The Jewish Community in Russia, 1772–1844 9780231894869

Citation preview

STL" DI KS IN H I S T O R Y , KCONO.MICS A N D PLBLIC LAW E d i t e d hy t h e FACULTY

OF

POLITICAL

OF COLUMBIA

NUMBER

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY

505

IN

RUSSIA,

BY

ISAAC L E V I T A T S

1712-1844

rap» Ι *nani ! J ^ d !

imn

γ η . S> 119) SiD aStfJ) jSvB 1W DB 'U ff „ , iSjb 3ΐ"ν,ιη»·3 r»n ·ηη ο>">Λ 97*3 γ»τ ρ I τοΛ i n ,. 3 S3» S'scnS SSVBS •3 .oioro M»I »·>' ijn W»3"3 |ft»e S» >T»' *3 «I'S'iS· wept 'K ffn. P">303 *f> 3»M nun· tnf« υ·3·»J*31*3 3»TJ Τ'» »«»i · Y" Tpftj ot>. '9 ρί>γ3 υ?· ·>, *cw »W doSc p> ρ wSS γΐ Si) wpoS nc c\ piy»p «->3 Sens V>> Λ | Γ» ΡΟ-'Τ>3>. V«P *V3PJ T»SS «IUI IW) 00 β·3·»·3, yiBiSa «»»»px.fnsf» , ·"»» \M* MJ.pSlS ->5D3 005 pT»1 '»»SSt.3>t»$7> '»„Vj^nj)^ «»χι •0)333 t»v fej 137> IVO c-Λ Sa 3» ? Λ« ρ s » 9 J ' »«>, -)VC 3» 0··ρ>

3

η I'

ft*

TiTi.K

ρλ act as it saw fit, thus, indirectly, exercising another essentially state prerogative. This latter prerogative automatically carried with it control over the preparation of censuses, the authority to grant the right of domicile, and to regulate the movement of Jews as well as their transfer from one estate to another. 15 As a basis for computing the amount of taxes due from a community, the figures of the latest census were taken; natu13 Ibid., Nos. 13s, 148, 236, 274, 303, 372, 388, 435, 441. 448 and passim. In Minsk, Hazakah prices ranged between 4 and 18 r. On maarufia, see below, pp. 235f. 14 Borovoi, Evreiskaia semledelcheskaia kolonizatsiia, pp. 79 f. On the economic life generally, cf. Weinryb, " Beiträge zur Finanzgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinden in Polen," in Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, L X X X I I , 248-63; Idem, Mehkarim be-toledoth hakalkalah ve-ha-hevrah shel yehudei Polin. 15 KK, No. 97. The Kahal of Minsk decided to levy a tax " even without the governor's consent."

ECONOMIC

223

REGULATION

rally, it w a s to the community's interest to present the lowest figure possible. T h e members of the Minsk K a h a l pledged themselves under oath to assume collective responsibility for any act committed by any one of them in taking the census. T h e expenditures were very heavy, apparently because of bribes paid to local authorities. T h e head of a family paid a special fee for the privilege of registering, the amount depending upon the f a v o r s extended to the family in connection with the entries. A special committee w a s in charge of registration. T h e city w a s divided into eleven districts, or " hundreds " ; each " hundred " compiled a separate roster f r o m lists of tenants and of guild members. E a c h registrant w a s to assume full responsibility for his o w n state and communal taxes. W o r k e r s from other towns w e r e not permitted to register and were ordered to leave town. A t the close of 1804 every Jew was required by the government to assume a family name, to facilitate identification. 1 · T h e right of domicile w a s conferred sparingly by the K a h a l , in the first place because it thereby assumed collective responsibility for the state taxes o f the newcomer, and in the second place, a newcomer constituted a potential competitor to the old settlers, and even

a possible public charge.

Consequently,

strangers w h o were poor were kept constantly on the move. T h e Gorki K a h a l defended its harsh attitude on the ground that it had already spent large sums to avert a threatened e x pulsion and to obtain various trade monopolies f r o m the local lords, and in consequence the community w a s too poor to withstand an influx of competitors." 1β KK, Nos. 46, 55. 60, 92, 504, 508, 828, 840, 843, 845, 847, 848, 850, 854, 860, 867-70, 884, 889, 90a, 903,940; Zbirnik, II, 345-50; MS. Wlodawa, p. 37, a list of the inhabitants; Arkhiv gosudarstvennago soveta, II, 843, for 1809, III, part 1, 842 f., for 1808; Golitsyn, Istoriia aakonodatelstva, pp. 702-15; Hessen, Istoriia, I, 178; Derzhavin, Sochinemia, VII, 303; Kahana, Sejer ho~ hasidutk, pp. 252 f., how Rabbi Levi Isaac of Berdichev received his family name. 17 L. Rabinowitz argues that heikath yishuv was " the Medieval Jewish Counterpart to the Guild Merchant," Economic History Review, VIII, 180-85. The analogy, however, is incorrect because the acquisition of the right' of domicile was required of all new settlers, not only of merchants; Marek,

224

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

Following is a typical text of domicile permit: At a meeting of the Kahal board a resolution was unanimously adopted to grant the right of domicile in our city, on equal terms with all its other inhabitants, to X . The said person and his heirs shall have the right to settle in our city and engage in all kinds of occupations.... The said X and his heirs are obligated to assume all the communal obligations and to abide by all the regulations, like the other citizens. 18 Often an applicant for domicile rights was required to obtain an " affidavit of responsibility " from a local resident, but this requirement was waived in the case of Jewish prisoners who could gain their freedom only when admitted to citizenship in a community. Free settlement was prevented by prohibiting the sale of a house or the lease of a room to one without domicile permit, and by periodic checkups. 18 Freedom of movement was controlled by requiring the individual to possess a certificate attesting that he was a duly registered resident of a community, that he had paid his taxes and was o f good moral character. Only holders of such certificates could obtain travel passports from the magistracies, and often such a certificate took the place of a passport. 20 As was " A Page from the Life of the Jewish Community of Gorki," Voskhod, May, 1903, pp. 83-89; Margolis, Geshikhte, pp. 379 f., 322 f., gives a picturesque excerpt from Marek's story " Tsvei gzeires." When a transient Jew is told that he cannot trade in Dubrovna without first obtaining the right of domicile and he asks indignantly: " But how will I make a living ? ", he obtains the answer: "Well, does Dubrovna itself make a living?" The Kahal of Riga tried to prevent women from acquiring domicile by fictitious marriages to paupers. Voskhod, August, 1885, pp. 19 f. 18 KK, No. 359. MS. Zabludowo, p. 199; such a document contains the following rights: " To buy real estate, to erect buildings . . . to keep a tavern or any other business." 19 KK, Nos. 356, 359, 383, 737, 784; MS. Zabludowo, pp. 217, 327; MS. Grodna Bikkur Holim, p. 23, § 3 ; Ginzburg, Dvir, II, 143; Margolis, Geshikhte, p. 380. 20 Darevsky, Le-koroth ha-yehudim be-kiev, pp. 70 f.; Perezhitoe, III, 398 f.; Ginzburg, Dvir, II, 1 4 1 ; KK, Nos. 3, 5, 6, 22, 29-36, 39; Marek, in ES, X I I , 129, maintains that the passport system established in Minsk was for the purpose of preventing the Hasidim from making pilgrimages to their rabbis. Actually the Kahal passport system controlled all movement

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

225

mentioned elsewhere, persons wishing to change their citizenship status, that is, to be transferred from the estate of commoner to that of merchant, had first to obtain the permission of the Kahal. 21 The problem of taxation was greatly eased by the fact that every gainfully occupied Jew was bound to some community; even state taxes were not collected from the individual separately, but were paid for the community in one sum from the treasury of the Kahal. 22 The indirect method of taxation was most common among the Jews, although direct taxes were also levied either concurrently or alternately. Thus the weekly assessment tax which prevailed in Minsk up to 1794 was, in that year, changed to a sales tax on meat, but subsequently it was again changed to a direct weekly assessment. The Petrovichi Jewish community raised its revenue half through a direct tax and half through a sales tax. In Wlodawa each taxpayer was assessed a certain amount, full or partial payment of which was credited to his expenses on the meat tax. 28 The several indirect taxes all went under the general name of Korobka. Since the bulk of the Korobka came from a tax on meat, the two became synonymous. Toward the end of the period under review the government endeavored to supervise the Korobka levies but this did not meet with appreciable success. Contrary to law, many Jewish communities failed to present their tax schedules for approval by the gubernatorial authorities ; others did not follow the prescribed order for administering the tax, or the rules governing the rendering of accounts. By collusion, the Jews managed to keep the bids for tax farming at public auctions extremely low and the tax farmers withheld considerable amounts from the county treasuries.** 21 Zeitshrift, II-III, 775; Hessen, Istoriia, II, 68. 22 K K , Nos. 313, 376.

23 Ibid., Nos. 32, 76, 77, 97, 181, 8 5; Voskhod, February, 1894, p. iQ3, 8 35; MS. Wlodawa, p. 58. 24 Materialy... obrasovomiu, pp. 15 f.

226

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

Although Russian law provided that the Korobka tax be employed exclusively for purposes of servicing loans and paying state taxes, allowance had to be made also for the religious, educational, and social needs of the Jewish community. In practice the Kahals drew upon this hidden tax for all possible communal needs, iricluding the payment of state taxes. Even lords, proprietors of townlets, often resorted to this hidden tax for their own purposes. Requiring no special enforcement measures, it was more easily administered than a direct tax. In 1796 the Kahal of Wlodawa decided to double the Korobka levy and abolish the direct assessments " because the arrears were great and the expenditures involved in collecting them were very heavy." Needless to say that, since the indirect tax chiefly affected articles of daily consumption, it burdened the poor more than the rich, and to that extent it was an oppressive measure. No wonder, " due to the outcry of the poor," the Wlodawa community soon had to revert to the old, direct method of taxation. 25 The Korobka, as an institution, was fairly universal in J e w r y ; few communities—even in rural areas—were without it. In the provinces of Volynia and Vilna all J e w s living within five versts of a community had to pay the tax to the communal treasury. Even nonresidents were often required to pay an estimated amount to the Korobka in the communities in which they were officially registered. 24 In most communities the tax was farmed out to the highest bidder, in others it was administered by the Kahal. In 1 8 4 1 of a total of 818,927 rubles collected in Korobka taxes of fifteen 25 MS. Tales of Charity and Strength, p. 136; Memorandum, p. 10; Hessen, Κ istorii korobochnago sbora, pp. 7 f., 22; MS. Wlodawa, p. 68. Regesty, III, No. 2,358. The accusation that the Kahal elders generally used the taxes to fill their own pockets is without foundation; Hessen, Istoriia, I, 123· 26 Memorandum, 18 f.

p. 11; Hessen, Κ istorii korobochnago

sbora, pp. 14 n. I,

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

22J

provinces, 193,269 rubles were collected by the Kahals and the remainder by tax farmers. 27 The tax on meat was twofold: it was levied on each animal slaughtered and on each pound of meat sold. T h e slaughter tax varied with the size of the animal, and was collected by special treasurers and inspectors from the butcher in the abattoir immediately after the animal was pronounced kosher. T h e slaughter tax on poultry was paid by the consumer in addition to the slaughterer's fee. T o protect the local market, the importation of meat from neighboring cities was strictly prohibited. 28 Besides the meat tax there was an endless variety of excise taxes on other articles of daily consumption. In Wlodawa, for the year 1803, the candle tax was farmed out for 12,000 zloty, while in Vilna, this tax which was in force during 1831-41 was farmed out for 16,500 rubles annually. The actual collections, inclusive of administrative expenses and farmers' profits, amounted to 24,000 rubles, or 80 kopecks per head. T h e candle tax was particularly oppressive because the tax farmer was authorized to enter homes and count the number of candles in use. In later years the government endeavored to finance its compulsory enlightenment program by this very candle tax. 2 9 Taxes on consumer's goods were part of the general taxes on trade and the crafts; they covered every conceivable enterprise. Especially exacting were the taxes levied on out-of-town merchants. In Pilten, for example, visiting traders were taxed as high as 2 Yi per cent of their gross intake. In W l o d a w a this tax 27Maierialy ... obrazovaniiu, pp. 1 3 f . ; Hessen, op. cit., pp. 1 9 f . T h e s e official figures must be viewed with caution. J a c o b , Sefer zikhron Jacob, p. 28. O n methods of farming and remitting the t a x , cj. H e s s e n , op. cit., pp. 20f.; M-n, Ustroistvo, pp. 228-42, 251-61. 28 K K , N o s . 4, 7, 24, 37, 38, 48, 73. i ° 5 . 153. 177, 181, §§ 1 a n d 2, 213, 214, 297, 324, 421, 468. M S . Wlodawa, pp. π f. H e s s e n , op. cit., p. 17, a table of prices. 2fl B e r s h a d s k y , Litovskie evrei, p. 9 ; Hessen, Κ istorii korobochnago sbora, pp. 14 f . ; Memorandum, pp. 7 f. n o t e ; M a r g o l i s , Geshikhte, pp. 91 f . ; K K , N o s . 394, 402, 984, 985; M S . Wlodawa, p. 51; Pinkes pruzhene, pp. 33 f., 130; Perezhitoe, I I , 128 f . ; Maierialy ... obrazovaniiu, p. 20, states that only Vilna had a candle t a x . Actually it w a s in widespread use. S e e above, p. 55.

228

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

brought the community 930 zloty annually. In Grodna a river toll was levied.80 Direct taxes were also common. In Minsk the recruit tax and the postal levy were met by every Jew individually, while the head tax was at one time levied through assessment. For that purpose the city was divided into eleven units, called " hundreds." Eight of these represented districts and the remaining three were assigned to the guilds as well-organized communal units.81 Direct taxation was also resorted to by the community whenever the state ordered a forcible and costly collection of taxes due it ( e g z e k u c y a ) . In such emergencies, especially elected assessors would make a hasty apportionment of the required sum, as an internal loan later to be defrayed from the Korobka taxes. 82 The method of tax apportioning was on the whole fairly uniform throughout the Pale, and fairly efficient. Assessors could not be related to each other by blood or marriage, nor could they assess themselves or each other, but were to be assessed by another committee of assessors. They were sworn to do their duty in all fairness. Neither the treasurer nor the Kahal elders possessed the authority to reduce the amount assessed. The total was usually broken up in weekly payments, and a special tax credit book was issued to each taxpayer. 88 Occasionally taxation took the form of a percentage levy on 30 MS. Wlodawo, pp. 57, 104; Margolis, Geshikhte, pp. 312-19; extensive regulations on every conceivable type of tax on crafts and trades. MS. Grodna Bikkur Holim, p. 73 b. 31 KK, Nos. 45, 54, 76, 86, 87, 92, 305, 312, 376, 480, 5°i, 5S5. 559· The representatives of the " hundreds " were personally responsible. W e do not know whether these " hundreds " corresponded to the census districts. Government taxes were usually paid each half year, in March and in September. Tolstoy, Istoriio finansovykh uchreshdenii ν rossii, p. 37. A law of 1781 provided for slightly different dates; PSZ, X X I , 15,268; Margoles, Dubna rabbati, pp. 153-56. 32 MS. Wlodawa,

pp. 55, 58, 78, 81.

33 Ibid., pp. 7, 87, 98; Voskhod,

February, 1894, 102, §§ 18 f.

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

22g

liquid assets or on real property. Dowries and wedding gifts were usually taxed in that manner.®4 According to Jewish law, exemption from fasting could be obtained by a contribution to charity. The Kahal turned this into a source of revenue. It would proclaim a public fast and exact a fee from all who sought exemption; usually even those who fasted paid, albeit lesser amounts. These fast taxes varied with the age and sex of the payers.3® Few in the community were granted tax exemptions. In Nesvizh judges' and teachers' fees, Kahal employes' salaries, and the dole received by the poor were tax exempt. In Grodna physicians of the Sick Visiting Association were exempt from all taxes. 86 The Jewish community was perennially in debt. Each incoming Kahal inherited a burden of tax arrears and debts, and in addition incurred debts of its own. Sums borrowed by the Kahal from members of the community, associations, or even from members of the Kahal itself were all short-term loans advanced at a relatively low rate of interest. It was different, however, with the Kahal's indebtednesses to Christians. Religious establishments, in particular, were not eager to collect the principal; they preferred the regular income accruing to them from loans advanced on high interest rates. 37 We are in possession of the records of indebtedness of about seventy communities located primarily in the provinces of Podolia and Volynia — the creditors being Roman Catholic churches, monasteries, parochial schools, as well as individual clergymen, and lay lords. The total indebtedness amounted to 34 K K , Nos. 76, 160. See above, p. 95. 35 K K , Nos. 374, 457, 861; Margolis, Geshikhte,

p. 348.

3 6 K K , Nos. 3 1 8 f . ; MS. Grodna Bikkur Holim, p. 23, § 9 . The sources for our period do not contain information on the tax exemption of rabbis, as was the case in other periods. Cf. Biber, Mazkereth, p. 296, on the exemption of a rabbi as a special privilege. 37 K K , Nos. 48, 54. 8ο, 105, 247, 324, 509, 515. Communities were sometimes held responsible for the private debts of their members. Ibid., No. 107. Memorandum, p. 17; Bershadsky, Litovskie evrei, p. 43. Cp. the accusation that elders were enriching themselves by charging exorbitant rates of interest on loans to the Kahal. Klausner, Vilna bi-tekufath ha-gaon, pp. 171 f.

23O

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

102,090 rubles, of which sum the four larger communities of the group, Ostrog, Lutsk, Dubno, and Vladimir, owed 29,793 rubles. The rate of interest on these loans ranged from 3.5 to 10 per cent, and in two cases they were as high as 16 and 20 per cent. The rate of interest is indicated in our source only for three-fifths of the total indebtedness, the loan service on this part amounting to 1,987 rubles of which 518 rubles, or about 25 per cent, were not paid. The remainder of the debt ( 4 1 , 4 1 1 rubles) and its pro rata interest, is not in the record, suggesting that either it went by default or was successfully contested in court. 88 The bulk of that indebtedness was incurred during the eighteenth century, with only 9,672 rubles in the seventeenth century and 389 rubles during the opening years of the nineteenth century. The total amount is staggering indeed; however, an analysis of the record shows that 40 per cent of it was never paid and that the creditors even ceased demanding payment. In most instances the Kahal successfully contested the claims of the debtors in local courts, or in the Senate, on the ground that the high interest rates already paid in the course of many decades covered also the principal; at any rate, that it was unreasonable for it to be bound by debts of interminably long standing. 89 CRAFT GUILDS

A great deal of economic regulation was left to the guilds, which acted as autonomous units within the community, supervising all matters relating to manual labor. While organizationally the guild possessed all the characteristics of a Hevrah, it differed from the latter in three essential w a y s : 1) It affected the economic as well as the social life of its members. 2) It represented a specific class—the workers—and often clashed with 38 Galant, in Zbimik,

II, 119-37.

39 hoc. cit., the source does not indicate h o w much of the 18th century debt constituted renewals of old debts.

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

231

the bourgeois Kahal. 3) It had to reckon with Christian competitors and, hence, with the Russian authorities.40 A substantial number of Russian Jews were engaged in manual labor. By the second decade of the nineteenth century some 40 Studies on the Jewish guild, like those on the general medieval guilds have been attempted only in the twentieth century. The growing interest in labor problems, especially in Soviet Russia, resulted in a number of studies. The extant primary sources, however, are so scarce that conclusions must be drawn with utmost caution. The primary sources include: i ) manuscripts of the minute books of the "Tailors, Butchers and Outsiders" Guild of Liuboml (excerpts in Heilperin, " The Minute Book of the Artisans' Guild in Liuboml," Yedioth ha-arkheon ve-ha-muzeon shel tenuath ha-avodah, II, 9-13), and of the Tailors' guild in Skidel; and 2) excerpts from minute books of a) The Keidany Artisans Guild in Bieter far yidisher demografie un statisiik, 1925, No. 5, pp. 73-77, and in translation into Yiddish in Margolis, Geshikhte, pp. 365-73; b) Mikolaiev Shoemakers and Tanners, ibid., pp. 359-65; and c) miscellaneous items, ibid., pp. 337-75On guilds in general, cf. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, VII, 204-24; Renard, Guilds in the Middle Ages; Ashley, An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, ch. 2, II, ch. 2; Klimenko, " Industry and Commerce in the Province of Podolia at the Beginning of X I X c.," Ukrainska akademiia nauk, Kiev, Historic-philological Division, Zbirnik, LI, 1032-57. Gross, The Guild Merchant; Klimenko, " Craft Guilds in Western Russia," Universitetskiia izvestiia, Kiev, LIV, February, 61 pp. On the Jewish Guilds, cf. Rombakh, " The Jewish Artisans in Russia in the First Half of the X I X c.," Zeitshrift, I, 25-30; Wischnitzer, EE, XIII, 429-37; Idem, Yidishe balmelokhe tsekhn in polen un in lite; idem. Encyclopatdie des Judentums, Probeheft, 1926, pp. 67 f.; idem, " Die jüdische Zunftverfassung in Polen und Litauen in 17. and 18. Jh.," Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, XX, 433-51; idem, Zeitshrift, II-III, 73-88; Kremer, "A Study on the Crafts and Craft Guilds of the Polish Jews, X V I - X V I I I c.,'" Zion, II, 294-325; Sosis, " Jewish Artisans and their Workers in Lithuania, White Russia, and the Ukraine in the X V I I I c.," Zeitshrift, IV, 1-29; Heilperin, "Jewish Craft Guilds in Poland and in Lithuania," Zion, II, 70-89; Weinryb, " The Attitude of Polish Communities Toward Artisans and Workers," Yedioth ha-arkheon ve-ha-muzeon shel tenuath ha-avodah, 1936, Nos. 3 and 4 ; Shatzky, " Jewish Tailors' Guilds of the Past," Fortshrit, 1923, January 5th, pp. 8 f., the information for our period is inexact. Cf. also: Ringelblum, " The Plotsk (Prussia) Tailors' Minute Books," Vivo, Shriftn far ekonomik un statistik, II, 20-31; Kon, " Jewish Guilds in Vilna in the Beginning of the X I X c.," ibid., I, 89-91; on Chortkov: Goldberg in Yubileum bukh lekoved der 40-yeriker ekzistents funm chortkover shapiro farein, pp. 57-66; on Kurnik: in J Q R , N. S. X X V I I I , 47-56; Notik, " O n the History of Artisans Among Lithuanian Jews," Yivo bleter, IX, 107-18; Kramerowna, "Jewish Craft Guilds in Old Poland," Miesiecznik Zydowski, 1933, pp. 259-98. The articles of Wischnitzer, Kremer and Heilperin contain good bibliographies.

232

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

13 per cent were artisans. Every Jewish settlement had its quota of artisans catering to both Jews and Christians. They engaged in skilled and unskilled labor, leaning preponderantly toward the needle trade. The machine age had not yet reached Russia and a master craftsman worked either alone or with the help of a few hands. 41 There were only craft guilds; with one exception, there is no record of Jewish merchant guilds. The associations of butchers, though composed of shop owners, could hardly be classified as merchant guilds, since they were not entrepreneurs, but workers who themselves skinned the animal and prepared the meat for sale. Individual Jewish merchants could indeed join the government-controlled general Merchant Guilds of either the First, Second, or Third categories. But, while conferring certain privileges upon Jewish members, such as the right to live outside the Pale, these guilds had none of the characteristics of the medieval guilds, and, in any event, they did not represent a Jewish institution. 42 Membership in the guild was compulsory for all who wished to follow an organized trade, and free-lance artisans were relentlessly persecuted by both the guild and the Kahal. As was the requirement of all medieval guilds, the Russian Jewish worker, before becoming a member, had first to go through the stages of apprentice and journeyman, and, as in other associations, also that of noviceship. Journeymen were accepted into guild membership, apprentices were not. On the whole, the line between apprentice and journeyman, on the one hand, and master worker, on the other, was sharply drawn in that only the latter had the right to independent labor. The distinction between journeyman and apprentice, however, was not so clear, 41 Zion, II, 302, 3 1 3 - 1 8 ; Kazennye, pp. 58-61. In 1818 there were 78,553 artisans in a population of 676,979; Margolis, Geshikhte, pp. 42-47; Friedmann in Jewish Studies in Memory of G. A. Kohut, pp. 192 f. 42 M S . Wlodawa, p. 82, mentions a storekeepers' association, which regulated the rules of purchase of goods. Rombakh in Zeitshrift, I, 28, states that J e w i s h guilds originated in Russia in the 1840s.; Wischnitzer in Encyclopaedte des Judentums, Probeheft, 1926, p. 67, maintains that the guilds lost their professional importance during our period. B o t h statements are incorrect

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

233

except that it was understood that, in general, the apprentice had not yet mastered his trade, while the journeyman h^d; the apprentice was not a wage earner, while the journeyman was, and that an apprentice was usually engaged for a period long enough to enable him to learn the t r a d e whereas the journeyman was engaged for so long only as his work was needed. 48 When a boy was apprenticed to a master, the terms of indenture were entered on the minute book of the guild. Such indentures were individual, drawn by mutual agreement, and differed greatly in their terms. 44 Apprentices did not spend all their time at learning their trades, for they often' did also the master's housework. An ordinance of the Keidany tailors' guild has it that the master could " sell, hire out or lend " a worker to a fellow master, if the worker consented; but the master could not employ another in his place, until the contract had expired. Neither could an employee leave against his master's will before the expiration of his contract; no one would employ him if he did. Although they enjoyed none of the privileges of membership, apprentices were obliged to pay guild taxes. 45 The period of journeymanship depended upon a number of factors—the worker's ability to acquire tools and set up a workshop of his own, the number of masters already in town, the attitude of the guild leaders, and so forth. Usually, however, the transition to mastership was accomplished at marriage, since the assumption of family burdens entitled the artisan to employ labor. A worker could become master without going through the stage of journeymanship—as indeed was the case with sons-inlaw of masters and others whom the guild wished to favor. As time went on and the number of artisans increased, the guild 43 MS. Skidel Tailors, p. 6 ; Weinryb, Neueste Juden in Russland und Polen, p. 122. There was no law, but both the Christian and Jewish guilds apprentice was usually called yung, lernyung, or — poel.

Wirtschaftsgeschichte der " Zunftzwang " in Russian enforced it in fact. The tovarish, the journeyman

44 For the text of such an indenture, cf. Margolis, Geshikhte, p. 374. Apprentices began to work at the early age of 10; MS. Tales of Charity and Strength, p. 158. 45 Margolis, Geshikhte, 48 ff.

p. 367, § 7. Cp. Zarchin, in JQR, N . S„ X X V I I I ,

234

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

put heavy restrictions on promotions to mastership. In Vilna such promotions were blocked by the restriction of marriage among the aspirants. A m o n g the other obstacles to overcome w e r e : entrance fees, the cost of a banquet, and the assent of all the guildsmen to the admission. The result was that the number of journeymen without opportunity to become masters greatly increased, and presently they became a class by themselves and organized their own journeymen's associations for mutual protection. There are records of such organizations in Iaroslav ( 1 8 3 2 ) , in Minsk ( 1 8 4 1 ) , and in Belostok ( i 8 4 9 ) . 4 e Although the journeymen had sufficient professional reasons to justify their secession, there was as yet no class-consciousness among them. The chief element binding them into one group was social rather than economic. The main grievances voiced in the Minsk " uprising ", which is typical of all the rest, was not that the journeymen were paid by their masters irregularly, but rather that they were not given an equal share in the honors of the guild's synagogue. They therefore bought a scroll of the Law and began holding services by themselves. T h e Kahal, however, soon intervened, ordered the journeymen not to secede, and the masters it ordered to right the wrongs of which they were guilty. 47 A master could begin employing workers only after a year of mastership. After that he could employ two workers besides his own son. Exceptions were made in favor of those who had been married for many years or those who had obtained high station in the guild. If a master required additional help he could hire another master with his quota of help, or take him into partnership. N o more than two could form a partnership, and even that right was acquired only after long years of marriage. The purpose behind these restrictions was to maintain a reasonable balance between masters and journeymen, as well as to prevent undue competition among the masters themselves. 48 46 Yivo, Shrifln far ekonomxk, I, 91; Margolis, Ceshikhte, II, 84, 324 n. 136; F.E, X I I I , 671. 47 K K , N o . 1,046. 48 Margolis, Geshikhte,

pp. 371, 373; Zeitshrift,

I, 26.

pp. 361 f f . ; Ziou,

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

235

The minute books of the guilds are replete with enactments calculated to regulate the relationship between masters and customers. On the whole, the guild endeavored to prevent the obtaining of work from a customer by unfair means, on the general principle that the work belonged to the guild as a whole, until the customer had chosen a particular master to do it for him. An ordinance states: " When a lord [the usual customer] walks in the market place, no artisan shall follow him, until the lord approaches him and begins bargaining about the cloth. If the lord goes with him to a store where other artisans are present, he is entitled to the work if he swears that he has been approached. Otherwise the work belongs in partnership to all the artisans present." Another regulation says: " If there are several artisans present and a lord calls for one of them [by name], then the others have no share in it [the work]." 49 The guild also strove to maintain a relatively high price level for work by cutting down competition. If a lord bargained with an artisan for a certain piece of goods, the same kind of goods could not be sold to him by any other artisan for a period of three days. It is remarkable that while the medieval guild attempted to maintain a proper standard of workmanship, to supervise trade ethics, the " just price," and a high quality of work, the Jewish guild of our period did none of these things, but instead tried to uphold a high level of prices and generally to protect the guild against the consumer.60 A steady customer and his custom were both called maarufia. They belonged to one artisan solely. If one artisan knowingly took work from another's maarufia, he had to turn over all the profits without deducting the cost of labor; if he did so unknowingly, he had to return only the profits. An itinerant artisan who unintentionally committed the same offense had to share with the rightful artisan half of his profits. A lord, who was known to be the patron of one artisan, yet who asked a group of ar49 Margolis, Geshikhte, pp. 369, § 24, 363. The lords employed means of their own to combat this " Prohibitionssystem," Ζ ion, II, 299. 50 Margolis, Geshikhte,

pp. 366 f., §§ 3, 8.

236

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

tisans in the market place for another, must be directed to the first artisan. How permanently fixed these exclusive custom rights were, may be judged by the fact that they were hereditary : " The son is to inherit his father's Maarufia; if he has no son, then his son-in-law or his grandson shall inherit it—if they be members of the guild. If there is no heir in that guild, the guild itself shall inherit it." 51 Other rules of the guild provided that no guildsman was to do work for a customer who had not paid his debts to another guildsman. Work begun by one craftsman, if only the goods were marked or cut, could not be finished by another. There were sharp distinctions between the workers of kindred occupations, and they were not to encroach upon each other's privileges. Thus, a furrier was not to take on the work of a tailor, nor a shoemaker the work of a tanner. 62 Although the several guilds of one and the same locality had common interests to protect, there can be little doubt that conflicts often arose between the rich and the poor guilds, the old ones and the new ones. At any rate, there is no record of Jewish federations of guilds during that period. While enjoying a fair degree of autonomy in its internal affairs, the guild had to face a multitude of outside agencies. Its most formidable competitor was the Christian guild; the Kahal, too, while undoubtedly siding with the Jewish guild in this particular struggle, nevertheless insisted on retaining its control over guild activities. Usually a fair balance of power was maintained, sometimes through mediation of the Jewish court, and no gentile authorities interfered. But, when matters could not be settled by the Jews themselves, the guild would usually appeal to a gentile authority: in seignioral towns to the lord, in free towns to the municipal head. From these, appeals could be made to the provincial and central authorities. 63 51 The same rules applied to work obtained by an artisan, of which due notice was given to the guild authorities. Ibid., pp. 365-72, §§ 6, 10-12, 14, 39; Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, p. 9. 52 Margolis, op. cit., p. 363; MS. Liuboml,

p. 10; KK, No. 315.

53 See the delightful legend about the butchers who decided to acquire their own synagogue, because they as " merchants " felt it below their dignity to

ECONOMIC

REGULATION

2ß7

In the relations between Christian and Jewish guilds the f o r mer had the advantage of being recognized in Russian law, though the Jews were theoretically eligible for admission to these guilds. However, there w a s no Zunjtzwang;

a laborer

could remain outside the guild if he employed no help and displayed no signs. Jewish artisans and their guilds were not molested; the prohibition against help and signs w a s not enforced so long as there were no complaints f r o m their Christian competitors. W h e n the Christian tailors' guild of Pereiaslav complained that the gubernatorial authorities granted the Jews the right to form their own guild, the Ministry of the Interior ordered the Jewish guild closed and granted the Christian guild the exceptional privilege of not admitting Jews to its membership. O n the other hand, when the Christian saddle makers' guild of Vilna complained that they faced the competition of Jewish unlicensed artisans in that trade, the Minister of Interior replied that no one was forbidden by law to w o r k for a l i v i n g . " In practice the Jewish guilds e n j o y e d the advantage of a head start and of greater numbers. Generally, the Russians were far less advanced in the crafts in those days than were the Jews, and therefore their competition w a s not great. In fact the services of Jewish artisans were sought a f t e r outside the Pale and the government was obliged to grant them permission to settle there, especially in new cities, ports, and military centers. Probably, therefore, in most cases the Christian guild, as the newcomer, had to assert itself against the well-established Jewish guild. In 1 7 7 6 the Christian of V i l n a complained that many of their guilds were forced to close because of Jewish competition. 88 In actual practice the Jewish guild w a s closed to Christians, just as the Christian guild w a s closed to Jews. A l t h o u g h in preassociate with mere artisans. Pinkes pruzhene, pp. 150 ft. In Kopyl the rich tailors who worked for lords discriminated against their poorer brethren; Pereshitoe, II, 19 f. 64 Zeitshrift, I, 27 f.; Voskhod, August, 1885, p. 17. 55 Samoilovich, Ο pravakh remeslennikov evreev, pp. 8-13; Regesty » nadpisi, III, No. 2,234; Rozhkov, Gorod » derevma ν russkoi istorii, pp. 95 f.

238

THE

JEWISH

COMMUNITY

IN

RUSSIA

partitioned Poland there were Jewish members of Christian guilds who derived professional benefits but waived social and religious ones, and although the Russian law, too, theoretically permitted Jews to join Christian guilds, we find no records of such membership for our period, simply because the Jews themselves did not seek it.5® A s for the Kahal, it exercised over.the guilds the same kind of supervision that it exercised over the other associations and generally over the economic life of a community. It proclaimed their establishment, ratified their ordinances, disciplined recalcitrant members, authorized taxes for guild needs, acted as arbiter between guilds in dispute, and, whenever it so desired, generally supervised all guild affairs. 87 The Kahal and the guild were agencies representing opposing social classes, the bourgeoisie and the workmen, respectively. The guilds had three main grievances against the K a h a l : 1 ) it taxed workers out of proportion to their means; 2 ) it drafted a proportionately larger number of recruits from labor ranks than from the ranks of the wealthy, and 3) workers were not given a share in communal rule. In view of such antagonism the rarity of workers' uprisings is at first sight surprising. W e know of only one such revolt—in Minsk in 1777. 88 This may be explained by the lack of political thinking, the general bondage of Russian society and the particular stress laid on the social aspects of the struggle. 89 Guildsmen were equally incensed by the denial of honors as by economic considerations. This is clearly 56 Heilperin, in Zion, I I , 74 f., 303, 311; Kremer, " M e m b e r s h i p of Jewish Artisans in Christian Guilds in Poland of the Past," Bieter jar Geshikhte, I I , 3-32. 57 Ashley, English Economic History and Theory, I, 85; K K , Nos. i a i , 127, 195, 277, 315, 354, 38s, 4Ϊ7, 418, 424, 434, 623, 7®>, 885, 8