Kitabı oku: «History of the Jews in Russia and Poland. Volume 1 of 3. From the Beginning until the Death of Alexander I (1825)», sayfa 11

The new haidamack movement was headed by the Zaporozhian Cossack Zheleznyak. Beginning with the month of April of 1768, the rebellious hordes of Zheleznyak raged within the borders of the present Government of Kiev, murdering the pans and the Jews and devastating towns and estates. The haidamacks were wont to hang a Pole, a Jew, and a dog, on one tree, and to place upon the tree the inscription: "Lakh,¹⁶⁷ Zhyd,¹⁶⁸ and hound – all to the same faith bound." A terrible massacre of Jews was perpetrated by the haidamacks in the towns of Lysyanka and Tetyev, in the province of Kiev.

From there Zheleznyak's hordes moved towards Uman,¹⁶⁹ an important fortified town, whither, at the first rumor of the rebellion, tens of thousands of Poles and Jews had fled for their lives. The place was crowded with refugees to such an extent that the newly-arrived could find no room in the town itself, and had to camp in tents outside. Uman belonged to the estate of the Voyevoda of Kiev, a member of the famous Pototzki family, and was commanded by a governor called Mladanovich. Mladanovich had at his disposal a Cossack detachment of the court guard under the command of Colonel Gonta. Despite the fact that Gonta had long been suspected of sympathizing with the haidamacks, Mladanovich saw fit to dispatch him with a regiment of these court Cossacks against Zheleznyak, who was approaching the city. As was to be expected, Gonta went over to Zheleznyak, and on June 18, 1768, both commanders turned around and, at the head of their armies, marched upon Uman.

During the first day the city was defended by the Polish pans and the Jews, who worked shoulder to shoulder on the city wall, fighting off the besiegers with cannon and rifles. But not all Poles were genuinely resolved to defend the city. Many of them merely thought of saving their lives. Governor Mladanovich himself conducted peace negotiations with the haidamacks, and was reconciled by their assurances that they would not lay hands on the pans, but would be satisfied with making short work of the Jews. When the haidamacks, headed by Gonta and Zheleznyak, had penetrated into the town, they threw themselves, in accordance with their promise, upon the Jews, who, crazed with terror, were running to and fro in the streets. They were murdered in beastlike fashion, being trampled under the hoofs of the horses, or hurled down from the roofs of the houses, while children were impaled on bayonets, and women were violated. A crowd of Jews to the number of some three thousand sought refuge behind the walls of the great synagogue. When the haidamacks approached the sacred edifice, several Jews, maddened with fury, hurled themselves with daggers and knives upon the front ranks of the enemy and killed a few men. The remaining Jews did nothing but pray to the Lord for salvation. To finish with the Jews quickly, the haidamacks placed a cannon at the entrance of the synagogue and blew up the doors, whereupon the murderers rushed inside, turning the house of prayer into a slaughter-house. Hundreds of dead bodies were soon swimming in pools of blood.

Having disposed of the Jews, the haidamacks now proceeded to deal with the Poles. Many of them were slaughtered in their church. Mladanovich and all other pans suffered the same fate. The streets of the city were strewn with corpses or with mutilated, half-dead bodies. About twenty thousand Poles and Jews perished during this memorable "Uman massacre."

Simultaneously smaller detachments of haidamacks and mutinous peasants were busy exterminating the Shlakhta and the Jews in other parts of the provinces of Kiev and Podolia. Where formerly the hordes of Bogdan Khmelnitzki had raged, Jewish blood was again flowing in streams, and the cries of Jewish martyrs were again heard. But this time the catastrophe did not assume the same gigantic proportions as in 1648. Both the Polish and Russian troops co-operated in suppressing the haidamack insurrection. Shortly after the massacre of Uman, Zheleznyak and Gonta were captured by order of the Russian General Krechetnikov. Gonta with his detachment was turned over to the Polish Government, and sentenced to be flayed alive and quartered. The other haidamack detachments were either annihilated or taken prisoner by the Polish commanders.

In this way the Jews of the Ukraina became a second time the victims of typical Russian pogroms, the outgrowth of national and caste antagonism, which was rending Poland in twain. The year 1768 was a miniature copy of the year 1648. A commonwealth in which for many centuries the relationship between the various groups of citizens was determined by mutual hatred, could not expect to survive as an independent political organism. A country in which the nobility despised the gentry, and both looked down with contempt upon the calling of the merchant and the burgher, and enslaved the peasant, in which the Catholic clergy was imbued with hatred against the professors of all other creeds, in which the urban population persecuted the Jews as business rivals, and the peasants were filled with bitterness against both the higher and the lower orders – such a country was bound to perish. And Poland did perish.

The first partition of Poland took place in 1772, transferring the Polish border provinces into the hands of the three neighboring countries, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Russia received the southwestern border province: the larger part of White Russia, the present Governments of Vitebsk and Moghilev. Austria took the southwestern region: a part of present-day Galicia, with a strip of Podolia. Prussia seized Pomerania and a part of Great Poland, constituting the present province of Posen. The annexed provinces constituted nearly a third of Polish territory, with a population of three millions, comprising a quarter of a million Jews.¹⁷⁰ The great Jewish center in Poland enters into the chaotic "partitional period" (1772-1815). Out of this chaos there gradually emerges a new Jewish center of the Diaspora – that of Russia.

CHAPTER VI
THE INNER LIFE OF POLISH JEWRY DURING THE PERIOD OF DECLINE

1. Jewish Self-Government

The fact that the Jews of Poland, despite the general disintegration of the country, where right was supplanted by privilege and liberty by license, were yet able to hold their own as an organized social unit, was principally due to that vast scheme of communal self-government which had become an integral part of Polish-Jewish life during the preceding period. Surrounded by enemies, ostracized by all other estates and social groups, Polish Jewry, guided by the instinct of self-preservation, endeavored to close its ranks and gather sufficient inner strength to offer effective resistance to the hostile non-Jewish world. One of the appeals issued in 1676 by the central organ of Polish Jewry, the "Council of the Four Lands," begins with these characteristic words:

Gravely have we sinned before the Lord. The unrest grows from day to day. It becomes more and more difficult to live. Our people has no standing whatsoever among the nations. Indeed, it is a miracle that in spite of all misfortunes we are still alive. The only thing left for us to do is to unite ourselves in one league, held together by the spirit of strict obedience to the commandments of God and to the precepts of our pious teachers and leaders.

These sentences are followed by a set of paragraphs calling upon the Jews of Poland to obey without murmuring the mandates of their Kahals, to refrain from farming state taxes, from accepting the stewardship of Shlakhta estates, and entering into business partnership with non-Jews without the permission of the Kahals, for the reason that such enterprises are bound to result in conflicts with the Christian population and in complaints on their part about the Jews. The Council also forbids "intrusting Jewish goods to strange hands," resorting to the intervention of the Polish authorities for purposes injurious to the interests of the community, generating schisms and party strife among Jews, and similar actions.

The rabbinical Kahal administration endeavored to impose its will upon every single member of the community by regulating his economic and spiritual life, and to prevent as far as possible his coming in contact with the outside world. The greatest assistance in this endeavor came from the Polish Government. Attaching great value to the Kahal as a convenient tool for the collection of Jewish taxes, the Government bestowed upon it vast administrative and judicial powers. The Government found it to its interest to deal with the Jewish communities rather than with individual Jews. The Kahal was held responsible by the Government for the action of every one of its members or for any inaccuracy of the latter in the payment of taxes. The Kahal extended its influence in proportion to its responsibility. This tutelage of the Kahal resulted in strengthening the social organization of the Jews, while it curbed at the same time the personal liberty of its members to a greater extent than was demanded even by the strictest social discipline.

As far as the Polish Government was concerned, the Kahal was particularly valued as a responsible collecting agency among the Jews on behalf of the exchequer. At the sessions of the Waads, the wholesale amount of the Jewish head-tax (designated as gulgoleth in the Jewish sources) was periodically fixed and apportioned among the Kahal districts. Within these Kahal districts as well as in the individual communities the apportionment of the taxes was the function of the local Kahal elders, who were in charge of the tax collection, and were held responsible for its being accurately remitted to the exchequer. In 1672 the King bestowed upon the Kahal elders of Lithuania the right of excluding from the community or of punishing by other measures those recalcitrant members of their Kahals who by their acts were likely to arouse the resentment of the Christian population against the Jews. Ten years later the Starosta of Brest issued a rescript forbidding the pans to lend money to private persons among the Jews without the knowledge of the Kahal elders. This was done in compliance with the request of these elders themselves, since they were held responsible for the insolvent debtors of their respective districts. On a previous occasion, at a conference of the representatives of the Lithuanian communities held in 1670, it was decided to prosecute every Jew who borrowed money from the pans or priests without the knowledge of their Kahal. The Voyevoda of Lemberg in 1692 forbade letting the collection of various state imposts, such as the excise on distilleries and retail sale of spirits, to Jews unless they produced a certificate of the Kahal elders testifying to their good conduct. The right of owning real estate or exploiting articles of revenue (leases and land-rent) was granted to private persons only with the permission of the Kahal (hazaka). Without this license and the payment of a special tax (hezkath yishub) no Jew was allowed to settle in a given locality or to enroll his name in the community.

The limits of Jewish communal autonomy were not precisely laid down by the law of the state. They were enlarged or contracted in accordance with the will of the provincial administration, the voyevodas and starostas,¹⁷¹ and the agreements between these officials and the Kahals concerning their respective spheres of influence. The model of a free communal constitution may be found in the statute granted by the Voyevoda of Red Russia (Galicia) in 1692 to the central Kahal of Lemberg. This statute authorizes the Jewish community to hold periodic elections, to choose its elders "in accordance with its customs and rights," without the slightest interference on the part of the local administration. The chosen elders are recognized as the lawful officials and judges of their coreligionists in a given locality. Disputes and litigation between Jew and Jew are in the first instance to be settled exclusively by the Kahal court (beth-din), consisting of rabbis and elders, the latter acting as a jury. Cases between Jews and non-Jews as well as appeals from the decisions of the Beth-Din are to be tried by the voyevoda court and the special "Jewish judge" attached to it, the latter being a Christian official especially appointed for such cases. This judge is to be selected by the voyevoda from two candidates nominated by the Jewish elders. His function is to settle disputes and complaints "in a definite place near the synagogue" (in the "Kahal chamber"), in the presence of the Kahal elders. In his verdicts the "Jewish judge" is to be guided not only by the general laws of the state, but also by the Jewish common law. The regular sessions of the court are to take place twice a week. In special cases extra sessions may be arranged for on any day with the exception of the Jewish holidays. Subpoenas are issued through the synagogue beadle, or shamash.¹⁷² The protocols of the court are to be kept in the Kahal chamber near the synagogue. The appeals from the judgments of this court are to be submitted to the voyevoda himself.

The elections of the various grades of Kahal elders¹⁷³ were held, as in former years, annually during the intermediate days of Passover. This custom had legal sanction, and was enforced by the local authorities. When, in 1719, the elders of the Kahal of Brest, prompted by personal considerations, were, in spite of the approach of Passover, delaying the holding of new elections, the Lithuanian hetman¹⁷⁴ sent an order from Vilna branding the act of the Kahal of Brest as illegal, on the ground that, "though obliged by law and custom to hold new elections of elders every Passover, they have not done so, delaying the elections for their own personal benefit."

The elections were indirect, taking place through a limited number of electors, and only persons of fairly high financial standing, such as house-owners or large tax-payers, were allowed to be candidates. As a matter of fact, intellectual qualifications were no less valued than financial standing, scholars occupying an honorable place in the communal council.

The Kahal administration was thus oligarchic in character. The lower and poorer classes had no representation in it, and, as a result, their interests frequently suffered. In the eighteenth century complaints, coming from the Jewish rank and file, are constantly heard about the oppression of the Kahal "bosses," about the inequitable apportionment of taxes, and similar abuses.

During the same period litigation between individual Kahals frequently arose concerning the boundaries of their respective districts. This litigation was due to the fact that the Jewish residents of the townlets and villages were subject to the jurisdiction of the nearest Kahal, whose income they helped to swell. Since, however, the Kahal districts had never been officially delimited, several Kahals would occasionally lay claim to the control of the neighboring townlets and settlements (called in Hebrew sebiboth and yishubim, and in the official language prikahalki¹⁷⁵). Cases of this kind were brought either before the conferences of the District Kahals or the two central parliamentary institutions of Polish Jewry, the "Council of the Four Lands" and the "Council of the Principal Communities of Lithuania."

The centralization of Jewish self-government in these two Councils – that of the Crown and of Lithuania – was one of the main factors in stabilizing Jewish autonomy during that period of instability and disintegration. The meetings or Diets of these Councils, which were attended by the representatives of the Kahals and the rabbinate, afforded a regular opportunity for discussing the questions affecting the general welfare of the Polish Jews and for establishing well-defined relations with the Government and the Diets of the country. Attached to the Waads were special advocates (shtadlans, designated as "general syndics" in the Polish documents), who went to Warsaw during the sessions of the Polish Chamber for the purpose of submitting the necessary applications in defense of Jewish rights or of presenting the taxation lists of the Jewish communities. The Waad of the Crown continued to meet periodically in Lublin, and Yaroslav (in Galicia), and occasionally in other places, while the Lithuanian Council assembled in different towns in Lithuania.

The activity of these central agencies of self-government was particularly intensified in the latter part of the seventeenth century, when the state of communal affairs, sorely shaken during the preceding period of unrest, had to be restored. The Government upheld the authority of the Waads in the eyes of the Jewish population, finding it more convenient to maintain relations with one or two central organizations than to deal with a large number of local agencies. In 1687 the "Jewish Elders of the Crown" (of Poland proper), acting on behalf of the Council at Yaroslav, lodged a complaint with King Sobieski, declaring themselves unable to assume the responsibility for the collection of the Jewish head-tax to the amount fixed by the preceding Polish Diet, owing to the fact that many Jews in the cities and villages, benefiting by the protection of the pans and even the royal officials, refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the "Elders of the Crown" and shirked their duty as tax-payers. In view of this, the King issued a decree condemning in strong terms "such interference and disorder," and enjoining the individual Kahals to submit to the apportionment of taxes by the Elders of the Crown, and altogether to acknowledge their jurisdiction in general Jewish affairs, under the pain of severe fines for the disobedient.

The gradual deterioration of social and economic conditions in Poland rendered the activities of the Waads more complicated. The Waads were now called upon to regulate also the inner affairs of the communities as well as their relations to the Government and the urban estates, the magistracies and guilds. It cannot be said that the Waads exhibited on all occasions an adequate understanding of the political situation, or that they did full justice to the far-reaching demands of a truly popular representation. They were too little democratic in their composition to accomplish so large a task. The delegates to the Waads were not elected by the communities with this end in view, but were recruited from among the rabbis and elders of the principal communities, the notables and "influential men." However, in spite of their inadequate, oligarchic organization, the Waads were largely instrumental in unifying communal Jewish life and in enhancing discipline in Polish-Lithuanian Jewry.

One of the most important duties of the Waads was the maintenance of Jewish public schools, the Talmud Torahs and yeshibahs, which at communal expense imparted religious instruction primarily to poor children and youths. From the minutes of the Lithuanian Waad which have come down to us we learn of the fact that every one of its conferences placed at the head of its enactments a number of clauses providing for the obligatory instruction of the young in yeshibahs throughout the country, for the maintenance of the students by the various communities in cash and in kind, and for the formulation of the curricula and the statutes of all these institutions of learning. No wonder that the endeavors of the Waad were crowned with success, and that the intellectual level of the Jews of Lithuania was very high. It must be owned, however, that their mental horizon was not large, inasmuch as the whole course of study, even in the highest schools, was limited to the Talmud and rabbinic literature.

Furthermore, the Council of the Four Lands established a control over the books issued by the printing-presses of Cracow and Lublin, or imported from abroad. Only such books were allowed to circulate as were supplied with a printed approbation, or haskama, of the Waad or some authoritative rabbis. Very frequently the Waad also intervened in the struggle of parties and sects which, as will be seen later,¹⁷⁶ followed the rise of the Sabbatian movement.

Many public functions which lay outside the sphere of activity of the central Waads were discharged by the local District conventions, or "Dietines" (waade medinah, or waade galil), the latter acting as the agencies of the Kahal federations of the given region. In official language these District federations were often designated as "synagogues." Especially prominent during this period were the "Volhynian Synagogue," i. e. the federation of the Kahals of Volhynia, and the "White Russian Synagogue," composed of the federated communities of the present Government of Moghilev. The former sent its representatives to the Council of the Four Lands, while the latter was affiliated with the Waad of Lithuania. The periodic conventions of these two "synagogues" not only decided the allotment of taxes within the Kahal districts, but also took up questions of a general character, such as the sending of advocates to the general Polish Diet, the instructions to be given to the deputies of the central Waads, the problem of Jewish education, the rabbinate, etc. Less noticeable was the activity of the Kahal federations of the three "Crown provinces": Little Poland with the central community of Cracow, Great Poland with Posen, and Red Russia with Lemberg. We know, however, that they too assembled periodically, either at the initiative of the Kahals themselves or by order of the voyevoda of a given province. These conventions or "Dietines" had their "floor leaders" or "marshals," after the pattern of the provincial Polish Diets. At least such was the insistent demand of the voyevodas, who preferred to transact their official business with the responsible leaders of the conferences. The interference of the administration in the affairs of the Jewish autonomous organization became particularly frequent in the first part of the eighteenth century, when political anarchy in Poland reached its climax.

The whole Kahal organization received a severe blow at the hands of the Polish Government in 1764. The General Confederacy which preceded the election of King Stanislav Augustus, having framed a new "constitution," decided to change fundamentally the system of Jewish taxation. Instead of the former procedure of fixing the amount of the head-tax in toto, and leaving its allotment to the Districts and individual communities to the conferences of the elders and Kahals, the Diet passed a resolution imposing a uniform tax of two gulden on every registered Jewish soul of either sex, beginning with the first year after birth. This change was justified on the ground that, in the opinion of the Government, the previous wholesale system of taxation enabled the Kahals to collect from the tax-payers a much larger sum than originally determined upon. Moreover, simultaneously with the head-tax other imposts were levied by the Kahals. This resulted in burdening the Jewish population and in hiding its true tax-paying capacity from the Government, while according to the new system the exchequer was likely to receive a much larger revenue.

To secure the accurate collection of the head-tax, a general registration of the Jewish population in the whole country was ordered. The taxes of each community were to be remitted by its Kahal elders to the nearest state treasury. In consequence, the functions of the Kahals, as far as the apportionment of the taxes was concerned, were officially discontinued, and the Kahal elders became mere go-betweens, who handed over the tax revenues to the exchequer. The Government ceased to recognize the rôle of the Kahal as a fiscal agent, which it had formerly valued so greatly, and no more considered it necessary to uphold the authority of this autonomous organization. The whole machinery of Jewish self-government, all these Diets and Dietines, the Waads and District conferences, suddenly became superfluous, if not injurious, in the eyes of the Government. No wonder then that the same Diet of 1764 passed a resolution forbidding henceforth the holding of conventions of District elders for the fixation or distribution of any tax collections or for any other purpose.

This limitation of the activities of the Kahals and the entire abolition of the central agencies of Jewish autonomy took place on the eve of the abolition of political independence in Poland itself, eight years before its first partition. We shall see later that the subsequent period of unrest, marked by the transfer of the greater part of Polish territory to the dominion of Russia, introduced even greater disorder into the once so firmly consolidated autonomous organization of the Jews, and robbed the Jewish people of one of the mainstays of its national existence.

2. Rabbinical and Mystical Literature

The social and economic decline of the Polish Jews, which set in after 1648, was not conducive to widening the Jewish mental horizon, which had been sharply defined during the preceding epoch. Even at the time when Polish-Jewish culture was passing through its zenith, Rabbinism reigned supreme in school and literature. Needless to say there was no chance for any broader intellectual currents to contest this supremacy during the ensuing period of decline. The only rival of Rabbinism, whose attitude was now peaceful and now warlike, was Mysticism, which was nurtured by the mournful disposition of a life-worn people, and grew into maturity in the unwholesome atmosphere of Polish decadence.

The intensive Talmudic culture, which had been fostered by many generations of rabbis and rosh-yeshibahs was not distributed evenly. In those parts of the country which had suffered most from the horrors of the "terrible decade" (1648-1658), in the Polish Ukraina, Podolia, and Volhynia, the intellectual level of the Jewish masses sank lower and lower. Talmudic learning, which was formerly widespread among the Jews of those provinces, now became the possession of a narrow circle of scholars, while the lower classes were stagnating in ignorance and superstition. A firmer position was still held by Rabbinism in Lithuania and in the original provinces of Poland. But here too the intellectual activity became pettier and poorer, not so much in quantity as in quality. It is still possible to enumerate a large number of names of great Talmudists and rabbis, who commanded the respect and admiration not only of the Jews of Poland but also of those outside of it. But in the domain of literary productivity these scholars did not leave so profound an impress on posterity as their predecessors, Solomon Luria, Moses Isserles, Mordecai Jaffe, and Meïr of Lublin.

Even within the narrow sphere of the rabbinic literary output originality was sadly missing. The "stars" of Rabbinism who were engaged in learned correspondence (Shaaloth u-Teshuboth) with one another were, as a rule, immersed in fruitless controversies about complicated and petty cases of religious and legal practice, frequently degenerating into the discussion of questions which do not arise in real life. Others wrote diffuse hair-splitting commentaries and novellae (hiddushim) on various tractates of the Talmud, including those which had long lost all legal significance. Thus Aaron Samuel Kaidanover, Rabbi of Cracow, who had narrowly escaped the massacres of 1648, commented on the section dealing with the sacrifices and the ancient ritual of the temple in Jerusalem (Birkhath ha-Zebah¹⁷⁷). Still others wrote annotations and supplements to the Shulhan Arukh.¹⁷⁸ Lithuania, in particular, excelled by the number of its celebrities in the field of rabbinic scholasticism, all men who refused to acknowledge any branch of secular and even religious knowledge outside the domain of Talmudic dialectics.

A rare exception among these scholars was Jehiel Halperin (ab. 1670-1746), rabbi of Minsk, who wrote an extensive historic chronicle under the name of Seder ha-Doroth, "The Order of the Generations." Halperin's work, which is divided into three parts, narrates in the first the events of Jewish history from Biblical times down to the year 1696. The second part enumerates, in alphabetical order, the names of all the Tannaim and Amoraim,¹⁷⁹ and cites the opinions and sayings attributed to each of them in the Talmud. The third part contains a list of authors and books of the post-Talmudic period. The original contribution of Halperin consists in his having systematized the extremely complicated material, and rendered it available for a characterization of the Talmudic rabbis. In all else he merely copied earlier chroniclers, particularly David Gans,¹⁸⁰ without any attempt at a critical analysis. He even fails to render account of such important events of his own time as the Messianic movement of Sabbatai Zevi. The essence of history to him is identical with the genealogies of scholars, saints, and rabbis; the only reason for existence which in his judgment historiography may claim is to serve as the handmaid of Rabbinism. Even this outlook upon history, narrow though it be, was entirely foreign to Halperin's contemporaries.

Side by side with the scholastic literature of Rabbinism flourished popular ethical literature (musar¹⁸¹). Its originators were the preachers (darshanim), some of whom occupied permanent posts attached to synagogues, while others wandered about from town to town. The synagogue sermons of that period, which have come down to us in various collections,¹⁸² consist of a long string of Haggadic and Cabalistic quotations, by means of which the Biblical texts are given an entirely perverted meaning. The preachers were evidently less anxious to instruct their audience than to exhibit their enormous erudition in theological literature. Some of these preachers endeavored in particular to foist upon the people the notions of the "Practical Cabala."¹⁸³ The "secret" writings of Ari¹⁸⁴ and his school were circulated in Poland in manuscript copies, which went from hand to hand. The ideas embodied in the Cabalistic doctrine of Ari were popularized in the shape of "gruesome stories" concerning life after death, the tortures of the sinners in hell, the transmigration of souls, and the exploits of demons.