Introduction
While it is relatively easy to map out mutual cultural influences between Jews and non-Jews, it is much more difficult to map out the mechanisms of this cultural exchange. Such instances of cultural exchange may have happened indirectly, for example, through books, as Joanna Weinberg termed it, through “virtual contact”; or, directly, through “real” human interaction. The texts presented here deal with the latter. One set of texts is a selection of several seventeenth-century takkanot, rulings, by the Council of Four Lands, the supra-communal organization responsible primarily for collection of taxes levied by the Polish state but also engaging in administration of affairs within Jewish communities. The second text comes from Polish court records and shows a criminal trial of a Jewish tavern keeper, Szmul Dubiński, accused of blasphemy in Rzeszow in 1726.
Public spaces where Jews and non-Jews met seem to offer fertile grounds for exploration of direct encounters. While some public spaces, such as a market place where encounters were short and focused on the exchange of goods, may have been more prone to a shallow interaction, taverns and inns allowed for closer and longer contact. It is these closer encounters that provoked such anxiety among both Jewish and Christian religious authorities who repeatedly warned against Jewish-Christian socializing.
In the early modern period, inns and taverns became the most prominent social centers across Europe, and there are many studies that address a wide range of topics. In this workshop, in 2005, Stefanie Siegmund led a discussion on taverns and public drinking in Florence.[1] In Poland, to add further complexity, taverns were often run by Jews, by the second half of the eighteenth century the majority of them, out of their own homes. This fact violated a number of halakhic rules, as well as Christian secular and ecclesiastical laws.
The 1726 trial of Szmul Dubiński illustrates not only the reasons behind some anxieties religious leaders expressed but also give a vivid picture of the type of exchanges that often must have taken place, and the context. Szmul’s case is clearly rather extreme, especially in underscoring the dangers of Jewish-Christian interactions, the majority of such interactions did not result in prosecution.[2] The text also highlights intimacy and comfort of the relationship between Szmul and his customers. The text raises questions of cultural integration, language, mutual knowledge, and awareness of difference and boundaries between Jews and Christians.
[1] Stefanie Siegmund, “Taverns and Public Drinking in Florence,” EMW 2005, https://research.library.fordham.edu/emw/emw2005/emw2005/9/
[2] Dov Ber Brezer (Birkenthal) of Bolechów admitted of his desire to learn Latin so that he could discuss religious matters in the inn run by his father, Gershon David Hundert, “Mining an Unusual Ego Text (or two),” EMW 2011, https://research.library.fordham.edu/emw/emw2011/emw2011/3/
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coster, Will, and Andrew Spicer. Sacred Space in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Dynner, Glenn. “Legal Fictions: The Survival of Rural Jewish Tavernkeeping in the Kingdom of Poland.” Jewish Social Studies 16, no. 2 (2010): 28-66.
Forster, Marc R. “Space, Gender, and Honor in Village Taverns.” Food & History 7, no. 2 (2009): 15-28.
Goldberg, Jacob. “The Role of the Jewish Community in the Socio-Political Structure of the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth.” Polin 22, (2010): 142-155.
Hohti, Paula. “Domestic Space and Identity: Artisans, Shopkeepers and Traders in Sixteenth-Century Siena.” Urban History 37, no. 3 (2010): 372-385.
Kümin, Beat. “Iconographical Approaches to the Early Modern Public House.” Food & History 7, (2009): 29-42.
———. “Useful to Have, but Difficult to Govern. Inns and Taverns in Early Modern Bern and Vaud.” Journal of Early Modern History 3, no. 2 (1999): 153.
Kümin, Beat, and B. Ann Tlusty. The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in Early Modern Europe: Aldershot, 2002.
Rau, Susanne. “Public Order in Public Space: Tavern Conflict in Early Modern Lyon.” Urban History 34, no. 1 (2007): 102-113.
Teter, Magda. Sinners on Trial: Jews and Sacrilege after the Reformation. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2011.
———. “‘There Should Be No Love between Us and Them’: Social Life and Bounds of Jewish and Canon Law in Early Modern Poland.” In Social and Cultural Boundaries in Pre-Modern Poland, edited by Adam Teller and Magda Teter. Oxford; Portland, OR: Littmann Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010.
Source 1 Translation
Archiwum Państwowe w Rzeszowie, AmR, 27, pp. 348-351, published in Adam Kaźmierczyk, ed., Żydzi polscy 1648-1772 (Cracow: Uniwesytet Jagielloński, 2001), 147-150
September 24, 1726
Court inquest regarding blasphemy brought by the instigator on behalf of the residents [ex civibus] of Rozwadów against the now incarcerated Szmul Dubiński, a citizen of Rozwadów, thus:
First witness, honestus Franciscus Kowalski, sworn town councilman of Rozwadów, having taken an oath, related: I came to the house of the infidel Jew, Szmul Dubiński, resident of our [town], with Jakub Lisowski on the Feast of the Visitation of the Most Holy Virgin [July 2, 1726] in the afternoon at around two or three o’clock. We asked to be given a galon of beer. The said Szmul, having come over to us, embarked upon a discussion with us about elections for municipal offices. When we began the discussion, who should be elected to what office, Szmul began to scoff, saying: ‘Who do you have here who would be appropriate for a mayor? One is a brawler, another a young lad, another an idiot, and yet another should first organize a christening!’ And mockingly he said more, but I responded to his words: ‘But they don’t mind in other towns; in Sandomierz, even though it is a royal city [miasto grodowe], Nowiński, a neophyte, is the chief magistrate.’ And Szmul responded: ‘It is true that he is the chief magistrate, but he blew several hundred zlotys on it. He stopped here when traveling, and told me ‘I am looking for my stepson, who disappeared, and priests incite me to accuse Jews, that they caught him and murdered him.’ And I told him that it is a lie, since it is improper here for our clergy to instigate [action] even regarding clear-cut matters, let alone to incite about things which they they not witnessed. And Szmul responded that in one town there was a woman, whose child had died, and cursing [he said that the body] was dropped near the Jewish area, and Jews were attacked and murdered on account of this child. And I responded that this was not true, it was a lie. Szmul again said, ‘It is you, Poles, who spread tales that we need your blood, with which we wash ourselves.’ And I said, ‘I cannot say anything about it, because I have not heard it, but it is Jews who are cunning, when they do something bad, they deny it.’
And so these squabbles led to the point that Szmul began to discuss faith, and he came out with these words, ‘Our God is older than your Catholic one.’ And he asked me: ‘Which God do you believe in?’ And I answered him that I believed in the one who let himself be crucified for us. Szmul then pointed through the window frame toward the sculpture, with a cupola and a clay crucifix made by a potter, saying: ‘So you believe in this God, which Skrzypek [the potter] made out of clay and put there?’ And I said to him, that indeed in this [God] because it was an image of his divine suffering on earth, but God Himself was in heaven. And Szmul responded: ‘For what did he let himself be crucified, if he is so powerful, and why does your God fall over?’ And I responded: ‘Szmul, don’t debate like this, God is God, and although wood falls over when it rots, don’t debate like this. He let himself be crucified because he is merciful, he suffered so that he could redeem us.’ And I said, ‘Szmul, don’t debate such things with someone smarter [than I], so you don’t fall into some trap, for I am a simple man.’
But Lisowski, who was with me, wanted to punch him with his fist when he heard this blasphemy, but I did not let him, so that he would not provoke a fight, and said: ‘Let him go, for he barks at Lord God like a dog.’ Jakub Lisowski and Matyjasz Trafidło, witnessed the blasphemy, and Grzegorz Jasiński, the miller, but he was sitting far away, so I don’t know if he paid attention or not, and I don’t remember if he was present for the whole time, or if he left. But Moskal and the organ player arrived afterwards.
And thus he testified having first taken an oath: I, Franciszek Kowalski, swear to Almighty Lord God, one in Holy Trinity, that what I testified and testify against the infidel Szmul Dubiński, resident [obywatel] of our town, is not out of envy or hate; nor have I been persuaded or bribed by anyone [to do so], but without adding or subtracting anything, I testified only the truth about how Szmul blasphemed against Lord God and divine honor, and I did not hide anything. So help me God and the innocent suffering of Lord Christ.
The second witness, honestus Jacob Lisowski, having taken an oath, related and concurred with the prior [witness] in everything except, ‘’I did not hear [the discussion about] which God is older, which took place in the mid-evening of the Assumption of the Most Holy Virgin, because during this debate I stepped outside twice’’; and he added, ‘’I wanted to hit him but I was afraid that I would be condemned [reprimanded?] by the lord of the manor.’’
The third witness, honestus Mathias Trafidło, a resident [incola] of Rozwadów, having first taken an oath, related, ‘’On a feast day, I don’t remember which one, perhaps on the feast of the Most Holy Virgin [Najświętszej Panny Jagodnej] mid-evening I came over to the window in the hall, and Kowalski called me and offered me a drink, so I joined them, but I was not present during their whole discussion, I only heard Szmul Dubiński, who was very drunk, say these words: ‘Why does your God fall over, if he is so powerful?’ But I don’t remember what Kowalski answered. And Szmul then said to Kowalski, ‘Which God do you believe in, this, made of clay, which Skrzypek put up?” And Kowalski said, ‘This, because it is the image of God.’ And Szmul beat his chest, but I don’t know if seriously or as a joke. They then started quarrelling about Gods, but I did not pay attention, and Szmul said, ‘Let’s agree that both Gods are good, this one is good and that one is good.’ After they offered me the drink, I left. I did not see if Moskal and the miller were there or not. And so he testified, and he confirmed his testimony with a personal oath.
And witnesses introduced by the accused infidel Szmul Dubiński, a resident of Rozwadów, thus:
First laboriosus Gregorius Jasiński, a miller from the village of Horzewice, having taken an oath, related, ‘’On the feast of the Most Holy Virgin, I came over to Szmul Dubiński’s while it was still before noon, Kowalski had not yet come to Szmul’s; after Kowalski came, I heard that they were talking with Szmul about the Lord God, but I did not pay attention, and I don’t know anything and I did not hear much because I was sitting at the other end of the table, but Szmul was inebriated; Moskal was not present during this discussion, when they were chattering on, because he came later with his wife.
Second laboriosus Valentinus Moskal, a magistrate of the village of Pilchów, having first taken an oath, related, ‘’On the feast of the Most Holy Virgin, mid-evening after vespers, I came to Szmul Dubiński’s, and found there Kowalski, sitting alone. I did not hear any discussion about Lord God, or faith; it must have happened before I came, because I came when the organist brought fresh bread that Jews baked on the holiday, which led to a spat between Kowalski and Szmul that it was not appropriate to bake bread on a holy day, ‘Our holidays you break but you observe your own Sabbath.’
I don’t know anything else and I did not hear anything, I support it with my conscience,1 and so he testified.
Third, honestus Martinus Prędkiewicz, an organist of the church in Charzewice, having taken an oath, related: ‘’I don’t know anything, because I came late, I only heard from Lisowski, when I arrived at Szmul Dubiński’s after sunset, but when it was still light, on the feast of the Most Holy Virgin; he told me that Szmul said to Kowalski ‘You believe in this God that Skrzypek made of clay,’ and so he testified.
1 Jakom na to sumieniem poprawil.
Source 2 Translation
Pinkas Va`ad Arba Aratsot [Minute Book of the Council of Four Lands]
Year (5)367 – 1607
No. 48. No one shall make it his custom to be in the taverns of the gentiles and anyone who goes there to drink is considered to be worthless and irresponsible and may not be called rav and haver, nor may he hold any office in the kahal.
No. 52. Regarding holders of arenda who live in villages, where sometimes the man travels to another village and [the wife] remains alone among the gentiles, who then come to drink and get drunk in their houses, the heads of the lands agreed that one may not hold arenda unless there are two [Jewish] householders living there together with their wives.
Pinkas medinat lita [Minute Book of Lithuania]
Year (5)388 – 1628
No. 134. No man calling himself self-respected Jew shall make it his custom to drink in the houses of the gentiles by in any circumstances under the punishment of a fine and a threat that his shame will be announced publicly.