeal to the court of the voievode (or
undervoievode).52
It was only in exceptional cases that kahals instructed someone on their own
initiative to go with an appeal to the “Gentile courts.” In 1654 the Poznań electors
warned five thieves, who are not mentioned by name, that should they go to any
marketplace in the future, they would be handed over to Gentiles and imprisoned,
adding that if any of them were unlucky “then his blood will be on his head, while
we shall remain innocent to God and Israel.”53 This is exactly what happened in
1661 to Avraham, son of Yosef Segal, mentioned earlier in connection with con-
flicts arising between the community authorities and residents, who left the Poznań
community and went to Germany. The Council of Four Lands cast a ḥerem on
Avraham and ordered to take all possible steps, even to seek the help of non-Jew-
ish courts, to bring him back to the community.54
In major royal towns the voievode’s court was appropriate to examine cases
where a Jew would be the defendant and a Christian the plaintiff 55 and to examine
criminal cases between Jews. Sometimes town authorities claimed they had juris-
50 One can read in the pinkas of the Lithuanian Vaad that a Jew who would like to take an oath
before a non-Jewish court should first turn to elders who were to check if that act would not desecrate
the Lord’s Name (ibidem, no. 60).
51 AEP no. 737 (Passover 5413/1653).
52 Zbigniew Pazdro describes a complaint lodged in 1743 by the prosecutor of the under-
voievode’s office in Lwów against rabbi Chaim Szymchowicz, who was accused of various offenses,
i.a., preventing people from appealing to the undervoievode’s court. He resorted to two means: he
either put a curse on those who dared file an appeal or he forced the parties to make a commitment
in writing that they would not appeal. In 1770 the undervoievode’s court sentenced rabbi Chaim to
a fine for obstruction of appeals (Pazdro, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodziń-
skich, pp. 48–49).
53 AEP no. 762 ([Passover] 5414/1654).
54 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 272 (Poznań, 18 Nisan 5421 / April 17, 1661); Halperin, ed., Pinkas
vaad arba aratsot, no. 241 (Poznań, 18 Nisan 5421 / April 17, 1661).
55 It has already been written in the chapter about the judiciary that frequently, in minor cases,
Christians preferred to bring their litigation with Jews to Jewish courts. According to Majer Bałaban,
it became a practice followed in Poznań already at the end of the 16th century (Bałaban, “Ze studjów
nad ustrojem prawnym,” p. 268).
diction over Jews, which provoked conflicts, such as the one in Poznań in 1617.56
By the act of 1660 issued by King Jan Kazimierz, all starosta, district, and town
offices were obliged to refer all cases against Jews to the voievode’s court.57 Also
the act issued by King August II prescribed that both in criminal and civil cases
Jews should appear before the voievode rather than town courts.58
In the period discussed here, the voievode’s jurisdiction was not homoge-
neous, but it consisted of three instances: a court of the undervoievode’s office
(where a case was examined by the undervoievode’s judge), the undervoievode’s
court, and the voievode’s court.59 The voievode had a deputy dealing with judicial
and administrative matters (undervoievode) who is sometimes referred to as the
Jewish judge.60 He was most frequently commissioned by the voievode to adjudi-
cate Jewish cases.
It was not unimportant to Jews whom the voievode would appoint to that of-
fice. This is why kahals went to great lengths to ensure that the nominee would be
well predisposed toward Jews. Sometimes voievodes would allow Jews to influ-
ence their decisions, e.g., the Poznań voievode, Stanisław Górka, who wrote in his
regulation regarding the Poznań Jews in 1590 that “I will nominate the under-
voievode and scribe with their (Jews’) consent.”61 It follows, however, from the
Poznań electors’ pinkas that such “consent” was not always taken into account.
They recorded in 1671 that the undervoievode was ill-disposed toward the com-
munity and destroyed it, as the editor put it, by the market tax. Therefore the elec-
tors instructed the parnasim to plea with the voievode to dismiss that unfriendly
officer and to nominate someone else. They also recorded that one of the commu-
nity’s residents, physician Moshe, had already taken appropriate steps.62
In 1705 the Poznań Jews lodged a complaint with the dietine of the Poznań
and Kalisz voievodship, which was at the time in session at Środa, that the office
of the undervoievode continued to be vacant (after Stanisław Leszczyński, the
Poznań voievode since 1699, was elected king, the position was vacant and this is
56 Ibidem, pp. 250–251.

57 Morgensztern, “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej do historii Żydów,” no. 31 (Kra-
ków, December 7, 1660).
58 Horn, Regesty dokumentów, vol. 1, no. 97 (Warsaw, November 19, 1718).
59 Pazdro, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodzińskich, p. 7.
60 Majer Bałaban writes that in Ruthenia (in Lwów and Przemyśl) and in Poznań the offices of
the undervoievode and the Jewish judge, initially separate, were then merged pursuant to the consti-
tution of the 1633 diet, whereas they continued to operate separately in Kraków until the final days
of the Commonwealth (Bałaban, “Ze studjów nad ustrojem prawnym,” p. 263).
61 Ibidem, p. 252.
62 AEP no. 1169 (5431/1671) – physician Moshe must be the very same man who offered his
services in all community efforts and mediations in return for a preacher’s position for his cousin
(CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 204v, Poznań, Iyar 5419 / April–May 1659). Earlier, similar efforts were made
to oust the undervoievode as instructed by the Poznań electors in 1640, who advised turning to the
King regardless of how much that would cost (AEP no. 377, Passover 5400/1640).
why no undervoievode was nominated). The vacancy posed various problems to

the Poznań Jews, especially with the creditors of both the community and its indi-
vidual members. So the dietine nominated Bogusław Tomicki, the scribe of the
Kalisz starosta office living in the vicinity of Poznań, to assume the position of the
undervoievode, and thereby to provide the Jews with protection and to adjudicate
the disputes they would bring to court.63
The Poznań electors reminded on several occasions that a parnas or kahalnik,
or one of the five men, should be present at trials adjudicated by the undervoievode’s
court.64 They recorded in 1652 that one of the officials undertook always to be
present at court, provided he would be accompanied by the monthly parnas or
a kahalnik, as “two are better than one.” This must have been the result of a special
permit issued by external authorities; if the electors expressed their fear that should
only one person be dispatched, the permit might be cancelled.65 The records of the
Poznań voievode take note of the fact that Jews appearing before the court were
accompanied by parnasim (“et sui seniores,” “et in antecessum seniores Synago-
gae Posnaniensis”). Trials were also to be attended by the shames and scribe.66
Voievode courts adjudicated according to the Polish laws, both statutory and
the common law, but sometimes they also invoked Jewish laws, when necessary.
The Poznań voievode’s records covering 1659–1790 refer to cases heard
either by the voievode or undervoievode. Most of them were disputes between
Christians and Jews, but litigations in which both parties were Jewish were also
quite common. Apart from the Poznań Jews, there were also Jews from other
towns, mainly from the Wielkopolska region.
Most disputes regarded financial matters: debts and interest, bills of exchange,
pledges, trade liabilities, e.g., for delivered goods. But other cases were also
brought to the court: in 1698, Salomon Lewek, a “distinguished citizen” and a par-
nas for many terms, filed against Idel Marek. He accused him of insults and per-
secution and that two years earlier he had been deprived of his office by the
voievode’s court as a result of the latter’s accusation. When Salomon’s creditors
63 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Sejmy i sejmiki koronne wobec Żydów, no. 223.

65 AEP no. 706 (Passover 5412/1652).
66 It follows from a letter by the Ruthenian voievode, Stefan Czarniecki, written in 1660 that
apart from the undervoievode, parnasim and the scribe, a trial should be also attended by the shames
as a witness (Pazdro, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodzińskich, pp. 171–172).
The text of an oath taken before the voievode by two Kraków shamesim in 1640 and 1641, which
was a regular oath, is quoted by Majer Bałaban (Bałaban, Historja Żydów w Krakowie, vol. 1, pp.
342–343) and by Beniamin Kohen (“Ha-rashut ha-voyevodit,” p. 18). The shamesim vowed alle-
giance to the King and the Commonwealth, obedience to the voievode and his officials, diligent
performance of their functions, particularly as regards the judiciary, not to favor anyone and not to
accept any gifts. They also undertook to inform the judge of any misbehaviors (fights, thefts) and to
inform the voievode that someone new settled in the community.
found that out, with the help of Idel, they suddenly began to claim their money
back, which brought Salomon into ruin. This was why he turned to the court: being
old, he wanted to clear his name and to leave it in high repute. During the dispute,
the Poznań voievode deprived Idel of his office of a parnas, so that both men
would enjoy an equal status before the court, and Idel, in anger, insulted and
slapped his opponent in the face in the synagogue during Passover. The court pun-
ished Idel with a fine of 300 red zł., which he was to pay the voievode, and 300
red zł. in favor of the synagogue, which he had profaned. The compensation for
Salomon’s injury was to be decided by the judges.67
The voievode’s records also mention, though infrequently, appeals from the
verdicts of the Jewish courts.68
There are also disputes between Jews and their authorities. A case brought in
1666 by a Poznań Jew, Cwi Hirsz (Jeleń Mendel), a lessee of czopowe and excise
in a few towns of Wielkopolska, was clearly of financial nature. He accused the
elders of the Poznań community that they had stolen bills of exchange by bribing
servants and offered all details about the whereabouts and amounts of the bills
written.69
In another complaint, Izrael, a Poznań goldsmith, accused one of the kahal
dignitaries, Fajlisz Pinkies, a dayan, parnas, and gabai, of persecution, and also
informed the court about abuses by the entire kahal. In his opinion, the kahal had
frequently inflicted harm on common people by means of orchestrated and unfair
trials and verdicts, and by not allowing to appeal them. He claimed that the Jewish
courts were also corrupt and bribable and accepted false oaths. He invoked the
example of a Christian woman, Marianna Cichowska, who left her money purse
at a Jewish stall at the time of shopping. The stall keeper named Gershon denied
that any money had been left at his store, so Cichowska turned to the Jewish court.
The dayan, in the person of the accused Fajlisz Pinkies, bribed by the stall keeper
with half of the money that had been left by the woman, consented to a false oath.
Izrael, the goldsmith, learnt about everything from the stall keeper who had told
him about the bribe and that the judge said one should not worry about a false oath
when testifying against Catholics, even if the charges were not true.70 It is un-
known how the dispute between Izrael and the kahal ended.
Zbigniew Pazdro described similar practices in Lwów. He noticed that in
many disputes between Jews that were examined by the first instance courts, the
undervoievode’s courts were equal to Jewish courts and their competency over-
67 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 5, pp. 61–63 (1698).

68 For example, APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 10, pp. 89–89v (1730); W. 5,
p. 46 (no date) – a Jew from Międzyrzecz protests against an unfair ruling of the kahal court and his
imprisonment.
69 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 2, pp. 96–97 (1666).
70 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 5, pp. 143–144 (no date).
lapped.71 In source documents, included with Pazdro’s study, there are also ex-
amples of lawsuits against community authorities. In 1761 the office of the under-
voievode punished six kahal elders for their absence at the kahal meeting; in 1762
the undervoievode’s prosecutor filed a complaint against supervisors of kahal tax-
es accusing them of abuses; in 1763 Lwów Jews complained that the election of
the kahal and hospital elders was not conducted according to the law; in the very
same year, the supervisors of the kahal were appointed after an intervention by the
prosecutor; and in 1764 the undervoievode’s court issued regulations whereby the
community accounts were to be brought into order, reprimanding the kahal elders
for squandering money without consulting the office.72 It is likely that all the fore-
going cases were brought by Jews, residents of the Lwów communities.
In private towns Jews were under the jurisdiction of their owner. Although the
privilege granted to the Swarzędz community in 1621 by Zygmunt Grudziński
vested the jurisdiction over Jews in community judges, while appeals were to be
handled by the authorities of the Poznań community,73 source documents show
evidence that some cases were also brought before the town owner. There is a sen-
tence recorded in the Swarzędz pinkas in the shames Nachman (Lachman) case
which was passed by the manor court in 1764. It follows from that sentence that the
case was filed by the Swarzędz kahal. At the trial it was represented by two parna-
sim and one tovi (referred to in the Polish text as ławnik). The court ordered the
community to bring its books of accounts and compared them with the receipts
delivered to the manor. It established that Nachman not only did not pay the amounts
he was supposed to pay, but also demanded commissions, thus exposing the com-
munity to unnecessary expenses, and that he committed other frauds. He was pun-
ished by being deprived of the function of shames, and any resident who would
recognize him as the shames would have to pay a fine. The verdict was to be an-
nounced to the public in the synagogue.74 More than a decade later this record was
appended with a note in Hebrew that the verdict was repealed after a compromise
had been reached between the kahal and shames Nachman in 1779.75
Apart from litigation, the voievode’s chancellery also handled matters other
than disputes: transaction records, unilateral statements of will, and various re-
ports.76 They fell within its authority when it comes to Jewish population, but it
71 Pazdro, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodzińskich, pp. 46–47. The
author offers examples of cases (e.g., about a synagogue seat, precedence in the kahal, complaints
about match-making), which seem to be more appropriate for a Jewish court but which were brought
to the undervoievode’s court.
72 Ibidem, pp. 213, 215–216, 219–224, 230–231.
73 Goldberg, ed., Jewish Privileges, p. 325.
74 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, pp. 63–64 (Swarzędz, January
12, 1764).
75 Ibidem, p. 63 (Swarzędz, 23 Ḥeshvan 5540 / November 2, 1779).
76 For example, a representation made by the parnasim of the Poznań community under oath
about the damage done to the Jewish houses – APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 1,
also handled similar documents delivered by nobility in lieu of the starosta’s chan-
cellery. This is why in the voievode’s books there are so many entries regarding
the Poznań community and its residents, but also Jews from other communities of
Wielkopolska. They usually confirmed payment of interest, return of pledges, or
payable debts (contracted either by the kahal or by individuals), where one of the
parties was Christian. There would frequently be a summary in Hebrew offered
underneath. They also included validations of the privileges granted to a commu-
nity, tax exemptions, etc.77 There are also records of representations made by Jews
or transactions concluded between them, e.g., a Polish translation of a Hebrew
letter dating from 1702 in which the Poznań parnasim acknowledge that the house
of the deceased parnas, Zelek Litman, is the property of his son-in-law, Aron
Lewek, who may do with it whatever he wants.78
pp. 49–50 (1659); a forensic examination of Manes, a diseased Poznań Jew – APP, Księgi
wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 11, p. 117–117v (1730).
77 For example, APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 1, p. 48–49 (1659) – King Jan
Kazimierz exempted the Poznań Jews from all taxes but the poll tax.
78 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie, W. 5, p. 108–108v (October 8, 1702). Under the
record there is a note made by Lewek Izraelewicz, the Jewish syndic of Poznań, that the document
was faithfully translated into Polish from the Hebrew original.
CONCLUSION
The first conclusion that follows from the study of mechanisms underlying the
operation of a Jewish community in the 17th and 18th centuries concerns the grow-
ing centralization of power. Many aspects of life came under the control of the
kahal, covering both community residents and institutions. An efficient system of
supervision was based on permits, or ḥazakot, regarding almost every area of an
individual’s activity, which were granted at the kahal’s discretion.
Community institutions were also under the kahal’s control. In time, crafts-
men’s guilds and brotherhoods, which were initially independent or almost inde-
pendent of the community’s authorities, found themselves under community con-
trol and even began to lose their independent status. This control was two-sided:
on the one hand, the kahal regulated their operation by a variety of regulations; on
the other hand, individuals from the guilds and brotherhoods could fill certain
positions. The kahal would even sometimes transgress its authority and interfere
with matters reserved for other officials, as happened in the judiciary or with tax
assessment.
A community’s rabbi also became dependent on the kahal. This was mainly
due to the fact that he was hired for a definite term, and the community’s authori-
ties had power to decide whether to prolong his contract and how much to pay him.
The rabbi’s powers were also confined by other means: when a ḥerem was cast or
when a title was bestowed, the kahal had to be involved. Rabbinic positions were
increasingly filled by the wrong people; sometimes they would even be filled by
those who offered the highest amount of money.1 This is why the position of the
rabbi ceased to be associated with a learned person. The same happened to the ti-
tles of ḥaver and morenu.
Due to the foregoing, many control mechanisms that had initially been put in
place became ineffective. It is especially hard to talk about the supervision exer-
cised by the rabbi over the community authorities when this position was held by
obedient individuals totally dependent on the authorities. Exactly the same hap-
pened to the independence of guilds and brotherhoods.
Centralization of authority also manifested itself by a gradual narrowing of
the group of people who held power, which was facilitated by the election system.
1 The declining prestige of the rabbi is best evidenced by the fact that in 1720 a Lithuanian
rabbi was required to carry on with his studies for twenty years after his wedding, whereas in 1761
he only had to be more than twenty years old (Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 228).
CONCLUSION 251
The same people, frequently related to one another, held the same community
positions for years.
Centralization of authority was also a direct outcome of the economic situa-
tion of communities. Fiscal considerations were the main reason why the kahal
wanted to control all aspects of community life. From the 17th century onwards,
the economic situation of communities continued to deteriorate; their revenues
were falling while expenses were growing. This resulted in the growing indebted-
ness of kahals, and the need to pay interest and commissions forced them to con-
tract further loans. This is why the kahal’s fiscal policy was growing: increasing
the number of charges and taxes; widespread community monopolies; spreading
the ḥazakah system; and imposing ever new encumbrances on guilds and brother-
hoods or mandatory loans that more affluent residents were forced to grant. It was
also due to the deficit of the kahal’s budget that principal communities levied
growing taxes on their branches. Centralization must be analyzed in this context:
in hard times, power facilitated access to money both for one’s own and for com-
munity needs.
It must also be noted, however, that the aim of the kahal’s financial policy was
not to exploit the “ordinary man,” as many authors claim. Obviously, the poorest
were hardest affected by tax burdens, but this was not the kahal’s intention. On the
contrary, community authorities realized that their financial possibilities were lim-
ited, and should they fall into utter poverty, they would join those who were sup-
ported by charity or from the kahal’s coffers. This highly realistic approach by the
authorities, sometimes probably inspired by protests and complaints, is clear in the
decision made by the Swarzędz electors in 1786. They repealed wedding and
house purchase fees that had been introduced four years earlier, following the
example of the Poznań community. They appended their decision with a note that
household heads had already been burdened with sufficiently high performances.2
To what extent that decision was an outcome of taxpayers’ protests and to what
extent it stemmed from a realistic appraisal of their financial capabilities will have
to remain an open question. Bans on lavish feasts or rich clothes were to limit
excessive spending and to prevent insolvency of community residents.
The tax system was devised mainly with middle income and rich residents in
mind, especially those who, for one reason or another, were not members of the
authorities. It follows from the comparison of the Swarzedz community’s official
and taxpayer lists that some rich people, usually merchants who paid high taxes,
either never or seldom assumed community offices. It was not the poorest but
those “highest” taxpayers that mattered in terms of the community’s revenues.
This is best evidenced by the regulations that forbade them to leave the commu-
nity, as this is how the kahal wanted to make it harder for major taxpayers to move
elsewhere.

252 CONCLUSION
The phenomena discussed above were not only common to the Poznań and
Swarzędz communities but also to the communities of the entire Commonwealth,
even though their intensity would vary. The abuses of power and conflicts they
provoked were sometimes quite acute.3 In some communities, due to the conflicts
between their residents and the kahal, the position of a tribune evolved, whose
duty was to control the authorities and eliminate abuses of power. But the tribune
would sometimes also fall victim to the kahal’s persecution.4
Negative phenomena that accompanied the exercise of power resulted in the
dwindling prestige of the community authorities and the rabbi, or even its total
decline. This contributed, indirectly, to the evolution of religious movements.
Frankism is viewed as a reaction to the crisis of both traditional religion and the
institutions of Jewish self-government.5 It may also be said that Hasidism tried to
replace traditional values and authority by a new charismatic leadership that was
not institutionalized.
It was not my intention to focus only on the negative phenomena in my de-
scription of the Jewish community. The community’s authorities had many posi-
tive aspects which contributed to the stability of the community’s institutions. The
main asset of the authorities’ control was that it allowed its residents to live ac-
cording to the dictates of their religion; this was the kahal’s basic duty. Although
residents had to put up with various rules and fiscal burdens, the system of com-
munity charity provided them with at least basic sustenance. In the event of any
conflicts with non-Jews, a community resident could count on the kahal’s assist-
ance. This provided the resident with a sense of community and security, which
must have been very important. That system grew even more stable due to the fact
that, until the end of the 18th century, no alternative existed. Alternatives came in
the form of two trends, Hasidism and Haskalah, even though the solutions they
proposed were poles apart.
3 Majer Bałaban wrote that some communities had dictators (takif ), also labeled as “premiers”
(rosh ve-rishon), who tried to subordinate the kahal and to oust the rabbis. These dictators were ruth-
less in dealing with their opponents. Examples of such dictators are Zelman Wolfowicz from
Drohobycz and Febus Abrahamowicz from Kraków, whose position rested on the support of non-
Jewish authorities. See Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 55.
4 This is what happened to Szymon, son of Zarach, the Kraków tribune living at the beginning
of the 18th century, and Samuel Mojżeszowicz from Leszno in the second half of the 18th century
(Schiper, “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów,” p. 102). But best known of all is Szymel Wolfowicz,
who was imprisoned in the castle of Nieśwież, despite the royal guaranty of safe passage, where he
wrote his appeal “A prisoner of Nieśwież to the estates deliberating about the need to reform Jews”
(1790) – see Eisenbach, Michalski, Rostworowski, Woliński, eds., Materiały do dziejów Sejmu
Czteroletniego, pp. 141–153.
5 See the following works by Jan Doktór: Doktór, “Frankizm,” and idem, Jakub Frank i jego
nauka.
ANNEX 1
OFFICIALS OF THE SWARZĘDZ COMMUNITY

AND THEIR TAX PAYMENTS1
THE SWARZĘDZ COMMUNITY’S OFFICIALS in 5466 (1706/07) and their property taxes1
parnasim: 1. Ber 15 gr.
2. Shlomo, son of H. g. 15 gr.
3. Yakov, son-in-law of A. d. 1 zł. 3 gr.
tovim: Moshe, son-in-law of L. 9 gr.
deputy (parnasim?): 1. Mendel, son-in-law of L. d. 17 gr.

2. Israel, son-in-law of H.
3. Yehoshua, son of H. d.
gabaim: 1. Hirsh, son of L. d. 5 gr.

2. Beniamin
3. Avram, son of D.
dayanim: 1. Leib, son of M.

2. Israel Pozner
3. Shmuel, son-in-law of L.
supervisors of butchers: 1. Wolf, son-in-law of H. Kats

2. Leib, son-in-law of M. 4 gr.
3. Avram, son-in-law of M.,
son of R. g.
4. Yehoshua, son of A., son of M. 7 gr.
5. Itsek, son of B. h. ne’eman
memunim: 1. Moshe, son-in-law of Sh. 18 gr.

2. Yosef, son-in-law of L., son-in-law
of A. 6 gr.
3. H.enokh, son of L. d.
4. Avram, son of B. p.
1 JTS 3652, pp. 104–104v (election list); JTS 3652, pp. 6–6v (tax register). The register (dam-
aged, rim and bottom of the card cut off; hence, there were problems with the identification of some
people) includes 76 names of taxpayers. They paid from 2 gr. to 2 zł. 8 gr. in weekly property taxes.
254 ANNEX 1
THE SWARZĘDZ COMMUNITY’S OFFICIALS in 5466 (1706/07) and their property taxes
gabaim for the Land
of Israel: 1. Abush, son-in-law of B.
2. Efraim Segal
gabaim for ransom of cap-

tives: 1. H.enokh, son of L. g.
2. Moshe, son-in-law of Wolf
gabaim of the Eternal

Light: 1. Israel melamed
2. Moshe, son-in-law of L. r.
parnasim: 1. Israel [Segal]
2. Wolf 3 gr.
3. Pinh.as 12 gr.
tovim: 1. Yehoshiya, son of H.. 6 gr.

2. Wolf, son of H. d.
gabaim: 1. Shlomo, son of H. l. 9 gr.

2. Leib Segal 6 gr.
3. Lipman Pozner 16 gr.
dayanim: 1. Zalman from Kraków

2. Kopil
3. Shmuel [son-in-law of L.]
4. Mendel 6 gr.
parnasim: 1. Lipman 1 zł.
2. Yosef, son of M. 21 gr. (deleted)
3. Leib, son-in-law of H. d. 3 gr.
deputy parnasim: 1. Itsek, son of Z. k. 12 gr.

2. H.aim, son of I. k. 15 gr.
3. H.aim, son of the rabbi 2 gr.
tovim: 1. Azriel, son of H.. his name deleted

2. H.aya, son of I.
2 JTS 3652, p. 107v (election list); JTS 3652, pp. 54v–55v (tax register). The register includes
108 names of taxpayers paying from 1 gr. to 16 gr. in weekly property taxes.
3 JTS 3652, pp. 112v and 114v (election list); JTS 3652, pp. 75–76 (tax register). The register
made in the month of Tevet 5485 includes 103 names of taxpayers paying from 1 and a half gr.
(1 gr.?) to 1 zł. in weekly property taxes.
ANNEX 1 255
gabaim: 1. Yehoshiya, son of H.. d. 4 gr. (deleted)

2. Wolf, son of I. 6 gr.
3. Yakov, son of Sh. 12 gr.
4. David, son of A. 15 gr. (added: 1 gr.
by mistake)
seven men: 1. Yehoshiya as above (gabaim)

2. Yakov as above (gabaim)
3. Azriel, son of H.. as above (tovim)
4. Itsek, son of Z. k. as above (deputy parnasim)
5. Avraham, son-in-law of Sh. 2 gr.
6. Hirsh, son of K. 5 gr.
7. Yakov, son of A.
dayanim: 1. Israel Segal
2. Kopil [rabbi from Gniezno]
3. Shmuel, son-in-law of L. d.
4. Mendil [son-in-law of L. d.] 6 gr.
5. Efraim [Segal]
6. Avraham, son-in-law of Sh. as above (seven men)
supervisors of butchers: 1. Hirsh, son of Sh. 1 and a half gr.
2. Zalman, son-in-law of H. 2 gr.
3. Yoh.anan, son-in-law of A. b. 1 gr. (initially 3? gr. – de-
leted)
4. Yoh.anan, son-in-law of A. b. z. k. 2 gr.
5. Avram, son of Sh.
memunim: 1. Hirsh, son of K. as above (seven men)
2. Leib, son-in-law of K. d. 12 gr.
3. Yakov Kirzner 7 gr.
4. Akiba, son-in-law of I. g. 2 gr.
5. Eliezer, son of H. d. 2 and a half gr.
Talmud-Torah gabaim: 1. Mendil, son of Sh. 2 gr.
2. Yakli, son-in-law of I. g. 2 gr.
3. Avraham, son-in-law of I. g. 2 gr.
gabaim for the Land of Israel: 1. Leib, son of K. d. 2 gr.

2. Hirsh, son of I. g. 6 gr.
3. Yakov, son of M. d. 4 gr.
gabaim for ransom

of captives: 1. Borukh, son-in-law of Sh. w. 4 gr.
2. Shmuel, son of Z. k. 12 gr.
3. Mima, son of M. d. 2 gr.
electors: 1. Shmuel, son of I.

2. Yehoshua, son of H.. as above (gabaim)
3. Itsh.ak Ayzik, son of I. sh.
4. Yakov, son of A. as above (seven men)
5. Moshe H.aim, son of rabbi Shlomo as above (deputy parnasim)
256 ANNEX 1
4
parnasim: 1. Lipman 21 gr.
2. Moshe, son of L. 3 gr.
3. David, son of A. b. 1 zł.
deputy parnasim: 1. Yakov, son of A. b. 1 zł. 24 gr.

2. Leib, son-in-law of K. d. 7 gr.
3. Ayzik, son of I. g. 4 gr.
tovim: 1. Mordekhai, son of Sh. 6 gr.
2. Shmuel, son of Z. k. 1 zł. 2 gr.
gabaim: 1. Pinh.as 15 gr.

2. Yosef, son of M. 1 zł. 10 gr. (deleted)
3. Wolf, son of I. 6 gr.
4. Yakov, son of Sh. 14 gr.
5. Itsek, son of Z. k. 16 gr.
dayanim: 1. Israel [Segal]

2. Kopil [rabbi from Gniezno]
3. Shmuel [son-in-law of L. d.]
4. Mendil [son-in-law of L. d.] 4 gr.
5. Abush [son-in-law of B.]
6. Avraham [son-in-law of Sh.] 2 gr.
deputy dayanim: Shlomo, son-in-law of P. g.

supervisors of butchers: 1. Yoh.anan, son-in-law of A. b. 2 gr.
2. Zalman, son-in-law of H. 5 gr.
3. H.aim, son of I. k. 7 gr.
4. Borukh, son-in-law of Sh. w. 18 gr.
5. Yakov, son of M. d. ne’eman 4 gr.
6. Avraham, son of Sh.
memunim: 1. Leib, son of K. d. 4 gr.

2. Moshe, son of A. b. 16 gr.
3. Hirsh, son of I. g. 5 gr.
4. Eliezer, son of H. d. 3 gr.
Talmud-Torah gabaim: 1. Mendil, son of Sh. 4 gr.
2. Mendil, son-in-law of A.
3. H.enokh, Segal 3 gr.
gabaim for the Land of Israel: 1. Avraham, son of I. g. 2 gr.

2. Yoel, son of A. d. 2 gr.
3. Itsek, son of A. b. 3 gr.
4 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 120v–121 (election list); CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, pp. 70–71 (tax register).
The register made in the month of Shvat 5489 includes 101 names of taxpayers paying from 2 gr. to
1 zł. 24 gr. in weekly property taxes.
ANNEX 1 257
gabaim for ransom of 1. Yakov, son of H. k.

captives: 2. Avril, son of M. d. 2 gr.
3. Yakov, son of L. p. 2 gr.
electors: 1. Yakov, son of Sh. as above (gabaim)
2. Mendel, son of Sh. as above
(Talmud-Torah gabaim)
3. Hirsh, son of Sh. g. 5 gr.
4. Shlomo, son-in-law of P. as above (deputy dayanim)
5. Leib, son-in-law of K. d. as above (deputy parnasim)
5
parnasim: 1. David, son of W. d. 18 zł.
2. Efraim Lesler 54 zł.
3. Pinh.as, son of M. g. 54 zł.
tovim: 1. Hirsh Kats
2. Shalom, son of D. 9 zł.
gabaim: 1. David, son of I. d. 15 zł.
2. Zalman, son of I. 20 zł.
3. Ayzik, son of W. 18 zł.
4. Hirsh, son of M. 14 zł.
five men: 1. Itsek Lisler (Leslir) 14 zł. 15 gr.
2. Aron Kutner 60 zł.
3. Yakov Lubzentser 6 zł.
4. Gabriel, son of A. 9 zł.
5. Shimon, son of I. k. 27 zł.
dayanim: 1. Shlomo, son of I. g. 19 zł.
2. Barukh, son-in-law of Sh. g. 27 zł.
3. Meir, son-in-law of Sh. d. 54 zł.
4. Aron, son of W. d. 18 zł.
5. Leib, son of A. d.
6. Ikir Pozner 20 zł.
7. Yosef, son of W. d. 18 zł.
8. Mordekhai, son of B. d. 18 zł.
9. Itsek, son-in-law of M. sh.
10. Yehudah, son-in-law of M. g. 15 zł.
11. Pinh.as, son of Sh. d. 40 zł.
12. David, son of M. d. 27 zł.
13. Yakov, son-in-law of M. d. 6 zł.
14. Yakov, son of M. d. 50 zł.
15. David, son of A., son of D. 15 zł.
16. Hirsh, son-in-law of I., son of W. d. 25 zł.
17. Naftali, son-in-law of H. d.
18. Wolf, son of A., son of W. d. 30 zł.
5 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 30 (election list); CAHJP, PL/Sw 21 (tax register). The register offers
the assessed total sum of property taxes (from 6 to 126 zł.). The list includes 91 names.
258 ANNEX 1
deputy dayanim: Leib Wolf, son-in-law of A. 12 zł.
deputy parnasim: 1. Wolf, son of I. h.. 53 zł.

2. Ozer, son-in-law of E. 10 zł.
deputy gabaim: 1. Zunvil, son of D. sh. 9 zł.
2. Mordekhai, son of Sh. g. 15 zł.
supervisors of butchers: 1. Itsh.ak, son of A. 20 zł.

2. Wolf, son of I. h.. as above (deputy parnasim)
3. Yakov, son of A. r.
4. Faibush, son of M. g. 36 zł.
supervisors of accounts: 1. Ikir Pozner as above (dayanim)
2. Moshe, son-in-law of A. r. 18 zł.
3. Wolf, son of A. 18 zł.
memunim: 1. David, son-in-law of A., son of D.

2. Itsek, son of I. Lubzentser 6 zł.
3. Yakov, son of I., son-in-law of Z. 6 zł.
4. Hirsh, son of Sh. d. 9 zł.
5. Wolf, son of M., son of I. 6 zł.
ne’emanim: 1. Moshe, son-in-law of A. r. as above

(supervisors of accounts)
2. Wolf, son of A. as above
(supervisors of accounts)
electors: 1. Meir
2. Yosef, son of I.
3. Efraim, son of I.
4. Tsvi Hirsh, son of I. Kats
5. Shimon, son of I. k. as above (five men)
6 7 8
parnasim: 1. David, son of W. d. 12 zł. (17 gr.)7
in his place Wolf, son of M.
2. Wolf, son of A. 12 zł. (17 gr.)
3. Moshe, son-in-law of A. 9 zł. (18 gr.)
4. Itsek, son of M., son of A. 17 zł. (20 gr. 1 szeląg)
[20 zł. (23 gr. 1 szeląg)]8
6 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 33v (election list); CAHJP, PL/Sw 24 (tax register). The register includes
246 names.
7 The first figure is the assessed total sum of property tax. The digit in the brackets is a weekly
property tax. The weekly amount of payable taxes ranges from 6 gr. to 2 zł. 4 gr. 2 szeląg.
8 The digits in the square brackets stand for an initial tax assessment which was later decreased
(after “the negotiations with the kahal alufim,” or “to mend a quarrel,” or “because it was known that
he had incurred a loss”).
ANNEX 1 259
tovim: 1. David, son of I. d. 12 zł. (17 gr.)

2. David, son of M. d. 27 zł. (1 zł. a half gr.)
[30 zł. (1 zł. 3 gr.)]
3. David, son of M., son of I. 9 zł. (12 gr.)
gabaim: 1. Pinḥas, son of M. g. 36 zł. (1 zł. 12 a half gr.)

[40 zł. (1 zł. 15 gr.)]
2. Moshe, son-in-law of L. 25 zł. (28 gr.)
[30 zł. (1 zł. 3 gr.)]
3. Isahar mpsh 9 zł. (12 gr.)
4. Leib Wolf, son-in-law of A. 8 zł. (10 and a half gr.)
[10 zł. (12 gr.)] + poll tax
+ bardon
five men: 1. Itsek Leslir 9 zł. (12 gr.)
2. Avram, son of L., son of M. d. 9 zł. (14 gr.)
3. Faibush, son of M. g. 45 zł. (21 gr.)
[54 zł. (2 zł. a half gr.)]
4. Itsek, son of I. l. 6 zł. (9 gr.)
5. Wolf, son of M., son of I. 10 zł. (12 and a half gr.)
dayanim: 1. Shlomo, son of I. g. 18 zł. (27 gr.)

2. Meir, son-in-law of Sh. d. 54 zł. (2 zł.) [(2 zł. a half gr.)]
3. Aron, son of W. d.
4. Ikir Pozner 12 zł. (17 gr.)
5. Yosef, son of W. d. 12 zł. (17 gr.)
6. David, son of W. d. as above (parnasim)
7. Mordekhai, son of B. d.
8. Yehudah, son-in-law of M. g. 18 zł. (20 and a half gr.)
9. Itsek, ne’eman
10. Pinh.as, son of Sh. d. 40 zł. (1 zł. 16 and a half gr.)
11. Hirsh Kats 40 zł. (15 gr.) [(1 zł.)]
12. Yakov, son of M. d. 50 zł. (1 zł. 23 gr.)
[54 zł. (1 zł. ... and a half gr.)]
13. David, son of A. 6 zł. (6 gr.) + pogłówne
14. Yakov, son-in-law of M. d. (7 and a half gr.)
15. Hirsh, son-in-law of I., son of W. d. 27 zł. (29 gr.)
[30 zł. (1 zł. 2 and a half gr.)]
16. Naftali, son-in-law of H. d.
17. Wolf, son of A. d. 24 zł. (26 and a half gr.)
18. Shalom (Shlomo?), son-in-law of L. 6 zł. (6 gr.) + poll tax
+ bardon
19. Shlomo, son-in-law of I., son of I. d.
deputy parnasim: 1. Moshe, son of W., son of A. 10 zł. (12 and a half gr.)
2. Ozer, son-in-law of E. 9 zł. (14 gr.) + poll tax
supervisors of the slaugh-
terhouse: 1. Itsh.ak, son of A. 10 zł. (12 gr.) + poll tax
2. Avram, son of M. h.. 6 zł. (7 and a half gr.)
3. Hirsh, son of Sh. d. 6 zł. (7 and a half gr.) + poll
tax + bardon
260 ANNEX 1
supervisors of accounts: 1. Shlomo (son of I. g.?) as above (dayanim)
2. Meir, son-in-law of Sh. d. as above (dayanim)
3. Ikir Pozner as above (dayanim)
4. Zalman, son of I. 10 zł. (15 gr.)
memunim: 1. Libush, son of I. p. 9 zł. (11 gr.) + poll tax

2. Leib, son of A., son of I. 6 zł. (7 and a half gr.)
+ poll tax
3. Hirsh, son of Sh. h. 9 zł. (12 gr.)
electors: 1. Shlomo, son of I. as above (dayanim)

2. Abli, son of P. d.
3. Moshe ...
4. Avraham, son of I.
5. Itsek ...
THE SWARZĘDZ COMMUNITY’S OFFICIALS in 5538 (1778/79) and their income taxes (bardon)9
parnasim: 1. Yosef, son of W. d. 46 zł. 10 gr.
2. Yehudah, son-in-law of M. g. 151 zł. 2 gr.
3. Hirsh Kats, son of I. k. 290 zł.
(193 zł. 10 gr. + 96 zł. 20 gr.)
tovim: 1. Avram, son of L., son of M. d. 108 zł. 26 gr.

2. Leib, son of A., son-in-law of I. n. sh. 107 zł. 25 gr.
gabaim: 1. Wolf, son of A. 104 zł. 8 gr.

2. Moshe, son-in-law of L. 218 zł. 8 gr.
(149 zł. 28 gr. + 68 zł. 10 gr.)
3. Isahar mpsh 72 zł. 13 gr.
4. Leib Wolf, son-in-law of A. 4 zł. 14 gr.
five men: 1. David, son of I. d.

2. Abli, son of P. d. 213 zł. (142 zł. + 71 zł.)
3. Moshe, son of I., son of A.
4. David, son of I. g. 69 zł. 3 gr.
5. Moshe, son of W., son of A. 59 zł. 25 gr.
(55 zł. 13 gr. + 4 zł. 2 gr.)
9 CAHJP, PL/Sw 3, p. 33 (election list); CAHJP, PL/Sw 23 (the pinkas of bardon from 1 Iyar
5537 to 1 Iyar 5538). The register offers payable bardon (paid on business operations, mainly com-
mercial activity). The pinkas includes 240 names in separate rows, but not all of them are enclosed
with entries (130 rows are empty and marked with —). The bardon amounts ranged from 24 gr. to
500 zł. (sometimes it was broken down into two figures).
ANNEX 1 261
dayanim: 1. Shlomo, son of I. g. 88 zł. 22 gr.

2. Borukh, son-in-law of Sh. g. 48 zł. 23 gr.
3. Meir, son-in-law of Sh. d. 462 zł. 3 gr.
(308 zł. + 154 zł. 3 gr.)
4. Aron, son of W. d. 67 zł. 10 gr.
5. Leib, son of A. d. ⎯
6. Ikir Pozner 52 zł. 15 gr.
7. David, son of W. d.
8. Mordekhai, son of B. d. ⎯
9. Itsek, son-in-law of M. sh.
10. Pinh.as, son of Sh. d. 432 zł. 10 gr.
(294 zł. + 138 zł. 10 gr.)
11. David, son of M. d. 276 zł. 26 gr.
(182 zł. + 94 zł. 26 gr.)
12. Yakov, son of M. d. 190 zł. 24 gr.
(127 zł. + 63 zł. 24 gr.)
13. David, son of A., son of D. ⎯
14. Yakov, son-in-law of M. d. ⎯
15. Hirsh, son-in-law of I., son of W. d. 36 zł. 28 gr.
16. Naftali, son-in-law of H. d. ⎯
17. Wolf, son of A., son of W. d. 35 zł. 13 gr.
18. Shalom, son-in-law of L.,
son of A. p. d. ? 32 zł. 4 gr.
19. Leib Wolf, son-in-law of A. as above (gabaim)
deputy parnasim: 1. Yakov Lubzentser 54 zł. 7 gr.

2. Ozer, son-in-law of E. 70 zł. 16 gr.
(63 zł. 16 gr. + 4 zł.)
supervisors of the
slaughterhouse: 1. Avraham, son of A., son-in-law
of I. n. sh. 90 zł. 17 gr.
2. Avram, son of Sh., son of I.
supervisors of accounts: 1. Itsek, son of M., son of A. 113 zł. 17 gr.

2. Zalman, son of I., son-in-law of Z. 128 zł. 26 gr.
memunim: 1. Hirsh, son of Sh., son of M. d.

2. Avram, son of M. k. 19 zł. 24 gr.
3. Faibush tailor —
electors: 1. David, son of W. d. as above (dayanim)

2. Moshe, son-in-law of L., son of P. as above (gabaim)
3. Avram, son of L. as above (tovim)
4. Ozer, son-in-law of E. as above (deputy parnasim)
5. Moshe, son of W., son of A. as above (five men)
ANNEX 2
PEOPLE HOLDING THE POSITION OF A PARNAS

IN THE SWARZĘDZ COMMUNITY
1FROM 1723 TO 1793*1
Individual Years when the office of parnas was held
1. ABLI, son of P. (F.) 1772

2. ABUSH from Lublin, son-in-law of Ber 1735
3. ARON KUTNER, son of Yakov 1783, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1792
4. ARON, son of (Ze’ev) Wolf 1764, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772
5. AVRAHAM KATS, son-in-law of I. 1741?, 1750, 1751
6. AVRAHAM, son of A., son of A. 1791
7. AVRAHAM, son of N., son-in-law of Yakov, 1738, 1739, 1741?, 1742, 1745, 1746, 1749,
son of Shlomo 1750, 1752, 1755, 1762, 1763, 1769, 1770
8. AVRAHAM, son of Yehudah Leib, son-in-
law of M. sh. 1743, 1747, 1748, 1750, 1751
9. AVRAHAM, son of Yosef 1765, 1766
10. AVRAHAM, son-in-law of A., son of Z. 1790, 1792
11. BENDIT, son-in-law of Abush 1740, 1747, 1756, 1757
12. BORUKH from Krotoszyn, son of Mor-
dekhai, son-in-law of Sh. 1752, 1754, 1755, 1758?, 1760, 1764
13. DAVID, son of Avraham, son of D. 1726, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1733
14. DAVID, son of Meir, son-in-law of Sh., son-
in-law of M. 1788
15. DAVID, son of M., son of I. 1790
16. DAVID, son of Wolf 1774, 1775, 1779
17. EFRAIM LESLER, son of (Yehudah) Leib 1771, 1775, 1776
18. H.ENOKH SEGAL, son of Moshe 1733, 1738, 1739, 1741, 1742, 1745, 1746
19. HIRSH KATS, son of Yakov 1778, 1788, 1793
20. HIRSH, son of Z., son-in-law of A., son of Z. k. 1792
21. HIRSH, son-in-law of I., son of W. 1785, 1787, 1788
* For the period of 1723–93 (71 years), there are 65 election lists. Missing are six lists: from
1734, 1737, 1773, 1777, 1782, and 1789. The 1741, 1754, 1757, and 1758 lists are in two copies;
hence, question marks are given when a specific name is offered on only one of them.1
ANNEX 2 263
22. IKIR POZNER, son of Itsh.ak Itsek from

Poznań 1767, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1774
23. ITSEK, son of M., son of A. 1779, 1780, 1783, 1784
24. (ITSH.AK) ITSEK, son of Yosef 1767, 1768
25. KOPIL, rabbi from Gniezno 1723
26. LIPMAN POZNER, son of Itsek Kats 1723, 1724, 1728, 1736
27. MAN LISER, son-in-law of F. (P.), son of Sh. 1791, 1792
28. MEIR, son of David, son-in-law of Shlomo,
son of I. 1763, 1764, 1769, 1770, 1783
29. MENDEL, son of Shabah. 1736, 1740
30. MENDEL, son-in-law of Leib Mimush 1725, 1726, 1727, 1732, 1733, 1735
31. MICHAEL, son of Pinh.as 1757?, 1758, 1759, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1766
32. MORDEKHAI (LIPSHITS) POZNER 1747, 1751, 1753, 1754, 1756, 1757, 1759,
1760
33. MOSHE, son of Avraham, son of D. 1738, 1739, 1741?, 1742, 1745, 1748, 1749,
1753, 1754?, 1760, 1761
34. MOSHE, son-in-law of A[vraham?], son of D. 1745, 1746
35. MOSHE, son-in-law of A. r. 1772, 1776, 1779
36. MOSHE, son of Faibush, son-in-law of L. 1786, 1790, 1793
37. MOSHE GLOGOVER, son of Leib Mimush 1728, 1730, 1731
38. OZER KATS, son of Yakov, son-in-law of E. 1791, 1792
39. PINH.AS POZNER, son of Faibush 1727, 1729, 1730, 1731
40. PINH.AS, son of Michael 1775
41. SHELKI LISER 1774
42. SHLOMO, son of Yakov, son of Sh. 1756
43. SHLOMO, son-in-law of Pinh.as, son of Fai-
bush Pozner 1735, 1736, 1741?, 1743
44. SHLOMO YUDAH, son of I. 1760
45. (SHLOMO) ZALMAN, son of Yosef, son-
in-law of Z. 1781, 1785
46. SHMUEL, son of Z. k. 1731, 1732
47. WOLF, son of Ayzik 1779, 1780, 1784, 1786
48.YAKOV, son of Avraham, son of D. 1732
49. YAKOV, son of (Moshe) Natanael,
son-in-law of Yeḥiel Pozner 1743, 1767, 1768
50. YAKOV, son of Shlomo Zalman 1725, 1726, 1729, 1732, 1733, 1735, 1736,
1740
51. (YEHUDAH) LEIB LISER, son of Efraim
Halevi, son-in-law of I. 1752, 1754?, 1755, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1763
52. (YEHUDAH) LEIB, son of Leib Mimush,
son-in-law of Hirsh 1724
53. YEHUDAH, son-in-law of Michael, son of P. 1776, 1778, 1780, 1781, 1787
54. YESHAYA, son-in-law of Sh. Segal from
Poznań 1765, 1766
55. YOH.ANAN from Kalisz, son of David, son-
in-law of A. 1758, 1759
264 ANNEX 2
56. YOSEF KATS, son of Yakov 1769, 1770

57. YOSEF POZNER, son of Yeshua 1761
58. YOSEF, son of Abush, son-in-law of Z. 1748, 1749, 1753
59. YOSEF, son of Mordekhai 1723, 1724, 1725, 1729
60. YOSEF, son of (Ze’ev) Wolf 1778
61. (ZE’EV) WOLF, son of M., son of I. 1781, 1785, 1793
ANNEX 3
CAREER PATHS OF OFFICIALS WHOSE NAMES

APPEAR ON ELECTION LISTS OF THE SWARZĘDZ
COMMUNITY FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME
(MORE THAN 35 YEARS) 1
Community authorities H.evrah kadishah’s authorities
1. ITSEK AYZIK, son of reb Avraham (held offices for 58 years)
1726 gabaim for ransom of captives (3)1

1727
1728 gabaim for the Land of Israel (3)
1729 memunim (5)
1730
1731
1732 memunim (6)
1733
1734 no list available
1735
1736 electors (2) & supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1)
1738 five men (3) & memunim (4)
1739 supervisors of the slaughterhouse (5) & supervisors of
accounts (4)
1740 electors (3) & five men (2)
1741 five men (2 or 3)
1742 five men (3)
1743 electors (1) & tovim (1)
1744 supervisors of the slaughterhouse (7)
1745 gabaim (4)
1746 electors (1) & gabaim (4)
1747
1748
1749
1 The figure in the parentheses designates the place in which the said individual was entered on
the list, e.g., the third gabai for the ransom of captives.
266 ANNEX 3
1750
1751
1752 five men (1)
1753 gabaim (3)
1754 gabaim (3)
1755
1756
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1766 electors (1)? & supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1)
1778
2. SHLOMO, son of reb Yakov (son of reb Sh.)

(held offices for 57 years)

1733
1735
1736
1738 deputy supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1) & Talmud-
Torah gabaim (1)
ANNEX 3 267
1740 deputy dayanim (1) trustees (1)

1741 deputy dayanim (1) or gabaim (3) trustees (1)
1742 gabaim (3) trustees (1)
1743 dayanim (11) trustees (1)
1744 trustees (1)
1745 ? supervisors (1)
1748 dayanim (10) electors (1) & trustees (2)
1749 five men (3) & three men (1) trustees (4)
1750 five men (2)
1752 electors (1) & dayanim (12) electors (1) & trustees (2)
1753 electors (2) & dayanim (11)
1754 dayanim (6) & supervisors of accounts (2 or 3)2
1755 dayanim (6)
1756 parnasim (3) electors (2)
1757 dayanim (6 or 5)
1758 dayanim (6)
1759 dayanim (5)
1760 dayanim (4)
1761 dayanim (6)
1762 dayanim (6)
1763 dayanim (6)
1764 electors (1) & dayanim (7) electors (5)?
1765 dayanim (4)
1766 dayanim (4)
1767 dayanim (4)
1768 dayanim (4)
1769 dayanim (4)
1770 dayanim (4)
1772 dayanim (4)
1774 dayanim (2)
1775 dayanim (1)
1776 dayanim (1)
1778 dayanim (1)
1779 electors (1) & dayanim (1) & supervisors of accounts (1)
1780 dayanim (1) & supervisors of accounts (1)
1781 dayanim (1)
1783 dayanim (1)
1784 dayanim (1)
2 In the pinkas we can find two election lists from this year.
268 ANNEX 3
1785 dayanim (1) electors (3)?

1786 dayanim (1)
1787 dayanim (1)
1788 dayanim (1)
3. BORUKH, son-in-law of reb Sh. from Krotoszyn, son of morenu reb Mordekhai from Krotoszyn
1724 gabai for ransom of captives

1725 five men (4)
1726
1727
1728 supervisor of butchers
1729 deputy parnasim (1)
1730 tovim (2)
1731 tovim (3)
1732
1733
1735
1736
1738 supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1 or 4)
1741 five men (3 or 5)
1742 electors (4) & five men (4) deputy gabaim (2)
1743 electors (4) & gabaim (4) deputy gabaim
1744 deputy gabaim
1745 tovim (1) trustees (1)
1749 tovim (1)
1750 dayanim (11) no list available
1751 dayanim (12) & supervisors of accounts (1) trustees (4)
1752 electors (2) & parnasim (2) trustees (3)
1754 parnasim (3 or 2)
1755 parnasim (2)
1756 gabaim (1)
1757 gabaim (2)
1758 dayanim (8)
1759 dayanim (7)
1760 parnasim (4) & dayanim (6)
1762 dayanim (8)
ANNEX 3 269
1763 dayanim (8)

1764 parnasim (1)
1765 dayanim (5)
1766 gabaim (1)
1767 dayanim (5)
1768 dayanim (5)
1769 dayanim (5)
1770 dayanim (5)
1771 dayanim (5)
1772 dayanim (5)
1774 dayanim (3)
1775 dayanim (2)
1776 dayanim (2)
1778 dayanim (2)
4. YOH.ANAN, son of morenu reb David from Kalisz, son-in-law of reb A. from Kalisz
1724 supervisors of butchers (4)

1725 electors (3) & supervisors of butchers (2)
1726 electors (4) & supervisors of butchers (3)
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731 deputy dayanim (2)
1733 dayanim (8)
1735
1736 dayanim (9)
1738 dayanim (8)
1739 dayanim (7)
1740
1741
1742
1743 dayanim (10)
1744 Talmud-Torah gabaim (2)
1746 dayanim (8) supervisors (1)
1748 electors (2) & dayanim (7) & supervisors of accounts (3) trustees (1)
1750 dayanim (6) & supervisors of accounts (1) no list available
270 ANNEX 3

1753 electors (1) & dayanim (7) no list available
1754 electors (1) & dayanim (4) & supervisors of accounts (1 or 2)
1756 dayanim (4)
1758 parnasim (1)
1759 parnasim (2)
1760 dayanim (3)
1761 dayanim (5) electors (1)
1762 dayanim (5)
1763 dayanim (5)
1764 dayanim (5)
1765 dayanim (3)
1766 dayanim (3)
1767 dayanim (3)
1768 dayanim (3)
1769 dayanim (3)
1770 dayanim (3)
1771 dayanim (3)
1772 dayanim (3)
1774 dayanim (1)
5. AVRAHAM, son-in-law of reb Yakov (son of reb Shlomo), son of morenu R.


1727
1728 gabai for the Land of Israel
1730
1731 five men (4)
1732 deputy parnasim (1) & deputy five men (1)
1733 deputy gabaim (1) gabaim (5)
1734 no list available no list available
1735 gabaim (6) & deputy dayanim (3) no list available
1736 gabaim (6) & dayanim (10) gabaim (3)
1737 no list available gabaim (2)
1738 parnasim (2) & dayanim (10) no list available
1739 parnasim (2) gabaim (2)
1740 gabaim (3) gabaim (2)
1741 gabaim (2) or parnasim (2) gabaim (2)
ANNEX 3 271

1744 gabaim (2)
1750 parnasim (1) no list available
1751 five men (1) & supervisors of accounts (1) gabaim (1)
1753 supervisors of accounts (1) no list available
1756 gabaim (1)
1757 aluf kahal (1) no list available
1758 gabaim (1)
1759 gabaim (1)
1760 gabaim (1)
1761 gabaim (1)
1764 gabaim (1)
1765 gabaim (1)
1766 gabaim (1)
1768 gabaim (1)
1770 parnasim (4)?
1771 gabaim (1)
6. YOH.ANAN, son-in-law of reb Avraham


1727
1730
1731
1733 gabaim (3)
1735 deputy gabaim (1) no list available
1736 deputy gabaim (1) gabaim (4)
272 ANNEX 3
1738 supervisors of accounts (4) no list available

1739 electors (1) & gabaim (4) gabaim (3)
1740 deputy dayanim (3) & supervisors of accounts (2) gabaim (3)
1741 dayanim (7 or 9) & supervisors of accounts (2 or 1) gabaim (3)
1742 dayanim (7) & supervisors of accounts (2) gabaim (3)
1743 five men (1) & dayanim (8) gabaim (3)
1744 gabaim (3)
1745 ? gabaim (3)
1746 gabaim (3)
1747 gabaim (3)
1748 gabaim (4)
1749 gabaim (4)
1751 gabaim (2)
1752 gabaim (2)
1754 shamaim (2 or 3) gabaim (2)
1755 gabaim (2)
1756 gabaim (2)
1758 gabaim (2)
1759 gabaim (2)
1760 gabaim (2)
1761 gabaim (2)
1763 gabaim (2)
1764 gabaim (2)
1765 gabaim (2)
1766 dayanim (5) gabaim (2)
7. SHLOMO, son-in-law of reb Pinḥas Pozner (son of reb Faibush),

son of Menaḥem Mendel Lipshits from Leszno
1725 electors (4)
1727
1728 electors (4) & deputy judges (1)
1729 electors (5) & deputy judges (2)
1730 dayan – the third section
1732 dayanim (8)
ANNEX 3 273

1735 parnasim (4)
1736 parnasim (3)
1737 no list available electors (2)
1741 electors (1) & parnasim (1) or dayanim (5)
1743 parnasim (1)
1744
1745 dayanim (6)
1746 dayanim (6)
1749 electors (2) & dayanim (5) & supervisors of accounts (2) electors (1)?
1750 dayanim (5)
1751 dayanim (5)
1752 dayanim (5)
1753 dayanim (5)
1755 dayanim (3)
1757 dayanim (3)
1758 dayanim (3)
1759 dayanim (3)
1760 dayanim (2)
1761 dayanim (3)
1762 dayanim (3)
1763 dayanim (3)
1764 dayanim (3)
1765 dayanim (2)
1767 dayanim (2)
1768 dayanim (2)
1769 dayanim (2)
1770 dayanim (2)
1771 dayanim (2)
1772 dayanim (2)
8. MEIR, son-in-law of reb Shlomo dayan from Leszno (son of reb I.),
son of martyr morenu reb David
1744 tailor supervisors (2)

1745
1746
274 ANNEX 3
1747 electors (3) & deputy parnasim (1)

1750 tovim (2)
1751 five men (4)
1752 five men (4)
1753
1754 five men (1)
1757 electors (1) & dayanim (8 or 7) & supervisors of ac-
counts (1)
1760 electors (1)? & tovim (1)? & dayanim (8) & supervisors
of accounts (1)
1761 dayanim (10)
1763 parnasim (3)
1764 parnasim (2)
1765 dayanim (6)
1766 gabaim (2)
1769 parnasim (2)
1770 parnasim (1)
1771 dayanim (8)
1772 dayanim (7)
1774 five men (1) & dayanim (4)
1776 dayanim (3) & supervisors of accounts (2) electors (1)
1778 dayanim (3)
1780 inspectors (1) & dayanim (2) & supervisors of ac-
counts (2)
1781 dayanim (2) & supervisors of accounts (1) electors (1)
1783 parnasim (1) & deputy three men (1)? & dayanim (2)
1784 dayanim (2)
1785 dayanim (2)
1786 dayanim (2)
1787 dayanim (2)
1788 five men (5) & dayanim (2)
1790 dayanim (1)
ANNEX 3 275
9. TSVI HIRSH physician, son of reb Shlomo


1728 electors (3)
1729
1730 five men (4)
1731 five men (2)
1732 five men (2)
1733
1735
1736
1739 five men (4)
1743 five men (2)
1744 tailor supervisors (1)
1745 five men (1)
1746 five men (1) & supervisors of accounts (4)
1747 tovim (2)
1748 tovim (2)
1749 gabaim (4)
1751
1752
1753 five men (4)
1754 five men (3) electors (3)
1755 shamaim (3) & supervisors of accounts (2)
1757 gabaim (4 or 3)
1758 gabaim (3) & five men (1)
1759 five men (1)
1760 gabaim (4) & shamaim (1)
1761 gabaim (3)? & supervisors of accounts (2)
1762
1763
1764 tovim (2)
1765 five men (1)
1766 gabaim (4)
1767 gabaim (2)
276 ANNEX 3
1768
1769 gabaim (3)
10. HIRSH, son of reb Yakov gabai/parnas (son of reb Shlomo)


1725 electors (5) & gabaim for the Land of Israel (2)
1726 memunim (5)
1727 electors (4)
1728 memunim (3)
1729 memunim (2)
1730 electors (5)
1731
1732 memunim (3)
1733
1735
1736
1739 electors (4) & memunim (1)
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744 electors (3)
1745 electors (2) & deputy gabaim (1)
1747
1748
1750 gabaim (4)
1751 gabaim (4)
1752 five men (2)
1753 gabaim (4)
1755 gabaim (3)
1756 gabaim (3)
1757 electors (2)
1758
1759
1760
1761 electors (3)
1762 gabaim (2) electors (2)
1763 gabaim (3)
1764
ANNEX 3 277
1765 gabaim (2)

1766
1767
1768 electors (2)
11. EFRAIM SEGAL, son of morenu reb Israel


1723 dayanim (5)
1724 dayanim (5)
1725 dayanim (5)
1726 dayanim (5)
1727 dayanim (4)
1728
1729
1730
1731 dayanim (3)
1732 dayanim (3)
1733 dayanim (3)
1734
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741 dayanim (2)
1742 dayanim (2)
1743 dayanim (2)
1744
1745 dayanim (2)
1746 dayanim (2)
1747 dayanim (2)
1748 dayanim (1)
1749 dayanim (1)
1750 dayanim (1)
1751 dayanim (1)
1752 dayanim (1)
1753 dayanim (1)
1754 dayanim (1)
1755 dayanim (1)
1756 dayanim (1)
1757 dayanim (1)
1758 dayanim (1)
1759 dayanim (1)
278 ANNEX 3
1760 dayanim (1)

1761 dayanim (1)
1762 dayanim (1)
1763 dayanim (1)
1764 dayanim (1)
12. ARON, son of morenu reb Ze’ev Wolf

1752
1753
1754
1755
1756 dayanim (9)
1757 dayanim (9 or 8)
1758 dayanim (11)
1759 dayanim (10)
1760 dayanim (9) electors (2)?
1761 dayanim (11)
1762 dayanim (11)
1764 parnasim (3)?
1765 dayanim (7)
1766 dayanim (7)
1767 dayanim (9)
1768 dayanim (9)
1769 electors (1) & parnasim (3)
1771 parnasim (1)
1772 parnasim (1)
1774 five men (2) & dayanim (5) & supervisors of the slaugh-
terhouse (3)?
1775 dayanim (5)
1776 electors (1) & dayanim (4) & trustees (1)
1778 dayanim (4)
1779 dayanim (3)
1780 dayanim (3)
1781 dayanim (3)
ANNEX 3 279

1783 dayanim (4)
1784 dayanim (4)
1785 dayanim (4)
1786 dayanim (4)
13. ABUSH, son-in-law of reb Ber from Orlin

1720 gabaim (2)

1723
1724
1725 dayanim (6)
1726 dayanim (6)
1727 dayanim (6)
1728 dayanim (5)
1729 electors (1) & dayanim – the second section (2)
1730 dayanim – the second section (1)
1731 dayanim (4)
1732
1733
1735 parnasim (2)
1738 dayanim (2) & shamaim (1)
1739 dayanim (2)
1740
1741
1743 dayanim (3)
1744
1745 dayanim (3)
1748 electors (1) & dayanim (2) & shamaim (1)
280 ANNEX 3

14. YAKOV, son of morenu reb Moshe Natanael, son-in-law of reb Yeh.iel Pozner
1733 electors (4) & supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1)

1735 five men (5)
1739 supervisors of accounts (3)
1744
1745 gabaim (2)
1746 gabaim (2)
1747 five men (1)
1748
1749 electors (3)
1750 five men (3)
1752 electors (3)
1753 five men (1)
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760 gabaim (3)
1761 gabaim (2)
1762 gabaim (1)
1763 gabaim (2)
1764 gabaim (3)
1766
1767 parnasim (2)
1768 parnasim (2)
1769 gabaim (1)
1770 gabaim (1)
1771 electors (2) & three men (1)
ANNEX 3 281
15. DAVID, son of reb Yoḥanan parnas/dayan (son-in-law of reb A. K.)


1756
1758
1759 five men (3)
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765 electors (?) & tovim (1)
1766
1767
1774
1775 gabaim (1) electors (4)?
1776 deputy gabaim (1)
1778 five men (1)
1779 tovim (1)
1780 tovim (1)
1781
1783 three men (1)
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1790 gabaim (1)
16. MICHAEL, son of morenu reb Pinh.as

1732 gabaim for ransom of captives (1)

1733
282 ANNEX 3
1735
1736 electors (5)
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742 deputy gabaim (1)
1743 electors (1) & trustees (3)
1744 supervisors of the slaughterhouse (1) electors (3) & trustees (2)
1745 supervisors of accounts (3) trustees (2)
1746 trustees (3)
1747 gabaim (4)
1748 tovim (2) supervisors (2)
1750 gabaim (2) no list available
1751 electors (4) & tovim (1) trustees (5)
1753 electors (3) no list available
1754 trustees (1)
1755 dayanim (7) gabaim (5) & supervisor of
the pinkas
1756 tovim (1) gabaim (5) & supervisor of
the pinkas
1757 parnasim (4) & gabaim (3) or tovim (1) no list available
1758 electors (1) & parnasim (3) gabaim (4)
1763 gabaim (1) & supervisors of accounts (1) gabaim (4)
1767 gabaim (1) no list available
1768 gabaim (1)
17. MOSHE, son of reb Avraham


1726 electors (5) & memunim (4)
1727 electors (5)
1728 memunim (2)
1730 five men (5)?
1731 five men (5)
ANNEX 3 283
1732 five men (4)

1735 deputy parnasim (1) & supervisors of accounts (2)
1736 tovim (1)
1738 parnasim (3)
1739 parnasim (3)
1740 gabaim (4)
1741 gabaim (4) or parnasim (3)
1742 parnasim (3)
1743 gabaim (3) & supervisors of accounts (2)
1744
1745 parnasim (4)
1746
1747 gabaim (2)
1748 parnasim (1)
1749 parnasim (2)
1750 gabaim (1)
1751 gabaim (1) & supervisors of accounts (2)
1752
1753 parnasim (2)
1754 parnasim (2)
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760 parnasim (2)
1761 parnasim (1)
18. DAVID, son of reb Meir, son-in-law of reb M.


1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1764
1765
1766
284 ANNEX 3
1768 dayanim (19)

1769 dayanim (17)
1770 dayanim (17)
1771 trustees (2)
1772 dayanim (15)
1774 dayanim (17)
1775 dayanim (12)
1776 five men (4)? & dayanim (13)
1778 dayanim (11)
1779 tovim (2)
1780 gabaim (2) & dayanim (11)
1781 dayanim (12)
1783 gabaim (1)
1785 dayanim (12)
1786 dayanim (12)
1788 parnasim (2) & dayanim (12)
1790 dayanim (11)
19. YEHUDAH, son-in-law of reb Michael parnas/gabai from Poznań (son of reb P.)

1764 deputy dayanim (3) electors (4)
1772 dayanim (13)
1774 dayanim (12) & supervisors of accounts (2) gabaim (5)
1780 parnasim (1) & dayanim (8) no list available
1781 parnasim (1) & dayanim (9) gabaim (2)
ANNEX 3 285
1782 [parnas], no list available gabaim (2)

1786 electors (2) & gabaim (1) & dayanim (6) gabaim (1)
1787 parnasim (1) & dayanim (6) gabaim (1)
1792 gabaim (1)
1795 gabaim (1)
1796 gabaim (1)
1797 parnasim (1)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABBREVIATIONS
AEP Avron, Dov, ed., Pinkas ha-ksherim shel kehilat pozna (381–595). Latin title: Acta elec-
torum communitatis Judaeorum posnaniensium (1621–1835), Jerusalem 1966
APL Archiwum Państwowe w Lublinie [State Archives in Lublin]
APP Archiwum Państwowe w Poznaniu [State Archives in Poznań]
BŻIH Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego
CAHJP Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem
HMPP Historische Monatsblätter für die Provinz Posen
JGO Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas
JJLG Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft
JNUL Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSS Jewish Social Studies
JTS Jewish Theological Seminary, New York
KMP Kronika Miasta Poznania
MGWJ Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums
MŻ Miesięcznik Żydowski
PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
YS Yevrieyskaya Starina
ZGJD Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland
ZHGPP Zeitschrift der Historischen Gesellschaft für die Provinz Posen
ŻIH Żydowski Instytut Historyczny, Warszawa [Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw]
MANUSCRIPT SOURCES
Archiwum Państwowe w Lublinie (APL)

— Lubl. Cast. RMO, no. 422/21582
Archiwum Państwowe w Poznaniu (APP)

— Gmina żydowska Swarzędz [Jewish community Swarzędz] 1 (kahal pinkas, 1734–1830)
— Gmina żydowska Swarzędz [Jewish community Swarzędz] 2 (pinkas with gabaim’s accounts,
1749–92)
— Gmina żydowska Wolsztyn [Jewish community Wolsztyn] 18
— Akta miasta Poznań [Files of the town of Poznań]: I 2242, I 2243, I 2245–I 2258, I 2260
— Akta miasta Swarzędz [Files of the town of Swarzędz]: I/16
— Księgi grodzkie poznańskie [Books of the Poznań starosta office]: Gr. 747, Gr. 760, Gr. 771,
Gr. 775, Gr. 781, Gr. 782, Gr. 793, Gr. 794
— Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie [Books of the Poznań voievode]: W.1–W.14
288 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biblioteka Czartoryskich, Kraków [The Czartoryski Library, Cracow]

— rkps 2666 IV
Biblioteka PAU, Kraków [The PAU Library, Cracow]

— rkps 1079, 1570
Biblioteka Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego, Warszawa [Library of the Jewish Historical Insti-
tute, Warsaw]
— rkps 837
Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem (CAHJP)
— PL/Po 1 (Poznań – electors’ pinkas, 1621–1835)
— PL/Po 1a (Poznań – kahal pinkas, 1592–1689)
— PL/Po 4 (Poznań – register of the community’s debts, 1772–93)
— PL/Po 5 (Poznań – accounts, 1775–93)
— PL/Po 9 (Poznań – pinkas of synagogue gabaim, 1605–1789)
— PL/Po 19 (Poznań – court documents)
— PL/Sw 1
— PL/Sw 3 (Swarzędz – kahal pinkas, 1758–1828)
— PL/Sw 21 (Swarzędz – bardon pinkas, 1775)
— PL/Sw 23 (Swarzędz – bardon pinkas, 1777/78)
— PL/Sw 24 (Swarzędz – bardon pinkas, 1779/80)
— PL/Sw 28 (Swarzędz – debts to the church, 1793–1804)
— PL/Sw 42 (Swarzędz – accounts, 1730–1861)
— PL/Sw 46 (Swarzędz – pinkas of ḥevrah kadishah, 1732–1818)
— PL/4 (Praga, near Warsaw – copy of the pinkas of ḥevrah kadishah, 1785–1870)
Centrum Judaicum, Berlin

— Schw /5/139
Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem (JNUL)

— 8°2469 (Poznań – pinkas of the Old Synagogue, 1672–1857)
Jewish Theological Seminary, New York (JTS)

— 3652 (Swarzędz – kahal pinkas, 1698–1758)
— 4031 (Swarzędz – pinkas of ḥevrah kadishah, 1772–1809)
PRINTED SOURCES
Avron, Dov, ed., Pinkas ha-ksherim shel kehilat pozna (381–595). Latin title: Acta electorum com-
munitatis Judaeorum posnaniensium (1621–1835), Jerusalem 1966.
Bałaban, Majer, ed., “Die krakauer Judengemeinde-Ordnung von 1595 und ihre Nachträge,” JJLG
10 (1912–13), pp. 296–360; JJLG 11 (1916), pp. 88–114.
Berliner, Abraham, ed., “Zakat shever. Shloshah mikhtavim asher arakhu rashei ha-edah pozna be-et
tsaratam el aḥeyhem bnei yisrael” [Cry of Despair. Three Letters from the Elders of Poznań to
Their Coreligionists], Kovets al yad 5–6 (1893–95), pp. 1–17.
PRINTED SOURCES 289
Dubnow, Simon, ed., Pinkas ha-medinah o pinkas vaad ha-kehilot ha-rashiyot be-medinat lita [The
Minutes Book of the Lithuanian Council], Berlin 1925.
Eisenbach, Artur, Michalski, Jerzy, Rostworowski, Emanuel, Woliński, Janusz, eds., Materiały do
dziejów Sejmu Czteroletniego [Sources to the History of the Four Years’ Diet], vol. 6, Wrocław
1969.
Feilchenfeld, Alfred, ed., Denkwürdigkeiten der Glückel von Hameln, Darmstadt 1979.
Goldberg, Jacob, ed., Jewish Privileges in the Polish Commonwealth. Charters of Rights Granted to
the Jewish Communities in Poland-Lithuania in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, Jerusalem
1985.
Goldberg, Jakub, Wein, Adam, eds., “Księga kahału w Działoszynie z drugiej połowy XVIII w.”
[The Book of the Działoszyn Kahal from the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century], part 1:
BŻIH 1 (53), 1965, pp. 81–112; part 2: BŻIH 4 (56), 1965, pp. 59–79.
Guldon, Zenon, Krzystanek, Karol, eds., “Instruktarz dla kahału opatowskiego z r. 1759” [Instruc-
tions of 1759 for the Opatów Kahal], in F. Kiryk, ed., Opatów. Materiały z Sesji 700-lecia Mia-
sta, Sandomierz 1985, pp. 173–181.
Halperin, Israel, ed., Pinkas vaad arba aratsot. Likutei takanot, ktavim u-reshumot. Latin title: Acta
Congressus Generalis Judaeorum Regni Poloniae (1580–1764), Jerusalem 1945. Revised edi-
tion: vol. 1, 1580–1792, Jerusalem 1989.
Hanower, Natan, Jewen Mecula, in M. Bałaban, ed., “Kroniki, opisy i elegie hebrajskie z czasów
Chmielnickiego” [Chronicles, Descriptions and Hebrew Elegies from Chmielnicki’s Days], Ruś
1 (1911), vol. 1, pp. 46–63; vol. 2, pp. 152–176; vol. 3, pp. 285–300; vol. 4, pp. 397–412.
Hershberg, Abraham Shmuel, ed., “Przepis przyzwoitego w obywatelstwie dla kahału białostockiego
do zachowania podany 1777 r. w Białymstoku” [Regulation of 1777 on Decent Citizenship Is-
sues for the Białystok Kahal], in A. S. Hershberg, ed., Pinkos Bialystok, vol. 1, New York 1949,
pp. 448–453.
Kleczyński, Józef, Kluczycki, Franciszek, eds., Liczba głów żydowskich w Koronie z taryf roku 1765
[Number of Jewish Heads in the Crown Based on the 1765 Tariffs], Kraków 1898.
Kupfer, Efraim, ed., “Pinkas bractwa pogrzebowego i dobroczynnego w Zamościu” [The Minutes
Book of the Burial and Good Deed Society of Zamość], BŻIH 2, 1951, pp. 47–80.
Kupfer, Franciszek, ed., “Pinkas K’szejrim (Księga protokołów elektorów gminy żydowskiej w Po-
znaniu)” [Pinkas Ksherim. The Book of the Poznań Community Electors], BŻIH 2–3 (6–7),
1953, pp. 56–121.
Leszczyński, Anatol, ed., “Ustawa kahału orleańskiego z 27 X 1780 r.” [Regulation of October 27,
1780, on the Orla Kahal], BŻIH 2 (98), 1976, pp. 113–121.
— ed., “Żydzi ziemi bielskiej w dokumentach z XVIII w. (część II)” [Jews in the Bielsk District in
Documents of the Eighteenth Century (part 2)], BŻIH 1 (117), 1981, pp. 21–36.
Lewin, Louis (Jehuda), ed., “Ein Bannfluch,” in S. Eppenstein, M. Hildesheimer, J. Wohlgemuth,
eds., Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage David Hoffmann’s, Berlin 1914, pp. 162–166.
— ed., “Ein grosspolnischer Bericht aus der Zeit des ersten Schwedenkrieges,” HMPP 5 (1904),
pp. 33–38.
— ed., “Hizakhrut kedoshim mi-pinkasei medinat polin gadol” [Memorial Prayers for Martyrs from
the Minutes Books of Great Poland], Kovets al yad 19, Berlin 1903, pp. 35–44.
Loewe, Heinrich, ed., “Memoiren eines polnischen Juden,” JJLG 8 (1910), pp. 440–446, 87–114.
Maisel, Witold, ed., Wilkierze poznańskie [The Poznań Town Regulations], Starodawne prawa pol-
skiego pomniki II, vol. 3, part 1 (Administracja i sądownictwo [Administration and Judiciary]),
Wrocław 1966; part 2 (Handel, rzemiosło i rolnictwo [Trade, Crafts and Agriculture]), Wrocław
1968; part 3 (Organizacja cechowa [Organization of Guilds]), Wrocław 1969.
Majmon, Salomon, Autobiografia [Autobiography], trans. L. Belmont, Warszawa 1913.
290 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michałowska, Anna, ed., Gminy żydowskie w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Wybór tekstów źródłowych
[Jewish Communities in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Selection of Source Texts],
Warszawa 2003.
— ed., “Porządek synagodze krotoskiej dany (1728)” [Order Issued to the Krotoszyn Community
(1728)], BŻIH 2 (194), 2000, pp. 222–236.
Michałowska-Mycielska, Anna, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego (1734–1830) [Pinkas of the
Swarzędz Kahal (1734–1830)], Warszawa 2005.
— ed., Sejmy i sejmiki koronne wobec Żydów. Wybór tekstów źródłowych [Diets and Dietines in
Poland and the Jews. Selection of Source Texts], Warszawa 2006.
Mika, Marian J., ed., Opisy i lustracje Poznania z XVI–XVIII wieku [Descriptions and Inspections of
Poznań between the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Centuries], Poznań 1960.
Mirski, Shmuel K., ed., “Takanot gaonei pozna (mi-pinkas beit ha-kneset de-kehilah kedoshah
pozna)” [Regulations of the Poznań Sages (from the Minutes Book of the Poznań Synagogue)],
in Sefer ha-yovel le-kavod shimeon federbush, Jerusalem 1961, pp. 261–265.
Nadav, Mordechai (Mordekhai), ed., “Ktav rabanut shel kehilah kedoshah kórnik le-rav akiba eger”
[Contract Concluded when Akiba Eger was Hired for the Position of the Rabbi in the Holy Com-
munity of Kórnik], Areshet 6, Jerusalem 5741/1981, pp. 172–180.
— (Markiel Katzykovich), ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin 381–566. Haskamot, h aḥlatot ve-takanot kefi
shehetikin min ha-pinkas ha-mekori she-avad be-shoah yisrael heilprin [The Minutes Book of
the Jewish Community Council of Tykocin 1621–1806. Decisions and Regulations Hand Copied
by Israel Halperin from the Original Minutes Book that Was Lost in the Holocaust], vols. 1–2,
Jerusalem 1996–1999.
Ohryzko-Włodarska, Czesława, ed., Lustracja województw wielkopolskich i kujawskich 1659–1665
[Inspections of the Wielkopolska and Kujawy Voievodships 1659–1665], vol. 1: Województwa
poznańskie i kaliskie [The Poznań and Kalisz Voievodships], Wrocław 1978.
Wąsicki, Jan, ed., Opisy miast polskich z lat 1793–94 [Descriptions of Polish Towns from 1793–94],
vols. 1–2, Poznań 1962.
Weinryb, Bernard D., ed., Texts and Studies in the Communal History of Polish Jewry, New York
1950.
Wijaczka, Jacek, ed., “Instrukcja dla gminy żydowskiej w Boćkach z 1773 roku” [Instruction of 1773
for the Boćki Kahal], Studia Historyczne 40 (1997), 1 (156), pp. 101–109.
— ed., “Ustawa dla kahału ostrowskiego z 1783 roku” [Act of 1783 for the Ostrów Kahal], in
W. Kowalski, J. Muszyńska, eds., Żydzi wśród chrześcijan w dobie szlacheckiej Rzeczypospo-
litej, Kielce 1996, pp. 77–80.
Wyrozumska, Bożena, ed., “Ordynacja dla Żydów sokołowskich z 1777 r.” [Ordinance of 1777 for
the Sokołów Jews], in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej,
pp. 85–90.
STUDIES
Abrahams, Israel, Życie codzienne Żydów w średniowieczu [Jewish Life in the Middle Ages],
Warszawa 1996.
Adelson, Józef, Elita kahalna w gminach żydowskich do pierwszej połowy XVII w. [The Kahal Elite
in Jewish Communities until the First Half of the Seventeenth Century], unpublished: Archiwum
ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 347/30.
Altbauer, Moshe, “O języku dokumentów związanych z samorządem żydowskim w Polsce” [About
the Language of Documents Related to the Jewish Self-government in Poland], in A. Link-Len-
czowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, pp. 13–22.
STUDIES 291
Assaf, Simḥa, “Ha-ḥayim ha-pnimim shel yehudei polin (lifnei tkufat ha-haskalah)” [The Inner Life
of Polish Jewry (Before the Haskalah Period)], in S. Assaf, Be-ahalei yakov. Prakim me-ḥ ayei
ha-tarbut shel ha-yehudim be-yemei ha-beynaim, Jerusalem 5703/1943, pp. 66–80.
— “Le-korot ha-rabanut (be-ashkenaz, polonia ve-lita)” [On the History of Rabbinate in Germany,
Poland, and Lithuania], in S. Assaf, Be-ahalei yakov. Prakim me-ḥ ayei ha-tarbut shel ha-
yehudim be-yemei ha-beynaim, Jerusalem 5703/1943, pp. 27–65.
Avron, Dov, “Ha-brirah be-kehilat pozna ba-meot ha-17–18” [Elections in the Poznań Jewish Com-
munity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries], Gal-ed 1 (1973), pp. 51–62.
Babad, Chaim Simche, Walka gminy żydowskiej ze zbytkiem ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem gmin
polskich [Jewish Community’s Fight against Luxury with Special Focus on Polish Communi-
ties], unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/20.
Baer, Itsḥak F., “Ha-yesodot ve-ha-hatḥalot shel irgun ha-kehilah ha-yehudit be-yemei ha-beynaim”
[The Origins of the Organization of the Jewish Community in the Middle Ages], Zion 15 (1949–
50), pp. 1–41.
Bałaban, Majer, Dzielnica żydowska. Jej dzieje i zabytki [The Jewish Quarter. Its History and Monu-
ments], Lwów 1909. Reprinted: Warszawa 1990.
— Historja i literatura żydowska ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem historji Żydów w Polsce [Jewish
History of Literature with Special Focus on the History of Jews in Poland], vol. 3, Lwów 1925.
Reprinted: Warszawa 1982.
— Historja Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868 [A History of Jews in Kraków and in
Its Kazimierz District 1304–1868], vol. 1: 1304–1655, Kraków 1931; vol. 2: 1656–1868, Kraków
1936. Reprinted: Kraków 1991.
— “Maamadam ha-ḥuki shel ha-yehudim ve-irgunam” [The Legal Status of the Jews and Their
Organization], in I. Halperin, ed., Beit yisrael be-polin mi-yamim rishonim ve-ad li-ymot ha-
ḥ urban, vol. 1, Jerusalem 1948, pp. 44–65.
— “Ha-milḥamah ha-gdolah 1648–1666” [The Great War, 1648–1666], in I. Halperin, ed., Beit
yisrael be-polin mi-yamim rishonim ve-ad li-ymot ha-ḥ urban, vol. 1, Jerusalem 1948, p. 81–90.
— Stan kahału krakowskiego na przełomie XVII i XVIII w. [Condition of the Kraków Kahal at the
Turn of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries], Warszawa 1931.
— “Szkolnictwo żydowskie w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej” [Jewish Education in Old Poland], in
I. Schiper, A. Tartakower, A. Hafftka, eds., Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej, pp. 337–344.
— “Ustrój gminy żydowskiej w XVI–XX w. (nowe badania naukowe)” [The System of the Jewish
Community from the Sixteenth to Twentieth Centuries (Recent Studies)], Głos gminy żydowskiej
1 (1937): pp. 4–7, 33–34, 81–82, 101–103, 129, 131; 2 (1938): pp. 30–32, 53–55, 82–84, 103–
105, 130–132, 176–178, 204–207; 3 (1939): pp. 6–8, 29–31, 54–56, 79–82, 104–107.
— “Ustrój kahału w Polsce XVI–XVIII wieku” [The Kahal System in Poland from the Sixteenth to
Eighteenth Centuries], Kwartalnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości Żydów w Polsce 1 (1912), 2,
pp. 17–54.
— Zbytek u Żydów polskich i jego zwalczanie [Luxury of Polish Jews and Its Eradication], Lwów
1928.
— “Ze studjów nad ustrojem prawnym Żydów w Polsce. Sędzia żydowski i jego kompetencja”
[Studies of the Legal System of Jews in Poland. The Jewish Judge and His Authority], in
Pamiętnik trzydziestolecia pracy naukowej prof. dr. Przemysława Dąbkowskiego, Lwów 1927,
pp. 245–280.
— Z zagadnień ustrojowych żydostwa polskiego. Lwów a ziemstwo rusko-bracławskie w XVIII w.
[On Systemic Issues of the Polish Jewry. Lwów and the Ruthenian-Bracław Province in the
Eighteenth Century], Lwów 1932.
Baron, Salo Wittmayer, The Jewish Community. Its History and Structure to the American Revolu-
tion, vols. 1–3, Philadelphia 1942.
292 BIBLIOGRAPHY
— A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 16: Poland-Lithuania 1500–1650, New York–
London 1976.
Bauminger, Leon, Przysięga żydowska i klątwa z uwzględnieniem ich praktyki na ziemiach Polski
[The Jewish Oath and Curse and Their Use in Poland’s Territories], unpublished: Archiwum
Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, RP KEM 4.374.
Ben-Sasson, Ḥaim Hilel, Hagut ve-hanahagah. Hashkafoteihem ha-ḥ evratiyot shel yehudei polin
be-shilhei yemei-ha-beynaim [Theory and Practice: The Social Views of Polish Jews at the End
of the Middle Ages], Jerusalem 1959.
Berliner, Abraham, “Posnania und Polonia,” in Koenigsberger, Silberberg, eds., Festschrift zum
Achtzigsten Geburtstage Dr. Wolf Feilchenfeld, Pleschen–Schrimm 1907, pp. 21–30.
Bersohn, Mathias, Dyplomataryusz dotyczący Żydów w dawnej Polsce na źródłach archiwalnych
osnuty (1388–1782) [Documents Concerning Jews in Old Poland (1388–1782)], Warszawa
1910.
Bielecka, Janina, Inwentarze ksiąg archiwów grodzkich i ziemskich Wielkopolski XIV–XVIII wieku.
Województwo poznańskie, kaliskie, gnieźnieńskie, inowrocławskie [Inventories of the Books of
Starosta Offices and Districts’ Courts of Wielkopolska from the Fourteenth to Eighteenth Cen-
turies. The Poznań, Kalisz, Gniezno, Inowrocław Voievodships], Poznańskie Towarzystwo
Przyjaciół Nauk, Prace Komisji Historycznej, vol. 22, Poznań 1965.
Bloch, Philipp, “Aus dem Posener Ghetto,” ZHGPP 12 (1897), pp. 226–230.
— “Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Aerzte im Posener Ghetto,” ZHGPP 6 (1891), pp. 112–113.
Bogucka, Maria, Samsonowicz, Henryk, Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce przedrozbiorowej
[History of Towns and Burghers in Poland before the Partitions], Wrocław 1986.
Breger, Marcus, Zur Handelsgeschichte der Juden in Polen während des 17. Jahrhunderts, mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Judenschaft Posens, Breslau 1932.
Breuer, Mordechai, Graetz, Michael, Tradition und Aufklärung 1600–1780, in M. A. Meyer,
M. Brenner, eds., Deutsch-Jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, vol. 1, München 1996.
Bruer, Albert A., Geschichte der Juden in Preussen (1750–1820), Frankfurt a. M.–New York 1991.
Doktór, Jan, “Frankizm jako odpowiedź na kryzys osiemnastowiecznego żydostwa polskiego”
[Frankism as a Response to the Eighteenth Century Crisis of Polish Jewry], BŻIH 2 (158), 1991,
pp. 11–27.
— Jakub Frank i jego nauka na tle kryzysu religijnej tradycji osiemnastowiecznego żydostwa pol-
skiego [Jakub Frank and His Teachings against the Crisis of Religious Traditions of the Eigh-
teenth Century Polish Jewry], Warszawa 1991.
Dubnow, Simon, “Kagalnye ustavy s kantsa 18-go veka” [Kahal’s Regulations in the End of the
Eighteenth Century], Voskhod 1894, 2, pp. 90–107.
Eisenbach, Artur, “Do kwestii walki klasowej” [On the Issue of the Class Struggle], BŻIH 1–2
(17–18), 1956, pp. 129–170.
— Emancypacja Żydów na ziemiach polskich 1785–1870 na tle europejskim [Emancipation of Jews
in Poland as Compared with the Situation in Europe, 1785–1870], Warszawa 1988.
Estreicher, Stanisław, “Ustawy przeciwko zbytkowi w dawnym Krakowie” [Sumptuary Laws in Old
Kraków], Rocznik Krakowski 1 (1898), pp. 102–134.
Feilchenfeld, Wolf, “Die innere Verfassung der jüdischen Gemeinde zu Posen im 17. und 18. Jahr-
hundert,” ZHGPP 11 (1896), pp. 122–137.
— “Eine Innungsordnung für die jüdischen Handwerker zu Posen,” ZHGPP 10 (1895), pp. 310–
316.
Gawurin, Abram, Dzieje Żydów w Tykocinie (1522–1795) [History of Jews in Tykocin (1522–1795)],
unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/37.
Gierowski, Józef Andrzej, “Die Juden in Polen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert und ihre Beziehungen zu
den deutschen Städten von Leipzig bis Frankfurt a. M.,” in K. E. Grözinger, ed., Die wirtschaftli-
STUDIES 293
chen und kulturellen Beziehungen zwischen den jüdischen Gemeinden in Polen und Deutschland
vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1992, pp. 3–19.
Glejzer, Herz, Życie Żydów w Polsce XVI i XVII wieku na podstawie responsów [Life of Jews in
Poland in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries Based on Responsa], unpublished: Archiwum
ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/51.
Goldberg, Jakub (Jacob), “Dzieje Żydów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej – próba syntetycznego spojrze-
nia” [History of Jews in the Commonwealth – An Attempt at Synthetic Approach], in Między
wielką polityką a szlacheckim partykularzem. Studia z dziejów nowożytnej Polski i Europy ku
czci Profesora Jacka Staszewskiego, Toruń 1993, pp. 337–352.
— “Die Ehe bei den Juden Polens im 18. Jahrhundert,” JGO, Neue Folge, 31 (1983), pp. 481–515.
— “Gminy żydowskie (kahały) w systemie władztwa dominialnego w szlacheckiej Rzeczypospo-
litej” [Jewish Communities (Kahals) in the Dominium System of Power in the Nobility’s Com-
monwealth], in M. Drozdowski, ed., Między historią a teorią. Refleksje nad problematyką dzie-
jów i wiedzy historycznej, Warszawa–Poznań 1988, pp. 152–171.
— “Pierwszy ruch polityczny wśród Żydów polskich. Plenipotenci żydowscy w dobie Sejmu Czte-
roletniego” [The First Political Movement among the Polish Jews. Jewish Plenipotentiaries dur-
ing the Four Years’ Diet], in J. Michalski, ed., Lud żydowski w narodzie polskim, Warszawa 1994,
pp. 45–63.
— “Poles and Jews in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Rejection or Acceptance,” JGO 22 (1974),
pp. 257–262.
— “The Privileges Granted to Jewish Communities of the Polish Commonwealth as a Stabilizing
Factor,” in C. Abramsky, M. Jachimczyk, A. Polonsky, eds., The Jews of Poland, London–New
York 1986, pp. 31–54.
— “Wokół pamiętników Żydów polskich z XVIII wieku. Pamiętnik Mojżesza Wasercuga z Wielko-
polski” [On the Memoirs of Polish Jews from the Eighteenth Century. A Memoir by Mojżesz
Wasercug from Wielkopolska], in Ł. Kądziela, W. Kriegseisen, Z. Zielińska, eds., Trudne stu-
lecia. Studia z dziejów XVII i XVIII wieku ofiarowane Profesorowi Jerzemu Michalskiemu
w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, Warszawa 1994, pp. 206–214.
— “Żydowski Sejm Czterech Ziem w społecznym i politycznym ustroju dawnej Rzeczypospolitej”
[The Jewish Council of Four Lands in the Social and Political System of the Commonwealth],
in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, pp. 44–58.
Grochulska, Barbara, “Jarmarki w handlu polskim w 2 połowie XVIII w.” [Fairs in Polish Trade of
the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century], Przegląd Historyczny 64 (1973), pp. 793–823.
Guldon, Zenon, Krikun, Nikołaj, “Przyczynek do krytyki spisów ludności żydowskiej z końca
XVIII wieku” [A Contribution to the Critique of the Jewish Population’s Censuses at the End
of the Eighteenth Century], Studia Źródłoznawcze 23 (1978), pp. 153–157.
Guldon, Zenon, Wijaczka, Jacek, “Ludność żydowska w Wielkopolsce w drugiej połowie XVII
wieku” [Jewish Population in Wielkopolska in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century],
in J. Topolski, K. Modelski, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni dziejów, pp. 18–44.
— “Osadnictwo żydowskie w województwach poznańskim i kaliskim w XVI–XVII wieku” [Jewish
Settlement in the Poznań and Kalisz Voievodships in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries],
BŻIH 2–3 (162–163), 1992, pp. 63–77.
— Procesy o mordy rytualne w Polsce w XVI–XVIII wieku [Ritual Murder Trials in Poland from the
Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries], Kielce 1995.
— “Żydzi wśród chrześcijan w miastach wielkopolskich w okresie przedrozbiorowym” [Jews Liv-
ing among Christians in the Wielkopolska Towns before Partitions], Nasza Przeszłość 79 (1993),
pp. 149–197.
Halperin, Israel, “Ḥevrot baalei mlakhah yehudim be-polin ve-lita (ḥomer histori)” [Jewish Artisans’
Guilds in Poland and Lithuania], Zion 2 (1937), pp. 70–89.
294 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heppner, Aron, Herzberg, Isaak, Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden und der jüdischen
Gemeinden in Posener Landen, Koschmin–Bromberg 1909.
— Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden in Posen, Koschmin 1914.
Hońdo, Leszek, Stary Żydowski Cmentarz w Krakowie. Historia cmentarza. Analiza hebrajskich
inskrypcji [The Old Jewish Cemetery in Cracow. History of the Cemetery. Analysis of Hebrew
Inscriptions], Kraków 1999.
Horn, Maurycy, “Chronologia i zasięg terytorialny żydowskich cechów rzemieślniczych w dawnej
Polsce (1613–1795)” [Chronology and Territorial Range of Jewish Guilds in Poland (1613–
1795)], in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, pp. 201–
213.
— “Powstanie i rozwój terytorialny żydowskich cechów rzemieślniczych w dawnej Polsce (1613–
1795) [Emergence and Territorial Development of Craftsmen’s Guilds in Poland (1613–1795)],
part 2: “W latach 1649–1795” [1649–1795], BŻIH 1–2 (145–146), 1988, pp. 3–22.
— Regesty dokumentów i ekscerpty z Metryki Koronnej do historii Żydów w Polsce 1697–1795
[Document Registers and Excerpts from the Crown Register Regarding the History of Jews in
Poland in 1697–1795], vol. 1: Czasy saskie 1697–1763 [Saxon Period, 1697–1763], Wrocław
1984; vol. 2: Rządy Stanisława Augusta (1764–1795) [Reign of Stanisław August, 1764–1795],
part 1: 1764–1779, Wrocław 1984, part 2: 1780–1794, Wrocław 1988.
— Żydowskie bractwa rzemieślnicze na ziemiach polskich, litewskich, białoruskich i ukraińskich
w latach 1613–1850 [Jewish Brotherhoods of Craftsmen in Polish, Lithuanian, Byelorussian and
Ukrainian Territories in 1613–1850], Warszawa 1998.
Hundert, Gershon David, The Jews in a Polish Private Town: The Case of Opatów in the Eighteenth
Century, Baltimore–London 1992.
— “Jews, Money and Society in the Seventeenth-Century Polish Commonwealth: The Case of
Krakow,” JSS 43 (1981), pp. 261–274.
— “Kahał i samorząd miejski w miastach prywatnych w XVII i XVIII w.” [The Kahal and Mu-
nicipal Local Government in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries], in A. Link-Lenczowski,
T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, pp. 66–74.
— “On the Jewish Community in Poland during the Seventeenth Century: Some Comparative Per-
spectives,” Revue des études juives 142 (1983), pp. 349–372.
— “Population and Society in Eighteenth-Century Poland,” in J. Michalski, ed., Lud żydowski
w narodzie polskim. Materiały sesji naukowej w Warszawie 15–16 wrzesień 1992, Warszawa
1994, pp. 12–19.
Izbicki, Zyskind, Zagadnienie długów kahalnych w dawnej Polsce a sprawa ich likwidacji w okresie
Królestwa Polskiego [The Problem of Kahal Debts in Old Poland and Their Forgiveness in the
Days of the Kingdom of Poland], unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/17.
Jabczyński, Mieczysław, “Statystyka miasta Poznania w roku 1780, ułożona na podstawie spisu
dokonanego przez poznańską Komisyą Dobrego Porządku” [The Statistics of the Town of
Poznań Made Based on the Census Conducted by the Poznań Commission of Good Order],
Roczniki Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk Poznańskiego 37 (1910), pp. 43–110.
Jacobson, Jacob, “Die Stellung der Juden in den 1793–1795 von Preussen erworbenen polnischen
Provinzen,” MGWJ 64 (1920), pp. 209–226.
— “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” Sonderdruck aus: [G. Rhode, ed.], Geschichte der Stadt
Posen, [Neuendettelsau 1953], pp. 243–256.
Jarochowski, Kazimierz, Wielkopolska w czasie pierwszej wojny szwedzkiej od r. 1655 do 1657
[Wielkopolska during the First Swedish War 1655–1657], Poznań 1884.
Kaatz, Saul, “Zur Geschichte der Gemeinde Schwersenz,” Menorah 3 (1925), pp. 227–228.
Kądziołka, Jerzy, Finanse miasta Poznania 1501–1648 [Finances of the Town of Poznań 1501–
1648], Poznań 1960.
STUDIES 295
Kamler, Marcin, Świat przestępczy w Polsce XVI i XVII stulecia [Criminal World in Poland of the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries], Warszawa 1991.
Katz, Jacob, Tradition and Crisis. Jewish Society and the End of the Middle Ages, New York 1971,
1993.
Kaufmann, David, “Der Sturm der Tarnogroder Conföderirten auf Posen am 25. Juli 1716,” MGWJ,
Neue Folge, 2 (1894), pp. 184–192.
Kaźmierczyk, Adam, Materiały źródłowe do dziejów Żydów w księgach grodzkich dawnego woje-
wództwa krakowskiego z lat 1674–1696 [Source Materials on the History of Jews in the Books
of the Starosta Office of the Former Kraków Voievodship in 1674–1696], vol. 1: Lata 1674–1683
[1674–1683], Kraków 1995.
— Sejmy i sejmiki szlacheckie wobec Żydów w drugiej połowie XVII wieku [The Attitude of Noble
Diets and Dietines to Jews in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century], Warszawa 1994.
— Żydzi w dobrach prywatnych w świetle sądowniczej i administracyjnej praktyki dóbr magnackich
w wiekach XVI–XVIII [Jews in Private Estates and the Judicial and Administrative Practices Fol-
lowed in Magnate Estates from the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries], Kraków 2002.
Kędelski, Mieczysław, Rozwój demograficzny Poznania w XVIII i na początku XIX wieku
[Demographic Growth of Poznań from the Eighteenth to the Early Nineteenth Century], Poznań
1992.
Kemlein, Sophia, Die Posener Juden 1815–1848. Entwicklungsprozesse einer polnischen Judenheit
unter preußischer Herrschaft, Hamburg 1997. Polish translation: Żydzi w Wielkim Księstwie
Poznańskim 1815–1848. Przeobrażenia w łonie żydostwa polskiego pod panowaniem pruskim,
Poznań 2001.
Kempner, Rafał, “Agonia kahału [Agony of the Kahal],” Kwartalnik poświęcony badaniu przeszłości
Żydów w Polsce 1 (1912), 1, pp. 67–73.
Koczy, Leon, “Studia nad dziejami gospodarczemi Żydów poznańskich przed połową wieku XVII”
[Studies on the Economic History of the Poznań Jews in the First Half of the Seventeenth Cen-
tury], KMP 12 (1934): pp. 57–99, 333–362; 13 (1935): pp. 47–63, 171–231.
Kohen, Beniamin, “Ha-rashut ha-voyevodit ve-ha-kehilah ha-yehudit ba-meot ha-16–18” [Author-
ity of the Voievode and the Jewish Community from the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries],
Gal-ed 3 (1976), pp. 9–32.
Kramerówna, Perła, “Żydowskie cechy rzemieślnicze w dawnej Polsce” [Jewish Craftsmen’s Guilds
in Old Poland], MŻ 2, vol. 2 (1932), pp. 259–298.
Kremer, Moshe, “Lehaker ha-mlakhah ve-ḥevrot baalei-ha-melakhah etsel yehudei polin (ba-meot
ha-16–ha-18)” [Jewish Craft and Craftsmen’s Guilds in Poland in the Sixteenth-Eighteenth Cen-
turies], Zion 2 (1937), pp. 295–325.
Kuklińska, Krystyna, Handel Poznania w drugiej połowie XVII wieku [Poznań’s Commerce in the
Second Half of the Eighteenth Century], Warszawa–Poznań 1976.
Kulejewska-Topolska, Zofia, Nowe lokacje miejskie w Wielkopolsce od XVI do końca XVIII wieku.
Studium historyczno-prawne [New Towns’ Locations in Wielkopolska from the Sixteenth until
the End of the Eighteenth Century. A Historical and Legal Study], Poznań 1964.
— Struktura prawna aglomeracji osadniczej Poznania od XV do końca XVIII w. [Legal Structure of
the Settlement Agglomeration in Poznań from the Fifteenth to the Late Eighteenth Century],
Poznań 1969.
Kupfer, Efraim (Franciszek), “A tsushteyer tsu der frage fun der batsiung fun kahal tsum yidishn
bal-melukhe, meshores un oremshaft in amolikn Poyln” [A Contribution of the Question of
Kahal Attitudes to Jewish Artisans, Servants, and Poor in Old Poland], Bleter far geshikhte 2
(1949), pp. 207–222.
— “Tsu der frage vegn der shteyern-politik fun kahal in amolikn Poyln” [On the Question of Kahal
Taxation Policy in Old Poland], Bleter far geshikhte 8 (1955), pp. 50–57.
296 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kusy, Maria, “Ubiory mieszczan poznańskich XVIII wieku a problem statusu społecznego” [Attire
of the Poznań Burghers in the Eighteenth Century and the Problem of the Social Status], Zeszyty
Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, Historia, 12 (1972), pp. 47–59.
Landsberger, Joseph, “Ordnung des Schuldenwesens der jüdischen Gemeinde zu Posen in den Jahren
1774 und 1780,” HMPP 3 (1902), pp. 38–45.
— “Zur Biographie des Posener Märtyrers R. Arie Löb (gestorben 1736),” JJLG 7 (1909), Frankfurt
a. M. 1910, pp. 351–355.
Lederhendler, Eli, “The Decline of the Polish-Lithuanian Kahal,” Polin 2, Oxford 1987, pp. 150–162.
Leitgeber, Jarosław, Z dziejów handlu i kupiectwa poznańskiego za dawnej Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej
[A History of the Poznań Trade and Commerce in the Commonwealth], Poznań 1929.
Leszczyński, Anatol, “Metoda kontroli władzy królewskiej i dominialnej nad autonomią Żydów
Korony od połowy XVII w. do 1795 r.” [Control over the Jewish Autonomy Exercised by the
King and Dominium Authorities in the Crown from the Middle of the Seventeenth Century to
1795], BŻIH 3–4 (147–148), 1988, pp. 21–27.
— “Nazewnictwo organów samorządu żydowskiego w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej do 1764 r.” [Names
of the Jewish Self-government Bodies in the Commonwealth until 1764], in A. Link-Lenczowski,
— “Organizacja i ustrój gminy Żydów ziemi bielskiej w XVIII w.” [Organization and System of the
Jewish Community in the Bielsk District in the Eighteenth Century], in M. Wrzosek, ed., Polska
czasów saskich. Materiały z sesji naukowej (21–24.IV.1980), Białystok 1986, pp. 109–138.
— “Die Rolle der Gemeinde (Kehila) bei der Entwicklung der wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen
Lebens der Juden in alten Polen,” in S. Jersch-Wenzel, ed., Deutsche–Polen–Juden. Ihre Bezie-
hungen von der Anfangen bis 20. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1987, pp. 103–109.
— Sejm Żydów Korony 1623–1764 [The Council of the Crown’s Jews 1623–1764], Warszawa
1994.
— “Spór pomiędzy kahałami Grodna i Tykocina o hegemonię nad skupiskami żydowskimi pogra-
nicza Korony z Litwą w XVII w.” [A Dispute between the Grodno and Tykocin Kahals about
Their Hegemony over the Jewish Settlements in the Border Regions of the Crown and Lithuania
in the Seventeenth Century], BŻIH 2–3 (126–127), 1983, pp. 85–95.
— “Sprawa nazewnictwa organów samorządu żydowskiego w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej” [On
Names of Jewish Self-government Bodies in the Commonwealth], BŻIH 3–4 (139–140), 1986,
pp. 13–23.
Lewin, Daniel, “Posener Minhagim,” in Festschrift Dr. Jakob Freimann zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin
1937, pp. 144–158.
Lewin, Izaak (Izak), “Dzieje semiku Żydów wielkopolskich” [A History of the Council of the
Wielkopolska Jews], in I. Lewin, Z historii i tradycji. Szkice z dziejów kultury żydowskiej,
Warszawa 1983, pp. 64–75.
— The Jewish Community in Poland. Historical Essays, New York 1985.
— Klątwa żydowska na Litwie w XVII i XVIII wieku [The Jewish Curse in Lithuania of the Seven-
teenth and Eighteenth Centuries], Pamiętnik historyczno-prawny, vol. 10, 4, Lwów 1932.
— “Die Landessynode der großpolnischen Judenschaft,” in I. Elbogen, J. Meisl, M. Wischnitzer,
eds., Festschrift zu Simon Dubnows siebzigsten Geburtstag, Berlin 1930, pp. 124–134.
Lewin, Louis, “Die Judenverfolgungen im zweiten schwedish-polnischen Kriege (1655–59),”
ZHGPP 16 (1901), pp. 79–101.
— Die Landessynode der großpolnischen Judenschaft, Frankfurt a. M. 1926.
— “Der Schtadlan im Posener Ghetto,” in Koenigsberger, Silberberg, eds., Festschrift zum Achtzig-
sten Geburtstage Dr. Wolf Feilchenfeld, Pleschen–Schrimm 1907, pp. 31–39.
Link-Lenczowski, Andrzej, Polański, Tomasz, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Materiały
z konferencji “Autonomia Żydów w Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej” [Jews in the Polish-Lithua-
STUDIES 297
nian Commonwealth. Proceedings of the Conference “Jewish Autonomy in the Polish-Lithua-

nian Commonwealth”], Wrocław 1991.
Lisser, Michał, Sądownictwo żydowskie w Polsce do końca XVIII w. [Jewish Courts in Poland until
the End of the Eighteenth Century], unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/12.
— “Sądy żydowskie w Polsce, ich ustrój i właściwość” [Jewish Courts in Poland, Their Structure
and Jurisdiction], BŻIH 2 (34), 1960, pp. 97–130.
Lüdtke, Franz, “Beiträge aus dem Vatikanischen Archiv zur Geschichte des Blutprozesses der Posen-
er Juden im Jahre 1736,” HMPP 13 (1912), pp. 151–154, 169–171.
Łukaszewicz, Józef, Obraz historyczno-statystyczny miasta Poznania w dawniejszych czasach [His-
torical and Statistical Picture of Poznań in Old Times], vols. 1–2, Poznań 1838.
Mahler, Rafał, “Żydzi w dawnej Polsce w świetle liczb. Struktura demograficzna i społeczno-eko-
nomiczna Żydów w Koronie w XVIII wieku” [The Jews in Old Poland in the Light of Numbers.
Demographic and Socio-Economic Structure of the Jews in Poland in the Eighteenth Century],
Przeszłość Demograficzna Polski, Warszawa 1967.
Maisel, Witold, Poznańskie prawo karne do końca XVI wieku [The Penal Law of Poznań until the
End of the Sixteenth Century], Poznań 1963.
— Sądownictwo miasta Poznania do końca XVI wieku [The Judiciary of the Town of Poznań until
the End of the Sixteenth Century], Poznań 1961.
Marek, P. S., “Krizis yevreyskogo samoupravleniya i khasidizm” [The Crisis of Jewish Autonomy
and Hasidism], YS 12 (1928), pp. 45–101.
— “Raskladchiki nalogov (shamaim) v litovskikh kagalakh XVII–XVIII v.” [Tax Estimators
(Shamaim) in the Lithuanian Jewish Communities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries],
YS 1 (1901), pp. 161–174.
Michałowska, Anna, “Charity and the Charity Society (Khevra Kadisha) in the Jewish Community
of Swarzędz in the Eighteenth Century,” Acta Poloniae Historica 87 (2003), pp. 77–88.
— “Honour or Duty? New Light on the Composition of Charitable Fraternities in the Polish-Lithua-
nian Commonwealth in the 18th Century,” Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia 1 (2002), pp. 75–79.
— Między demokracją a oligarchią. Władze gmin żydowskich w Poznaniu i Swarzędzu (od połowy
XVII do końca XVIII wieku) [Between Democracy and Oligarchy: Jewish Communal Authorities
in Poznań and Swarzędz from the Middle of the Seventeenth to the End of the Eighteenth Cen-
tury], Warszawa 2000.
Modelski, Krzysztof, “Z dziejów gminy żydowskiej w Wolsztynie (finanse gminy w XVIII wieku)”
[Aspects of the History of the Jewish Community in Wolsztyn (Community Finances in the
Eighteenth Century)], in J. Topolski, K. Modelski, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni
dziejów, pp. 100–114.
Morgensztern, Janina, “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej do historii Żydów w Polsce
(1633–1660)” [Documents on the History of Jews in Poland in the Crown Register (1633–1660)],
BŻIH 2 (58), 1966, pp. 107–150.
— “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej i Sigillat do historii Żydów w Polsce (1660–1668)”
[Documents on the History of Jews in Poland in the Crown Register and Sigillata (1660–1668)],
BŻIH 3 (67), 1968, pp. 67–108.
— “Regesty dokumentów z Metryki Koronnej i Sigillat do historii Żydów w Polsce (1669–1696)”
[Documents on the History of Jews in Poland in the Crown Register and Sigillata (1669–1696)],
BŻIH 1 (69), 1969, pp. 71–109.
— “Zadłużenie gmin żydowskich w Ordynacji Zamojskiej w II połowie XVII w.” [Debts of Jewish
Communities in the Zamoyski Estates in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century], BŻIH 1
(73), 1970, pp. 47–65.
Muszyński, Lech, “Poznańscy rabini” [The Poznań Rabbis], in J. Woronczak, ed., Żydowskie gminy
wyznaniowe. Studia z dziejów kultury żydowskiej w Polsce, vol. 1, Wrocław 1995, pp. 47–62.
298 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Nadav, Mordechaj, “Aspekty regionalnej autonomii Żydów polskich na podstawie pinkasu

tykocińskiego z lat 1660–1795” [Aspects of Regional Autonomy of Polish Jews Based on the
Tykocin Pinkas of 1660–1795], in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rze-
czypospolitej, pp. 75–80.
Nigal, Gedalya, “Al rabi naftali kats mi-pozna” [On Rabbi Naftali Katz of Poznań], Sinai 92 (1983),
pp. 91–94.
Nożyński, Tadeusz, “Żydzi poznańscy w XV wieku (1379–1502)” [The Poznań Jews in the Fifteenth
Century (1379–1502)], KMP 10 (1932), pp. 86–99, 249–263.
Oppenheim, Israel, “Ḥelkhei ha-ruaḥ ve-ha-megamot be-inyanei ḥevrah kevituim be-‘pinkas ha-
ksherim’ shel kehilat pozna” [Social Trends and Tendencies as Reflected in the “Record Book of
the Qualified” of the Poznań Community], Gal-ed 3 (1976), pp. 33–56.
Pazdro, Zbigniew, Organizacya i praktyka żydowskich sądów podwojewodzińskich w okresie 1740–
1772 r. Na podstawie lwowskich materyałów archiwalnych [Organization and Practice in Jewish
Undervoievode’s Courts in 1740–1772. Based on the Lwów Archive Documents], Lwów 1903.
Perles, Joseph, “Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” MGWJ 13 (1864), pp. 449–461; 14 (1865), pp.
81–93, 121–136, 165–178, 205–216, 256–263.
Ptaśnik, Jan, Miasta i mieszczaństwo w dawnej Polsce [Towns and Burghers in Old Poland], Kraków
1934.
Rakover, Naḥum, Ha-kehilah. Irgun ve-hanehigah, takanot ve-pinkasei kahal [The Community:
Organization and Practice, Edicts, and Minutes Books], Jerusalem 1977.
Riabinin, Jan, Rada miejska lubelska w XVIII wieku [Lublin Town Council in the Eighteenth Cen-
tury], Lublin 1933.
Rosenbaum, Ezechiel, Żydzi krakowscy w XVII i XVIII w. na podstawie żydowskich ksiąg (pinkasów)
sądowych [The Kraków Jews in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Based on Jewish
Court Books (Pinkasim)], unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/62.
Rosman, Moshe J., The Lords’ Jews. Magnate-Jewish Relations in the Polish-Lithuanian Common-
wealth during the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.
— “‘Przywódcy,’ ‘Elita’ i ‘Lud’ w Międzybożu około roku 1730” [“Leaders,” “Elite” and “People”
in Międzybóż around 1730], in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi w dawnej Rze-
czypospolitej, pp. 170–179.
Schamschon, Jakob, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Judenverfolgungen in Polen während der Jahre
1648–1658, Bern 1912.
Schiper, Ignacy, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der partiellen Judentage in Polen um die Wende des XVII
und XVIII Jahrhunderts bis zum Auflösung des Jüdischen Parlamentarismus,” MGWJ 56 (1912),
pp. 458–477, 602–611, 736–744.
— “Dzieje gospodarcze Żydów Korony i Litwy w czasach przedrozbiorowych” [Economic History
of the Jews of the Crown and Lithuania before Partitions], in I. Schiper, A. Tartakower, A. Hafft-
ka, eds., Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej, pp. 111–190.
— Dzieje handlu żydowskiego na ziemiach polskich [A History of Jewish Commerce in Poland’s
Territories], Warszawa 1937. Reprinted: Warszawa 1990.
— “Finantsieler khurbn fun der tsentraler un provintsieler oytonomie fun yidn in altn Poyln (1650–
1764)” [The Financial Ruin of the Central and Provincial Autonomous Bodies of Jews in Poland
(1650–1764)], Shriftn far ekonomik un statistik 2, Wilno 1932, pp. 1–19.
— “Samorząd żydowski w Polsce na przełomie wieku 18 i 19-go (1764–1831)” [Jewish Self-
government in Poland at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century (1764–1831)], MŻ 1 (1931),
pp. 513–521.
— “Świadczenia Żydów na rzecz państwa i patronów” [Performances of Jews in Favor of the
State and Patrons], in I. Schiper, A. Tartakower, A. Hafftka, eds., Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej,
pp. 200–210.
STUDIES 299
— “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej” [Internal Organization of Jews in

the Commonwealth], in I. Schiper, A. Tartakower, A. Hafftka, eds., Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej,
pp. 81–110.
Schiper, Ignacy, Tartakower, Arje, Hafftka, Aleksander, eds., Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej [Jews in
Reborn Poland], vol. 1, Warszawa [1932].
Schorr, Mojżesz, Organizacja Żydów w Polsce (od najdawniejszych czasów aż do r. 1772) [Organi-
zation of Jews in Poland (from Time Immemorial until 1772)], Lwów 1899.
— Rechtstellung und innere Verfassung der Juden in Polen. Ein geschichtlicher Rundblick, Ber-
lin–Wien 1917.
— Żydzi w Przemyślu do końca XVIII wieku [Jews in Przemyśl until the End of the Eighteenth
Century], Lwów 1903. Reprinted: Jerusalem 1991.
Shilo, Shmuel, “Stosunki prawne pomiędzy jednostką a gminą w prawie żydowskim w Polsce w XVI
i XVII w.” [Legal Relations between an Individual and the Community in Jewish Law in Poland
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries], in A. Link-Lenczowski, T. Polański, eds., Żydzi
w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, pp. 91–101.
Shmeruk, Chone, “Chasydyzm i kahał” [Hasidism and the Kahal], in A. Link-Lenczowski,
Shoḥet, Azriel, “Ḥevrot limud ba-meot ha-16–18 be-erets-yisrael, polin-lita u-ve-germania” [Asso-
ciations for Learning in the Sixteenth-Eighteenth Centuries in the Land of Israel, Poland-Lithua-
nia, and Germany], Ha-ḥ inukh 28 (5716 / 1955/56), pp. 404–418.
Shulman, Nisson E., Authority and Community. Polish Jewry in the Sixteenth Century, New York
1986.
Shulvass, Moses A., From East to West. The Westward Migration of Jews from Eastern Europe dur-
ing the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Detroit 1971.
Sieciechowiczowa, Lucyna, Życie codzienne w renesansowym Poznaniu 1518–1619 [Everyday Life
in Renaissance Poznań 1518–1619], Warszawa 1974.
Siemiatycki, Mordechaj, Prawo obywatelstwa w gminach żydowskich w Polsce XVI–XVIII w. [The
Right to Citizenship in Jewish Communities of Poland from the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centu-
ries], unpublished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/11.
Sobczak, Jacek, “Zadłużenie kahałów żydowskich w końcu XVIII wieku w świetle obliczeń
sądu ziemiańskiego w Kaliszu” [Debts of Jewish Kahals at the End of the Eighteenth Century in
the Light of Calculations by the District Court in Kalisz], Rocznik Kaliski 11 (1978), pp. 107–
123.
Steinhaus, Leon, “Aus den alten Gemeinden,” Ost und West 1907, 4, pp. 259–264.
Stęszewska-Leszczyńska, Ewa, “Poznańskie synagogi” [The Synagogues of Poznań], KMP 1992,
1–2, pp. 102–118.
Tartakower, Arje, “Organizacja gmin żydowskich” [Organization of Jewish Communities], MŻ 2
(1932), pp. 389–398.
Teimanas, David Bencionas, L’autonomie des communautés juives en Pologne aux XVIe et XVIIe
siècles, Paris 1933.
Teller, Adam, “Ha-peilut ha-kalkalit shel ha-yehudim be-polin ba-maḥatsit ha-shniyah shel ha-meah
ha-17 u-va-meah ha-18” [Economic Activity of the Jews in Poland in the Second Half of the
Seventeenth Century and in the Eighteenth Century], in I. Bartal, I. Gutman, eds., Kiyum ve-
shever. Yehudei polin le-doroteihem, Jerusalem 1997, pp. 209–224.
— Ḥ ayim betsavtah. Ha-rova ha-yehudi shel poznań ba-maḥ atsit ha-rishonah shel ha-meah ha-
shva esre [Living Together. The Jewish Quarter of Poznań in the First Half of the Seventeenth
Century], Jerusalem 2003.
— “Warunki życia i obyczajowość w żydowskiej dzielnicy Poznania w pierwszej połowie XVII
wieku” [Living Conditions and Customs of the Jewish Quarter of Poznań in the First Half of the
300 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Seventeenth Century], in J. Topolski, K. Modelski, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni

dziejów, pp. 57–70.
Tollet, Daniel, “Les activités économiques des Juifs de Poznań et de Cracovie à l’époque des Wasa
(1588–1668). Aktywność ekonomiczna Żydów w Poznaniu i Krakowie w epoce Wazów (1588–
1668),” in J. Topolski, ed., Studia nad gospodarką, społeczeństwem i rodziną w Europie
późnofeudalnej, Lublin 1987, pp. 234–267.
— “Entreprises commerciales et structures urbaines en Pologne au XVIe et au XVIIe siècle (1588–
1668). L’exemple des Juifs de Poznań,” Studia Historiae Oeconomicae 16 (1981), pp. 117–
147.
— Historia Żydów w Polsce od XVI wieku do rozbiorów [A History of Jews in Poland from the
Sixteenth Century until the Partitions], Warszawa 1999.
— “Ludność żydowska i prawa gmin” [The Jewish Population and Community Rights], in J. Topol-
ski, K. Modelski, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni dziejów, pp. 9–17.
— “Ludzie u władzy w miastach królewskich w Polsce za Wazów 1588–1668. Szkic o gminach
żydowskich w Krakowie i Poznaniu” [People and Power in the Royal Towns under the Vasa
Reign 1588–1668. A Sketch of the Jewish Communities in Kraków and Poznań], Społeczeństwo
Staropolskie, vol. 4, Warszawa 1986, pp. 179–194.
— “Merchants and Businessmen in Poznań and Cracow, 1588–1668,” in C. Abramsky, M. Jachim-
czyk, A. Polonsky, eds., The Jews of Poland, London–New York 1986, pp. 22–30.
Topolski, Jerzy, ed., Dzieje Wielkopolski [A History of Wielkopolska], vol. 1: do roku 1793 [until
1793], Poznań 1969.
— “Model gospodarczy Wielkopolski w XVIII wieku” [Wielkopolska’s Economic Model in the
Eighteenth Century], Studia i materiały do dziejów Wielkopolski i Pomorza, vol. 10, no. 20, 2,
Poznań 1971, pp. 57–71.
— ed., Poznań. Zarys dziejów [Poznań. An Outline History], Poznań 1973.
— “Uwagi o strukturze gospodarczo-społecznej Wielkopolski w XVIII wieku, czyli dlaczego na jej
terenie nie było żydowskich karczmarzy” [Comments on the Socioeconomic Structure of
Wielkopolska in the Eighteenth Century, or Why There Were No Jewish Innkeepers There], in
J. Topolski, K. Modelski, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni dziejów, pp. 71–82.
Topolski, Jerzy, Modelski, Krzysztof, eds., Żydzi w Wielkopolsce na przestrzeni dziejów [Jews in
Wielkopolska through the Ages], Poznań 1995.
Tyszkiewicz, Bogna, Działalność poznańskiej Komisji Dobrego Porządku (1779–1784) [Activities
of the Poznań Commission of Good Order], Poznań 1965.
Warschauer, Adolf, “Die Entstehung einer jüdischen Gemeinde,” ZGJD 4 (1890), pp. 170–181.
— “Die Erziehung der Juden in der Provinz Posen durch das Elementarschulwesen,” ZGJD 3
(1889), pp. 29–63.
— Geschichte der Provinz Posen in polnischer Zeit, Posen 1914.
— Die stätischen Archive in der Provinz Posen, Leipzig 1901.
Wąsicki, Jan, Ziemie polskie pod zaborem pruskim. Prusy Południowe 1793–1806. Studium history-
cznoprawne [Polish Territories under Prussian Rule. Southern Prussia 1793–1806. A Historical
and Legal Study], Wrocław 1957.
Waszak, Stanisław, “Ludność i zabudowa mieszkaniowa miasta Poznania w XVI i XVII w.” [The
Population and Housing Development of Poznań in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries],
Przegląd Zachodni 1953, vol. 3, 9–12, pp. 64–136.
Weinryb, Bernard D., “Beiträge zur Finanzgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde in Polen,”
part 1: MGWJ 82 (1938), pp. 248–263; part 2: Hebrew Union College Annual 16 (1941),
pp. 187–214.
— The Jews in Poland. A Social and Economic History of the Jewish Community in Poland from
1100 to 1800, Philadelphia 1972.
STUDIES 301
— “Kovim le-toldot ha-kalkalah ve-ha-finansim shel ha-yehudim be-arei polin ve-lita ba-meot ha-
17–ha-18” [Outlines of the Economic and Financial History of the Jews in Poland in the Seven-
teenth and Eighteenth Centuries], Tarbits 10 (1938–39), pp. 90–104, 201–231.
— “Studies in the Communal History of Polish Jewry,” PAAJR 12 (1942).
— Texts and Studies in the Communal History of Polish Jewry, New York 1950.
Wikler, Jakub, Z dziejów Żydów w Drohobyczu (od r. 1648 do upadku Rzeczypospolitej) [Aspects of
the History of Jews in Drohobycz (from 1648 until the Fall of the Commonwealth)], unpub-
lished: Archiwum ŻIH, Prace magisterskie 117/54.
Wischnitzer, Mark, A History of Jewish Crafts and Guilds, New York 1965.
— “Die jüdische Zunftverfassung in Polen und Litauen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” Vierteljahr-
schrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 20 (1928), pp. 433–451.
Wojciechowski, Marian, Struktura społeczno-gospodarcza Poznania w pierwszej połowie XVIII
wieku [Poznań’s Socio-Economic Structure in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century], Poznań
1951.
Wojtkowski, Andrzej, “Polityka rządu pruskiego wobec Żydów polskich 1793–1806” [Policies of
the Prussian Government toward Polish Jews, 1793–1806], Przegląd Judaistyczny 1 (1922),
pp. 28–39, 96–107, 182–197.
Wróblewska, Grażyna, Rozplanowanie nowożytnych miast w Wielkopolsce od XVI do końca XVIII
wieku [Plans of Modern Towns in Wielkopolska from the Sixteenth Century to the End of the
Eighteenth Century], Warszawa–Poznań 1977.
Yaari, Abraham, “Ner Tamid Societies in Poland and Lithuania,” JSS 21 (1959), pp. 118–131.
Zarchin, Michael M., “Studies in the Communal Records of the Jews in the Province of Posen during
the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” JQR 29 (1938–39), part 1: pp. 135–165; part 2:
pp. 247–315.
— “Tailor’s Guild of Kurnik, Province of Posen,” JQR 28 (1937–38), pp. 47–56.
INDEX
Marked in bold are the pages where a broader explanation of a term or problem is offered. Listed
in the index are only the people who have been identified with their name and for whom additional
information has been offered (father’s, father-in-law’s or husband’s name, office, profession). For
obvious reasons the Index does not include Poznań and Swarzędz. It also does not cover annexes and
bibliography.
Abrahams, Israel 70, 176, 177 bardon, see income tax

Abram, shoḥet 57 bardon supervisors, see five men
account supervisors 35–37, 46–47, 65, 87, 92, Baron, Salo Wittmayer 41, 60, 82, 86, 95, 102,
96, 98, 99, 108, 109, 144, 205, 238 115, 116, 118, 121, 143, 217, 223, 235
Adelson, Józef 31, 83, 84, 91, 106, 107 Bartal, Israel 27
Aharon, son-in-law of Shmuel 161, 231 bath (mikvah) 15, 43, 116, 117, 220
Akiva, teacher 203, 214 Bauminger, Leon 183, 184, 189, 191
Alm, Faibush 169 beit midrash 18, 45, 50, 54, 56, 80, 98, 131, 142,
Altbauer, Moshe 24 149, 153–154, 180, 187, 215, 219, 220
Altona 112 seats in beit midrash 76
Aron Lewek, son-in-law of Zelek Litman 249 Ben-Sasson, Ḥaim Hilel 115
Arye Leib, son of Ḥaim 115 Berdyczów 143
Assaf, Simḥa 115 Berlin 115, 155
August II, King 236, 245 Berliner, Abraham 19
August III, King 225, 243 Bersohn, Mathias 114, 237
Avigdor, son of Yakov 112 Białystok 240
Avraham, parnas 172 Bielecka, Janina 28, 29
Avraham, son of Menaḥem 166 Bloch, Philipp 58, 195
Avraham, son of N. 36 Boćki 240
Avraham Menaḥem, darshan 115 Bogucka, Maria 110
Avram, son-in-law of Leib 194 Borukh, shtadlan, see Halevi, Borukh, shtadlan
Avram, son of Lipman Petlitser 183 branch community 15, 30, 87, 112, 118, 125,
Avron, Dov 25, 56, 67, 69, 81, 83, 92, 94, 95, 97, 161, 228–235, 251
183, 202 Breza, Konstanty 240
Ayzik, klezmer 138 brokerage 170, 209
Ayzik, son-in-law of Pilta 88 Broniewski, Kazimierz Franciszek 240
Ayzik, son of B. 158 brotherhoods 105, 142, 143–156, 250, 251
brotherhood for the ransom of captives 154–
Baksa, Shimon 153 156
Bałaban, Lewko 36 brotherhood of Eternal Light 98, 155–156
Bałaban, Majer 16, 26, 30, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48, brotherhood of girls’ dowry 155
49, 51, 55, 56, 62, 63, 70, 74, 77, 81–83, 91, brotherhood of the seven men appointed to
95, 105, 108, 109, 115, 116, 118, 121, 122, read the Torah 155
124, 126, 127, 138, 153, 175, 176, 188, 205, brotherhood supporting the poor in the Land
206, 223, 228, 235, 237, 238, 244–246, 252 of Israel 155–156
INDEX 303
brotherhood visiting the sick 148, 180 85–88, 90–93, 94, 96–99, 101–103, 105, 108,
see also ḥevrah kadishah; Talmud-Torah 109, 116, 117, 120–122, 124–134, 139, 144,
brotherhood 157, 170, 182, 184, 191, 197, 198, 212, 247
Bruer, Albert A. 22 debts 17, 21, 34, 38, 40, 45, 49–51, 62, 68, 91,
butchers 43, 48, 49, 58, 171, 189, 217–218, 231, 114, 117, 121–123, 140, 152, 155, 156, 159,
242 171–174, 181, 183, 185–187, 190, 193–195,
197, 203, 212, 213, 219, 221, 222, 223–227,
cantor 15, 49, 51–53, 55, 56, 59–62, 73, 75, 231, 233, 235, 238–240, 242, 246, 249, 251
77–79, 120, 123, 158, 178, 179, 188–189, deprivation of citizenship 150, 159–160, 162–
213, 215, 219, 220 163, 169, 173, 183, 185, 190, 192, 214
from another community 33 deprivation of function/office/position 59, 65,
captives, ransom of 43, 98 103, 150, 162, 178, 183, 185, 190, 199, 216,
see also brotherhood for the ransom of cap- 230, 246–248
tives diet (sejm) 28, 211, 245
cemetery 13, 21, 55, 150, 190, 215, 218, 228– dietine (sejmik) 28, 212, 234, 245
229, 242 Doktór, Jan 252
Chaim Szymchowicz, rabbi 244 Drizen, Yeshaya, son of Moshe 86
charity brotherhood, see ḥevrah kadishah Drohobycz 201, 205, 206, 252
Cichowska, Marianna 247 Dubno 30, 175, 197, 217
citizenship 69, 85, 87, 94, 119–120, 124, 138, Dubnow, Simon 27, 82, 91, 105, 122, 134, 139,
157–166, 176, 183, 186, 211, 230–231 152, 172, 188, 189, 243
coin exchange 170 Dynów 228
confiscation 168, 174, 177, 181, 184, 185, 190, Działoszyn 18, 70, 76, 77, 101, 192
223, 236
Council of Four Lands 15, 16, 20, 26–27, 37, 50, Eger, Akiva 115
55, 64, 114, 115, 132, 134, 171, 178, 179, Eisenbach, Artur 9, 21, 252
187, 188, 194–196, 211, 219, 221, 235, 244 election rights, loss of 76, 86–87
courts, see Jewish courts; non-Jewish courts elections 81–95, 117, 119–121, 124–125, 161,
crafts 15, 18, 48–49, 219 230, 239, 240, 248
craftsmen’s guilds, see guilds elector (electors) 37, 44, 46, 49, 68–69, 70, 71,
Crown (Poland) 20, 134, 139, 210, 211, 219, 75, 76, 79, 81–95, 98–103, 107, 108, 114,
224, 237 116, 122, 126, 138, 139, 143, 144, 152–153,
curse 87, 88, 94, 129, 130, 140, 148, 161, 166, 156, 158, 169, 182–184, 192, 209, 214, 220,
173, 185–191, 192, 193, 207, 230, 235, 243, 230, 238, 239, 241, 242
244 Eliezer, parnas 47
see also ḥerem Eliezer, son of Leizer Kiner 173
Cwi Hirsz (Jeleń Mendel), lessee of czopowe 247 Elikim (Elyakim) Gets, son of Mordekhai, rab-
Czacki, Tadeusz 20 bi 112, 122, 231
Czarniecki, Stefan 240, 246 Elizer Leizer, son of Itsḥak of Leszno 113
Czartoryski, Aleksander 239 Ester, Jakob, shames 239
czopowe, see tax on alcohol Estreicher, Stanisław 175
expulsion from the community 87, 141, 163,
darshan (darshanim) 19, 51, 52, 56, 59, 61, 62, 165, 173, 185, 190, 196, 209, 214
69, 73, 78, 112, 115, 123, 127, 151, 178, 180,
191, 213, 220 Faibush, son of M. 104
David, son of M. 207 fair (fairs) 18, 34, 49–50, 54, 116, 132, 164, 166,
David, son of Wolf 176 168–170, 172, 190, 192, 195, 200, 206, 208–
dayan (dayanim) 38, 42, 43, 44–45, 46, 48–50, 210, 224, 235
53, 62, 63, 65, 67, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, fair officials 49–50, 54, 132, 170, 210
304 INDEX
Fajlisz Pinkies, dayan, parnas, and gabai 247 Grochulska, Barbara 224
Falk, darshan 115 Grodno 125
Falk, Yehoshua 166 Grodzisk 17, 18, 25
feasts 39, 182, 185, 215, 251 Grudziński, Zygmunt 15, 228, 248
given on the occasion of elections 104 Gryfin 61
guests invited 32, 53, 178, 203 guests 164–165, 178, 182
religious feasts 44, 79, 80, 120, 177 see also feasts, guests invited
see sumptuary laws regarding feasts guilds 105, 137–142, 250, 251
Febus Abrahamowicz 252 guild’s authorities 138–142, 160
Feilchenfeld, Wolf 25, 45, 64, 138, 196 guild’s rabbi 139–142, 160
Ferdinand III, Emperor 15 see Jewish courts
fine 34, 38, 43, 57, 59, 63, 65, 70, 71, 76, 79, 81, Guldon, Zenon 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 240
87, 90, 100, 130, 131, 141, 142, 148, 150, Gumpil, shames 203
162, 164, 165, 168–170, 176, 177, 180, 181,
185, 186, 189, 190, 192, 207–209, 218, 229, Hakohen, Symcha 21
238, 241, 242, 244, 247, 248 Halevi, Ber, son of Avraham 195
five men 45–46, 65, 73, 83, 87, 97–99, 104, 106, Halevi, Borukh, shtadlan 55, 66, 196
108, 144, 179, 205–206, 218, 224, 246 Halperin, Israel 19, 27, 32, 50, 55, 66, 73, 114,
Frankfurt 155, 168 132, 178, 188, 194–196, 234, 235, 244
Frankfurt am Main 112 Hamburg 112
Frankfurt an der Oder 18, 123 Hameln 196
Frankism 252 Hameln, Samuel 196
Fürth 112 Ḥana, shoḥet 57, 117
Hanna, daughter of Glückel from Hameln 196
gabai (gabaim) 32, 38, 39, 41–44, 53, 57, 59, 60, Hannover 195, 196
62, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 76–79, 82, 86–88, 92, Hanower, Natan 74, 116, 155
93, 96–99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 132, Hasidism 252
142, 144, 155, 177, 197, 216, 218, 220, 234 Haskalah 252
female counterparts of gabaim (women’s ḥaver, title of 69, 74–76, 79, 85, 86, 117, 118,
charity collectors) 42, 44, 98 122, 215, 250
Gajewska, Katarzyna 238 ḥazakah (ḥazakot) 157–162, 167, 171, 214–215,
garbage (collection) tax 47, 65, 163, 204, 212, 250, 251
213, 214 hearth tax 210, 211–212, 214, 219
Gawurin, Abram 64, 79, 85, 101, 102, 121, 152, Ḥenokh, son of Avraham 51
194 Heppner, Aron 16, 113, 234
Gdańsk 18, 49–50, 54, 132, 238 ḥerem 32, 52, 67, 95, 100, 117–118, 121, 122,
Germany 61, 74, 123, 151, 244 129, 130, 132, 150, 168, 171, 173, 183–185,
Gershon, stall keeper 247 186–191, 192, 195, 196, 204, 208–209, 230,
Getshlik, son of Moshe 160 239, 244, 250
Gierowski, Józef Andrzej 18 Hershberg, Abraham Shmuel 240
Glejzer, Herz 76, 79 Herzberg, Isaak 16, 113, 234
Głogów 151 ḥevrah kadishah 108, 118–119, 143–153, 190
Glückel from Hameln 195 admissions 145–147, 152
Gniezno 18, 49, 166, 195 authorities of ḥevrah kadishah 143–145,
Goldberg, Jakub (Jacob) 11, 15, 21, 27, 70, 76, 148–150
77, 101, 123, 192, 228, 236, 239, 248 membership 146–148
Górka, Stanisław 245 Hirsh, shames and teacher 145
Goślina 159 Hirsh, son of K. 139
Grabski 172 Hirsh, son of M. 195
INDEX 305
Hirsh, son of Mendel Plotsker 173–174 Józef Lewkowicz 21

Hirshel, shames 150 judges (for disputes with non-Jews) 45, 92, 97,
Hirts, son-in-law of Eliezer 202 98, 108, 109, 135–136
Hońdo, Leszek 73, 74 judiciary 124–136, 193–194, 218, 250
honorary titles 73–74 between Jews and Christians 45, 246
see also ḥaver, title of; morenu, title of see non-Jewish courts
Horn, Maurycy 137, 138, 143, 237, 243, 245
Horovits, Sheftel, son of Yeshayah 112 kahal 24, 31, 32, 34, 36–41, 43, 44, 46, 48–56,
hospital, see poorhouse 58–62, 63–66, 67–73, 75, 76, 80, 81, 83,
host desecration, accusation of 13 86–95, 97, 99, 101–103, 107, 113–117, 119–
Hundert, Gershon David 37, 49, 92, 109, 118, 124, 127, 129–131, 133–135, 138–143, 154–
143, 152, 217, 223 160, 162–174, 177, 182–185, 188, 191–194,
196, 200, 204, 205, 209–226, 229–234, 236,
Idel Marek, parnas 246–247 238, 240–244, 247–252
imprisonment 129, 190, 209, 223, 225, 234, 244, kahal house 34, 54, 58, 69, 70, 84, 135, 199, 220
247, 252 kahalnik 37, 38, 41, 56, 64, 65, 67, 72, 73, 76,
income tax (bardon) 34, 35, 44–46, 103, 119, 78, 79, 82, 85, 87, 88, 92, 95–97, 101, 103,
120, 162, 163, 169, 171, 172, 183, 187, 188, 105, 106, 109, 131, 133, 135, 139, 159, 177,
204, 205–210, 214, 217, 218, 220, 229, 237, 185, 187, 192, 197, 204, 218, 229, 231, 239,
238, 240–242 241, 246
Isaak, gabai 101 Kalahora, Arye Leib 19
Israel Lewkowicz, shtadlan 54 Kalisz 17, 18, 26, 113, 151, 167
Israel, son of M. 207 Kamler, Marcin 168
Isserles, Moses 166 Katriel, shames 203
Itsek Ayzik, son of Avraham 108 Kats, Avraham 36
Itsek, son of Alexander 230 Kats, Shimon 173, 174
Itsḥak, son of Avraham 112, 118, 119 Katz, Jacob 77, 120, 121, 125, 158, 189, 191,
Itsḥak, son of Yoel 214 193, 194, 228, 243, 250
Itsḥak Itsek, son of Avraham 115 Kaufmann, David 18
Izbicki, Zyskind 226 Kazimierz (near Kraków) 13, 17
Izrael, goldsmith 247 Kaźmierczyk, Adam 28, 236
Kędelski, Mieczysław 19–21
Jabczyński, Mieczysław 21, 22 Kępno 18
Jabłonowicz, Wojciech 19 Kiejdany 138
Jabłonowski, Antoni (?) 101 king 14, 16, 17, 19, 83, 104, 114, 119, 160, 185,
Jabłonowski, Jan Stanisław 240 225–226, 236, 237, 243, 245, 246, 249
Jabłonowski, Stanisław Jan 240 Kleczyński, Józef 20
Jacobson, Jacob 21, 22, 226 Kluczycki, Franciszek 20
Jan Kazimierz, King 16, 17, 119, 237, 245, 249 Kobylin 138
Jan III Sobieski, King 236 Koczy, Leon 223
Jarocin 18 Kohen, Beniamin 246
Jarosław 50, 116, 132, 195 Korczyński, Stefan 238
Jerusalem 25, 27, 151, 155 Kórnik 25, 61, 114, 115, 143, 218
Jewish courts 184, 186, 190 Koźmińska, Ludwika 242
courts of community officials 131, 133 Koźmiński, Maciej 239
courts of dayanim 124–132 Krajenka 165
courts of guilds 131, 133, 140–142 Kraków 30, 40, 63, 77, 81–83, 95, 108, 124–127,
courts of kahal 124, 131, 132 138, 153, 155, 159, 168, 175, 183, 188, 205,
Josek, plenipotentiary 21 206, 237, 240, 245, 246, 252
306 INDEX
Kramerówna, Perła 139, 142 Łukaszewicz, Józef 17, 18

Krikun, Nikołaj 20 Lwów (Lviv) 14, 17, 30, 36, 51, 82, 86, 91, 102,
Krotoszyn 16–18, 25, 31, 86, 113, 240 116, 118, 122, 125, 132, 175, 217, 228, 239,
krupka (consumer tax) 205, 222 240, 244, 245, 247–248
Krzystanek, Karol 240
Kujawy 16 Mączak, Antoni 11
Kulejewska-Topolska, Zofia 21, 22, 111 Mahler, Rafał 20
Kulików 82 Maier, rabbi 113
Kupfer, Efraim (Franciszek) 25, 69, 83, 84, 89, Maisel, Witold 18, 70, 100, 138, 142, 160, 168,
94, 131, 142, 145, 147, 151, 152 175, 182, 190, 192
Kurnik, see Kórnik Małopolska 19
Kutno 115 Marcus, rabbi of Gdańsk 238
Marek, Pesach 198, 202
Łabiszyn 90 market(place) supervisors 48, 96–99, 133, 169
Land of Israel 43, 50, 96, 98, 155, 156 Matczyński, Marek 240
Landsberger, Joseph 19 meat tax 217
lease (arenda) 124, 131, 132, 174 medical personnel 58
Leib, physician 151 Meier, son of Tsvi 194
Leib, shames 159, 167, 169 Meir, son-in-law of Israel Segal 76
Leib, son-in-law of Yakov 189 Meir, son of Barukh ha-Levi 74
Leib, son of M. 240 Meir, son of Yudah Pregir 170
Leib, son of Yeshaya Kreskis 189 melamed, see teacher
Leipzig 18 memun (memunim) 47–48, 53, 59, 73, 92, 93,
Lesla, Efraim 31 96–98, 105, 106, 169–170, 176, 213
Leszczyński, Anatol 121, 152, 171, 191, 236, Mendel, parnas 47
240 Meshel, bardon collector 188
Leszczyński, Stanisław 245 Michałowska (Michałowska-Mycielska), Anna
Leszno 16–19, 25, 82, 96, 113, 125, 151, 158, 11, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 38, 41, 47, 48, 52–54,
252 56, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 69, 70, 75–79, 82, 84,
Lewek Izraelewicz, syndic (shtadlan) 249 86, 89, 91, 115, 117–120, 123, 126, 138, 140,
Lewin, Daniel 18 146, 155, 158–161, 164, 169, 171, 177, 180,
Lewin, Izak 185–187, 189, 191, 235 181, 184–187, 189, 193, 197, 206–212, 214,
Lewin, Louis 16, 26, 54, 122, 188, 189, 196 217, 218, 220, 221, 223, 229, 231, 239–243,
Liser, Leib 119 246, 248
Lisser, Michał 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 132, Michalski, Jerzy 21, 252
134, 183 midwife (midwives) 58–60, 73, 127, 180, 181
Lithuania 20, 210, 219 Międzyrzecz Wielkopolski 17, 18, 151, 247
Lithuanian Vaad 26–27, 82, 85, 91, 105, 116, Mika, Marian J. 14, 21
118, 121, 122, 129, 131, 139, 152, 172, 175, Mikhael, son of P. 139
188, 189, 219, 243, 244 Mikhael, son of Yosef 195
Lizer, shames 167 mikvah, see bath
loans 55, 114–115, 122, 163, 167, 170, 171–174, Mińsk 112, 143
175, 216, 223, 225, 228, 242, 251 Mirski, Shmuel K. 25
Łobżenica 17 Modelski, Krzysztof 222
Loewe, Heinrich 58, 61 Mordekhai, son-in-law of Naḥman 172
Lublin 18, 32, 95, 111, 116, 132, 168 morenu, title of 69, 74–76, 78–79, 117, 118, 122,
Lubomirski, Stanisław 240 125, 250
Łuck 112 Morgensztern, Janina 119, 242, 245
Lüdtke, Franz 19 Moritzburg 226
INDEX 307
Mościska 228 192–194, 199, 202, 204, 209, 216, 218, 221,
Moshe Maier, rabbi 112 223, 226, 229–231, 234, 237–242, 245, 246,
Moshe (Moses), physician 58, 62, 66, 226, 245 248, 249
Moshe, shoḥet 57 payment for soldiers (“soldier money”) 203,
Moshe, son of A. 158 212, 214
Moshe, son of Aron, son-in-law of Leib 159 Pazdro, Zbigniew 36, 244–248
Moshe, son of rabbi 239 Perles, Joseph 15, 16, 220
Mosiek Avram, parnas 238 Pesaḥ, son of Yeḥiel Payzrer 100
Mosiek, son-in-law of rabbi, parnas 238 Pesi, widow 165
Moszko Józefowicz 22 physician 58–60, 62, 66, 73, 151, 176, 206,
Muszyński, Lech 113, 115 213
Piła 17, 159
Nachman (Lachman), shames 248 Pińczów 197
Nadav, Mordekhai 23–25, 31, 115, 240 pinkas (pinkasim) 23–27, 32, 34, 35, 46–48, 56,
Naftali, son of Itsḥak Kohen of Ostrów 112 63, 65, 72, 75, 90, 95, 97, 100–102, 125, 127,
Nasielsk 143 128, 135–136, 139–141, 143, 144, 150, 155,
Nekla 218 190, 193, 201, 203, 206–209, 211, 216, 217,
New York 25 220, 223, 243
Nieśwież 252 Pińsk 112
non-Jewish authorities 31, 107, 141, 191, 192, Płock 61
219, 225, 234, 236–249 Pniewy 54
see diet; dietine; king; starosta; town owner; Pobiedziska 218
undervoievode; voievode podwojewodzi, see undervoievode
non-Jewish courts 28–29, 132, 134, 135–136, podymne, see hearth tax
141, 184, 195, 243–249 poll tax 13, 20, 119, 163, 203, 210–211, 212,
see starosta; town courts; town owner; un- 214, 219, 222, 233, 234, 242, 249
dervoievode; voievode poorhouse (hospital) 148, 151, 185
Nowogródek 115 Pozner, Ikir 119
Nożyński, Tadeusz 13 Pozner, Yehoshua 209
Praga (near Warsaw) 147, 149
oath 31, 53, 58, 59, 62–64, 67, 69, 72, 78, 88–90, Prague 112
105, 130, 133, 135, 150, 160, 162, 166, 171, Praszka 192
174, 177, 182–185, 188, 190, 198, 200–204, preacher, see darshan
206, 208, 209, 213, 226, 229, 237, 241, 242, presents, sending 73
244, 246, 248 see also sumptuary laws regarding sending
false oath 86, 183, 184, 247 presents
Ohryzko-Włodarska, Czesława 16 property tax 35, 38, 44, 56, 66–69, 103, 119, 158,
Opatów 40, 82, 92, 118, 122, 125, 129, 143, 189, 172, 178–180, 182, 183, 185, 189, 193, 194,
205, 206, 217, 240 197–205, 210–215, 219, 224, 225, 231–233
Orla 121, 152, 191, 240 Prussia 22
Ostróg 30, 143 Prużany 82
Ostrów Wielkopolski 240 Przemyśl 95, 125, 141, 228, 240, 245
Przyimski (Przyjemski?) 173
Padua 58 Ptaśnik, Jan 104
parnas (parnasim) 20, 30–40, 41–48, 53, 55, punishments, see confiscation; curse; depriva-
57, 58, 63–65, 67, 69–72, 75–80, 82–92, tion of citizenship; deprivation of function/
95–102, 105, 106, 108, 109, 119, 121–123, office/position; expulsion from the commu-
129–132, 134, 135, 140, 142, 144, 155, 159, nity; fine; ḥerem; imprisonment; election
167, 171, 172, 174, 177, 179, 184, 186–188, rights, loss of
308 INDEX
rabbi 15, 20, 45, 51, 57, 60, 61, 67–69, 71, 73– scribe 55–56, 61, 62, 69, 78, 100, 129, 167, 205,
79, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 102, 112–123, 125– 216, 239, 246
127, 130–133, 137, 140, 144, 148, 150, 152, secret letter 90–91, 182
154, 165, 170, 173, 175, 178, 180, 186–189, Segal, Avraham, son of Yeshaya 194, 203
191, 193, 202, 203, 207, 213, 217–220, 228– Segal, Avraham, son of Yosef 195, 196, 244
231, 237–239, 244, 250, 252 Segal, Lizer 167
country’s rabbi 232 Segal, Meier 209
district rabbi 26, 113 Segal, Yeḥiel, dayan 217
ktav rabanut 115 Segal, Yehudah Leib, son of A. 140
rabbi’s son 78, 194, 203, 239 see also Yehudah Leib, rabbi
rabbi’s son-in-law 210, 238 Segal, Yeshaya 186
rabbi’s widow 68, 194 sejm, see diet
rabbi’s wife 73, 120, 175, 180 sejmik, see dietine
see guilds, guild’s rabbi seven men 46
Rafael, son of Bendit 187 shames (shamesim) 15, 20, 32, 37, 42, 47, 48,
Rafael, son of Yekutiel Süsskind Kohen 112 53–54, 55, 56, 59–62, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78,
Raków 112 82, 89, 102, 121, 123, 124, 129, 130, 133,
Rashi, see Shlomo ben Itsḥak (Rashi) 139, 140, 142, 145, 149, 151, 158, 159, 165,
Rawicz 18, 25 167, 173, 176, 178–180, 183, 184, 186, 188–
rector, see yeshivah rector 191, 193, 198, 201, 202, 212, 213, 216, 219–
remuneration paid to functionaries 59–62, 118– 221, 239, 246, 248
119, 128–129, 140, 145, 153, 205, 214, 215, Shilo, Shmuel 166, 184, 185, 193
220, 222 Shimon, son-in-law of Mendel Kats 172
Riabinin, Jan 111 Shinḥa, widow 173
ritual murder, accusation of 16, 19, 112, 219 Shlomo ben Itsḥak (Rashi) 154
Rogoźno 138 Shlomo, shames 145
Rome 16 Shlomo, son of M. 194
Rostworowski, Emanuel 252 Shmuel, gabai 42
Ruthenia 82 Shmuel, goldsmith 174
Rzeszów 189 shoḥet (shoḥetim) 57–58, 60–62, 73, 117, 118,
123, 220
Salomon Jakubowicz, shtadlan 54 shtadlan 19, 31, 32, 54–55, 56, 59–62, 64–66,
Salomon Lewek, parnas 246, 247 78, 127, 135, 136, 140, 196, 220, 242
Sambor 228 Shulvass, Moses A. 16
Samson, cantor and shoḥet 62 Siemiatycki, Mordechaj 161
Samsonowicz, Henryk 110 Silesia 15
Samuel Fayvel (Faybish), son of Natan of Vien- singer 158
na 16 Skwierzyna 17, 167
Samuel Mojżeszowicz 252 slaughterhouse 14, 16, 61, 117, 118, 217
Satanów 238 slaughterhouse supervisors 48, 49, 93, 96–98,
Saxony 226 104–106, 129, 133, 217
Schiper, Ignacy 18, 41, 81, 82, 84, 109, 139, Sokołów Podlaski 240
143, 197, 205, 210, 215, 226, 252 “soldier money”, see payment for soldiers
scholar 13, 38, 45, 56, 57, 66, 74, 77, 78, 86, Sosnowski, nobleman 173
116, 117, 123, 151, 153, 154, 165, 176, 177, Środa (Wielkopolska) 28, 234, 245
187, 215, 221 Stanisław Leszczyński, see Leszczyński, Stani-
Schorr, Mojżesz 47, 49, 64, 90, 95, 99, 102, 139, sław
142, 240 starosta 17, 28, 55, 110, 222, 236, 245, 249
INDEX 309
Stęszewska-Leszczyńska, Ewa 14 teacher 56–57, 60–62, 73, 78, 117, 123, 145,
Sulka, daughter of Ḥaim Boaz 196 151, 153–154, 197, 205
sumptuary laws 175–182, 187 Teimanas, David Bencionas 143
exemption from 73, 120, 175–176 Teller, Adam 11, 14, 95
regarding clothes 175–177 thirty-two men 56, 59, 61, 62, 66–68, 69, 72, 79,
regarding feasts 177–180 85, 87, 94, 101, 102, 113, 114, 164, 169, 177,
regarding sending presents 180–181 184, 203, 211, 225, 226, 233
supervisors of crafts and guilds 48–49, 96, 98, Todros, son of Itsḥak Munk 100
129 Tollet, Daniel 104
supervisors of regulations 96, 176–177, 180, 243 Tomaszewski, Jerzy 11
synagogue (synagogues) 13–15, 17–19, 32, 39, Tomicki, Bogusław 246
41–43, 47, 50–55, 61, 70, 73, 75–80, 84, Tomiński, nobleman 171, 173
89–91, 94, 96, 98, 108, 118, 120, 121, 127, Tomnicki, nobleman 173, 224
129–131, 137, 142, 148–151, 153, 156, 158, Topolski, Jerzy 9
162, 164, 167, 171, 176, 177, 180, 183, 184, Torah reading, see synagogue, synagogue honors
187–192, 194, 198, 199, 201, 202, 205, 206, Toruń 18, 49, 50, 132, 196
208, 211, 218–220, 223, 228, 229, 235, 239, tovei (ha-)ir 48, 49, 73, 92, 93, 96, 97, 105, 106,
247, 248 129, 133
synagogue honors 38, 41, 43, 77–80, 120, tovi (tovim) 33–35, 37, 38, 40–41, 63–65, 69,
153, 158, 164, 190 71, 79, 82, 85, 87, 88, 92, 95–99, 101, 102,
synagogue seats 38, 43, 53, 60, 76, 132, 143, 105, 106, 108, 109, 132, 135, 144, 221, 238,
167, 174, 192, 200, 216, 234, 248 248
szos, see tax, tax on immobilities Tovi, son of Itsek, goldsmith 183
Szymel Wolfowicz 252 Toviye, goldsmith 174
Szymon, son of Zarach 252 town courts 244–245
town owner 15, 23, 27, 28, 31, 39, 86, 103, 110,
Talmud-Torah brotherhood 98, 153–154 143, 152, 189, 219, 228, 234, 236–242, 248
tax (taxes) 49, 59, 68, 80, 85–86, 88, 91, 93, trade 15, 17–18, 21, 158, 164, 168–170, 187,
103–104, 117, 121, 132, 139, 147, 156, 161– 215, 216, 219, 225, 234
163, 165, 166, 169–172, 176, 178, 182–187, trustee 33, 35, 36, 39–41, 46, 48, 56, 60–63, 75,
193–195, 197–214, 215, 221, 224, 225, 228, 92, 96, 98, 179, 182, 184, 185, 193, 205–210,
231–237, 240, 251 216, 217, 220, 221, 229
tax exemptions 60, 119, 163, 165, 203–204, Tsvi, cantor 62
207, 213, 217, 219, 249 Tsvi Hirsh, son of Zalkind Kats 100
tax on alcohol (czopowe) 124, 131, 212, 219 Tykocin 23, 31, 64, 85, 101, 102, 121, 152, 240
tax on immobilities (szos) 211–212, 219 Tyszkiewicz, Bogna 21
see garbage (collection) tax; hearth tax; in-
come tax (bardon); meat tax; payment for Ukraine 15
soldiers; poll tax; property tax undervoievode (podwojewodzi) 28, 36, 37, 41,
tax collector (collectors) 33, 35, 36, 39–41, 43, 100, 134, 222, 237, 240, 241, 243–248
53, 56, 61, 65, 90, 93, 96, 102, 119, 159, Uri, singer 158
182–183, 193, 210, 212, 214, 220, 229, 241
tax estimator (estimators) 35, 38, 44, 45, 53, 83, Vienna 58, 112
85–87, 92–93, 96, 97, 102, 106, 117, 120, Vilnius 51, 91, 95, 105, 112, 121, 125
182–185, 197–204, 210, 220, 232–233, 239, voievode (wojewoda) 17, 28–29, 41, 55, 100–
241, 243 102, 107, 110, 203, 219, 222, 225, 234, 236–
taxpayers 36, 64–66, 82, 103, 113, 116, 195, 241, 243–248
196, 203, 251 Volhynia 143
310 INDEX
Wandsbeck 112 Yaari, Abraham 155

Warsaw 19, 21, 55, 211, 225, 242 Yakov, gabai 42
Warschauer, Adolf 14, 235 Yakov, physician 66
Waserzug, Moses 58, 61, 123 Yakov, son of Itsḥak (Icchak) 18, 112
Wąsicki, Jan 22 Yakov, son of Naftali of Gniezno 16
Waszak, Stanisław 13, 14 Yakov, son of Pinkas 19
Wein, Adam 70, 76, 77, 101, 192 Yakov, son of Yehudah (Jakob Winkler) 58
Weinryb, Bernard D. 25, 154, 155, 170, 197, Yakov, son of Yoel 163
216, 231 Yakov Libush, parnas 171
Wieledniki 143 Yakov Mordekhai, son of Naftali 112
Wieleń nad Notecią 25 Yedidia, son-in-law of Yudka 76
Wielkopolska 9, 15–20, 22, 25–27, 50, 54, 61, Yeḥezkiel, father-in-law of Itsḥak 119
81, 111, 113, 114, 122, 132, 151, 195, 221, yeḥ idei sgulah 36, 37, 39, 46, 65, 193
246, 247, 249 Yeḥiel Fishel, rabbi 165
Wijaczka, Jacek 13, 15, 17, 19, 240 Yehoshua, son-in-law of A. 76
Wiłkomierz 112 Yehudah Leib, rabbi 113
Wiłkowyszki 115 see also Segal, Yehudah Leib, son of A.
Winkler, Jakob, see Yakov, son of Yehudah Yentil, wife of Henokh 58, 212
Winkler, Jakub 201, 206 yeshivah 45, 66, 112, 113, 116–117, 153, 229
Wischnitzer, Mark 138, 142 yeshivah rector 102, 116, 123, 220
Witebsk 198, 201, 202 yeshivah students 45, 57, 65, 66, 75, 78, 79, 93,
Witkowo 163 116, 117, 125, 127, 203
wojewoda, see voievode Yoel, cantor 220
Wojtkowski, Andrzej 22 Yoel, dayan 169
Wolf, shames 171 Yoel, parnas 56
Wolf, son of Israel 76 Yoḥanan, dayan, rabbi’s son-in-law 210
Wolf, son of Jakob Winkler 58 Yoḥanan, tax collector 220
Wolf, son of Leib 189 Yosef, darshan 51
Wolf, son of M. 174, 207 Yosef, son-in-law of Gumprikht 189
Wolf, tailor 160 Yosef, son of Pinkas 112
Woliński, Janusz 252 Yosef, son of Shlomo 62, 115
Wolsztyn 25, 222, 238 Yosef Tsvi Hirsh, son of Avraham Yanov 112
Wróblewska, Grażyna 14 Yudah Leib Zeligsh, parnas 99
Wrocław 18, 49, 96, 174, 209
Wronki 17, 18 Zamość 147, 151, 152
Wschowa 18 Zasław 116
Wyrozumska, Bożena 240 Żółkiew 30, 82, 125, 197, 228

Waszakowa - SEMANTYKA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waszakowa - SEMANTYKA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Jewish Community

Authority and Social Control

The Jewish Community

The translation of this book was made possible by a grant from

The volume is sponsored by

© Copyright for the English edition by Anna Michałowska-Mycielska

Prepared for printing: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego Sp. z o.o.

ly settled in south-eastern corners of Wielkopolska (Topolski, “Uwagi o strukturze gospodarczo-

Their relative profusion allows us to observe many aspects of a Jewish communi-

4 Michałowska, Między demokracją a oligarchią.

OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF JEWS

5 Stęszewska-Leszczyńska, “Poznańskie synagogi,” pp. 103–105.

In 1621, Zygmunt Grudziński, the owner of the nearby Swarzędz (Grzymałów,

12 Shulvass, From East to West, pp. 25–26.

statystyczny miasta Poznania, vol. 1, pp. 349–350).

21 Numerous examples of such regulations may be found in wilkierze (regulations issued by

33 Mahler, “Żydzi w dawnej Polsce w świetle liczb,” p. 135.

Geschichte der Juden in Posen,” p. 248).

SOURCE MATERIALS USED IN THE STUDY

to which he had agreed; a pinkas of dayanim (pinkas ha-dayanim) to record court

1 Nadav, ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin, vol. 1, pp. XX–XXII.

1835, 1780–1808 and the accounts of the synagogue’s gabaim (1792–99).

by Anna Michałowska (Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie).

tion) are also published in Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie.

23 APP, Księgi wojewodzińskie poznańskie [Books of the Poznań voievode] W.1–W.14.

Individual Jewish communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

1. COMMUNITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES

burmistrz, Latin consul). Jewish communities of the Commonwealth would have

8 AEP no. 861 (1 Iyar 5419 / April 24, 1659).

16 AEP no. 1424 (5440/1680).

5508 / August 18, 1748).

pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

38 AEP no. 1817 (Passover 5463/1703).

pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

accounts were to be squared in the presence of two account supervisors.

52 AEP no. 1037 (5426/1666), AEP no. 1462 (Passover 5442/1682).

78 AEP no. 1037 (5426/1666); Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego,

vol. 2, p. 60, and Schiper, “Wewnętrzna organizacja Żydów,” p. 96.

be translated as the “head of family.”

Feast of Weeks).101 Collections by women gabaim were subject to some con-

(Passover 5477/1717), AEP no. 2060 (Passover 5481/1721).

p. 267 (Poznań, 25 Adar 5446 / March 21, 1686).

anashim) or the seven men (shivah anashim). Non-Jewish documents referred to

124 Michałowska, ed., Gminy żydowskie, pp. 156–159 (Swarzędz, 5489/1729).

129 AEP no. 2036 (Passover 5479/1719).

135 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 53. Further discussion in Chapter 4.

Community ofﬁcials, excluding dayanim who were paid a portion of court

151 Michałowska-Mycielska, ed., Pinkas kahału swarzędzkiego, p. 26 (Swarzędz, 7 Iyar 5508

5508 / August 18, 1748).

(Passover 5456/1696), AEP no. 1962 (Passover 5473/1713).

shtadlanim of Poznań until the ﬁrst half of the 19th century.

At the kahal’s request, a shtadlan would contact noblemen, the voievode,

186 AEP no. 743 (Passover 5414/1654).

be allowed to do that.196 The Poznań electors ordered midwives to hand to gabaim

5547 / September 5, 1787).

5468/1708); AEP no. 2229 (Passover 5528/1768).

5496 / May 25, 1736).

204 AEP no. 1254 (Passover 5434/1674).

1a, p. 262v (Poznań, 20 Kislev 5445 / November 27, 1684).

221 Bałaban, “Ustrój gminy,” 2 (1938), p. 105.

Representative bodies played a very important role in the running of each

pp. 3v–4 (Swarzędz, 5518/1758).

230 CAHJP, PL/Po 1a, p. 252v (Poznań, no date).