Beer & Backroom Politics? Jewish Alcohol Production in Lublin and Its Litigation

Scholar: Mikol Bailey Year: 2025

Introduction

Polish State Archive in Lublin (APL), Castrensia Lublinensia: relationes, manifestationes et oblatae (CLRMO) 29, 632–633v.

APL, Akta Miasta Lublina 178, 4.
Appears in Jan Riabinin, Materiały do historii miasta Lublina, 1317-1792, (1938), no. 369.

A conflict emerged in the 1590s over the issue of Jewish alcohol production and sale between Lublin Jews and the burghers of Podzamcze, the suburb where the Lublin Jewish community lived. Podzamcze, whose name in Polish means “under the castle,” was under the private jurisdiction of the Lublin starosta, a royal official based in the castle who was responsible for the Lublin castle court, among other official functions in and around Lublin. 

Podzamcze burghers insisted that alcohol production and sale was their exclusive right, while Lublin Jews argued that their privileges allowed it. Representatives of Podzamcze’s burgher community began appearing before the Lublin castle court in 1593 with complaints that members of the Lublin Jewish community were illegally brewing and selling alcohol. These lawsuits came after the burghers of Podzamcze had won their own rights to brew and sell alcohol, which had been contested as the exclusive rights of the burghers of Lublin itself. 

The lawsuits of the Podzamcze burghers named the Lublin Jewish community as the defendants—a common practice in this period. Indeed, the lawsuits were being filed on behalf of the government of Podzamcze. Frequent recurring lawsuits had no demonstrable effect, as the individual Jews who were named in the suits as being the ones to engage in this practice were observed violating the decisions of the courts on many occasions by functionaries of the castle court, who served as official witnesses. The Lublin Jewish community justified this by arguing that the privileges given to them allowed Jews to engage in the alcohol trade, while the Podzamcze burghers defended their hard-won rights to exclusive alcohol production and sale in Podzamcze. 

The first document under consideration, “Polish State Archive in Lublin (APL), Castrensia Lublinensia: relationes, manifestationes et oblatae (CLRMO) 29, 632–633v,” is a report by the starosta of Lublin on his decision to establish a commission tasked with reviewing the privileges of both the Lublin Jewish community and burghers of Podzamcze. Ultimately, the commission established a compromise that would fit both the dietary restrictions of Lublin Jews, while protecting the Podzamcze burghers’ monopoly of most alcohol production and sale in the city. Lublin Jews were allowed produce and sell wine to other Jews and buy barrels of beer from burghers to sell smaller amounts to Jews but were forbidden from other alcohol production and sale. Despite this, Lublin Jews continued to produce and sell alcohol beyond the limits of the compromise, and the matter escalated further. 

The second document, a copy of the 1596 decision of the Royal Assessors’ Court, was written in the name of King Sigismund III Vasa. It decided Podzamcze burghers’ lawsuit against the Jewish community of Lublin was invalid, since illegal brewing was “customarily done by individuals,” rather than the community as a whole. This decision referred future infractions to be tried at lower competent courts for each offense. A separate case from the Royal Assessors’ Court sentenced named individual Jews to hefty fines, though the principle that the Jewish community could not be held responsible for this appeared to be a large win for the Lublin Jewish community. 

Source 1 Translation

Polish State Archive in Lublin (APL), Castrensia Lublinensia: relationes, manifestationes et oblatae (CLRMO) 29, 632–633v.

Mandate to the Jews from the Lublin Starosta

Appearing personally before the office and present starostan records in the Lublin Castle, the General Minister (woźny) of the Kingdom, the provident [burgher] Andreas Dąbrowa, well-known to the present office, with the nobles Stanislaus Dobruchowski and Stanislaus Bujnowski for himself, because of which and more evidently witness of all, in the force of his true and faithful report by him, everywhere making and recognizing it openly and publicly and manifestly, he testified that he had publicly brought the letters in three places under the Lublin castle and for due notice that the same letters were affixed to the gates of the city gates near the castle for himself. He presented a copy of these letters to the record, the content of which is as follows:

Jan Firlej from Dąbrowica, the Crown Treasurer and Lublin Starosta, declares to all and to each of the ones who need to know, namely the Jews of Lublin, that at the urgent request and frequent pressuring of the  burghers of Lublin Podzamcze, who recorded to complaining with a letter to His Majesty the King about the Lublin Jews, that they, contrary to their privileges and freedoms in violation of common law and the customs of other cities, dare to bake bread, distill vodka, and brew mead and beer in their homes or, having bought these things elsewhere, sell and trade these things in their homes and on the market square, to the great insult and detriment of the food of the Podzamcze burghers for which their complaint is made; His Majesty the king deigned to give me his mandate to defend them in this matter and to restrain the Jews from this; while being on the other hand often asked by the Jews to confirm their privileges and to preserve them, not wanting to make any pre-judgement to either side, I wanted in the first place to see the privileges of both sides and consider what they have in their own right and how they agree in common matters, and if one side was using such privileges and it would be against this one, in order that I could better know, in this defense of the Podzamcze burghers and [its] execution, how I should act; for this purpose, I called some prudent men of the noble estate and their names are: Their Honors Sir Stanislaw Mełgiewski the Lublin Deputy Land Judge, Sir Piotr Strzebosz, and Sir Marcin Sarnecki the Jews’ Judge observing and we especially call him so that the authority of His Grace the Lublin Wojewoda over the Jews in this matter may not seem to be prejudged as to what will happen in this [case] Thus, separating and considering of the privileges of both sides first relative to the common law, which clearly has in it that Jews cannot trade in any goods for transport(?) for safety (food?) to the burghers, which is proclaimed constitutional law by the lower Sejm, so that the Jews, despite the pact that they have with the burghers, they should not deprive the burghers of their trade nor interfere with them, and specifically they are forbidden to keep inns or trade salt, from where this means that if there is any trade, especially inns and cooking for Christians those things that are for eating and drinking, whose right is the common brewery’s and also in all the cities of the Polish crown it appears that Jews do not occupy themselves with selling such things; then I looked at their privileges, which, although they permit them the displaying of foodstuffs and showing it among themselves, in this context, they clearly do not have the right to enjoy common liquors although these privileges do not include anything about bread or spirits in themselves and furthermore, one commissioner’s decree, which grew between them and the Lublin burghers in obstinancy/contempt of court, on which they do not sit anymore, although it allows(?) the buying and selling of liquor to burghers in the hall(?) it adds that it has is to be between them alone and that food should not be sold to other people, only to Jews, whose privileges they did not challenge, because no Jew has had a brewery in his home until now, and it has only been a few years since they started to brew alcohol in this way that the Jews being lessees of such incomes from the castle, they did not forbid bread (?) also like they themselves do not bake bread for common sale, again the Podzamcze burghers showed such privileges to whom His Majesty the King, under Magdeburg Law, has deigned to allow all kinds of trade and crafts, and in all from the second city of the Polish crown some burdens which are due to the castle having been imposed upon them, He also equalized what happened to the townspeople of Lublin, who, when they did not allow them to use this freedom, won by a decree from a court dispute. Having carefully considered all these matters and having carefully considered them, such spirits would be contrary to common law and Christian propriety and a great disgrace and deprivation of the livelihood of the Podzamcze burghers who here only brew beer and distill spirits, they provide, bringing to the execution of the common law and mandate of His Highness the king, I declare this to all the Lublin Jews and I admonish them with this, my letter, not to brew alcohol or distill such alcoholic beverages in the houses of the Lublin suburbs, so that they would not dare to distill vodka in their homes, nor to trade in it, and they should not bake bread to sell to Christians, since it is the bakers’ domain but they should not use the same food. They are therefore allowed to make and brew mead for their own home needs, since they keep their honey red(?) and they can sell it to no one else, only to other Jews. They can also sell wine, which they Jews make among themselves. 

What about the baking of bread, [making] beer and [distilling] spirits in the same way as the main roads in the towns? They should meet their needs by obtaining and buying these things from Christians. However, there may be certain people among them who would buy beer barrels, quarts of spirits or pottage from Podzamcze burghers, rather than from foreigners, and sell them only to Jews, not to Christians , in small amounts. There should be no tavern or inn there, so that only Jews shoud take beer and spirits to their homes in everything, so that the Jews diligently observe all the things that Jews are forbidden to sell and consume.

Given in the Lublin castle on the 24th day of the month of May, in the year of the Lord 1594.

Source 2 Translation

APL, Akta Miasta Lublina 178, 4.
Appears in Jan Riabinin, Materiały do historii miasta Lublina, 1317-1792, (1938), no. 369.

Sigismund III, by the grace of God, etc. We signify by Our present letters which are of interest to all and everyone.

According to Our Court and Citations of Our letters, the faithless and unbelieving seniors and the whole community of Lublin Jews living in the Lublin Castle Suburb [Podzamcze] have been sued, therefore, concerning all the goods of those ones according to the insistence of the townsmen, the hereditary mayor (wójt), lay-judges (ławnicy) and the whole community dwelling in Lublin Podzamcze, Because these ones, in contradiction of Our brought-forward Decree between these same parties, nevertheless do not cease even to brew all alcohols, like mead as well as beer, spirits, and all types of liquors, and truly to sell alcohol to Christians beyond the order of Our same decree; [in]to the great financial loss and against the precedent of the same plaintiffs, just as the aforementioned lawsuit/judgement testifies/bears witness more broadly maintaining the assessed 10,000 marks from the aforementioned things concerning/for those ones (i.e., the Lublin Jews). And so, at the end of today, from the same happening lawsuit, and so far the plaintiffs united by the Noble Mikołaj Witkowski, [the lawsuit] having been truly filed by the honorable [burgher] Jan Grad, their plenipotentiaries, [the plaintiffs] are appearing before Our same court and calling into question that limit. And from their plaintiffs the lawsuits happening and so far continuously from the lawsuit regarding selling alcohol truly filed for them[selves] alleging that in Our court/jurisdiction the court is not competent. We with Our counselors and parties of the law with it having supported with evidence, because a whole community is not able to violate the aforementioned decree on preparing alcohols; in fact, private individuals are in the habit of making this (i.e., alcohol). Therefore, we find that the case is not currently in a competent forum before our court, and we decree that the same summoned persons, each of them, must be brought before a competent court by virtue of our present Decree. 

In which matter Our faithful seal is affixed. Given in Warsaw on the nearest Friday following the Feast of Saint John the Baptist [June 28]. In the year of our Lord one thousand, five hundred ninety-six.


Source 1 Original

Polish State Archive in Lublin (APL), Castrensia Lublinensia: relationes, manifestationes et oblatae (CLRMO) 29, 632–633v.

Mandatu[m] iudeis a Cap[i]t[ane]o Lublinen[si] 

Comparens p[ersona]l[ite]r cor[am] off[ici]o et act[is] praesen[tibus] Cap[itanea]libus in Castro Lublinen[si] M[iniste]re[a]lis G[e]ne[ra]lis Regni providus Andreas Dąbrowa off[ici]o praesen[ti] bene not[us] cum no[bili]bus Stani[slaw]o Dobruchowsky et Stani[slaw]o Buynowski sibi propter in cuius et evidentius  testem o[m]niu[m]  adiunct[um?] in vim suae verae ac fidellis rell[ati]onis per eum ubivis locor[um] facien[s?] et recognosden[s?] palam pub[li]ce manifesteque recognovit se l[ite]ras introcontent[um?] in tribus locis sub castri Lublinen[si] publice se (?) et ad debit[am?] noticiam  deduxisse easdemque l[ite]ras valuis portae civitat[is] prox[im]ae castro pro se affixas esse Quarum l[ite]rarum copiam suae exemplar ad acta praesen[tia] porrexit earum r[ati]o tenor est talis

Jan Firlei z Dąbrowicze podskarbÿ Coronni i Lubelskÿ Starosta wsem wobecz ÿ każdemu zosobna komu tho wiedzic nalieży a mianowicie Zydom Lubelskiem oznaÿmuię, isz za pilną prozbą a czestem nabieganiem mieszczan Podzameczkich Lubelskich ktorzÿ uczeklÿ sie zlistem do krolie ie[go] mośczy skarzęcz się na Zÿdÿ Lubelskie że oni przecziwko przÿwileiom i wolnoscziąm ich nad prawo pospolite ÿ nadzwyczaÿe insich miast ważą sie chlieba piekacz gorzalki palacz miody ÿ piwa w domach swich warzicz albo tesz the rzeczÿ skadinad kupiwsÿ oni w domach swich ÿ na rinku przedawacz ÿ senkowacz ku wielkiemu ubliżeniu ÿ uÿmi zewnosczy thich tho miescząn Podząmeczkich za którą ich skargą kroł Jego Mości dasz raczil do mnie mandat swoÿ abÿm o nich w teÿ mierze bronil i ÿ Zidÿ od tego chamował Będącz zasię z drugie ÿ strony od Zidow często prosonÿ abÿm przywileie ich potwierdzil ÿ przy nich o ne zachował nie chczac zadneÿ stronie praeiudicium jakie[g]o uczinicz chcialem pierweÿ przÿwileie obudwu stron widziecz ÿ one uwazicz czo w sobie maią ÿ iako ktore sprawem pospolitem zgadzaią się ÿ ieslÿ ktora strona tak przÿwileiom bÿla urzewaniu a tho dlia teÿ przÿciwnÿ abÿm mogl lepiey wiedziecz iakobÿm sie wteÿ obronie podząmeczkich miescząn ÿ exequutieÿ zachowacz miał do czego liudzÿ niektorich bacznich Slacheczkiego stanie przÿzwalem a mianowiczie Ich mo[s]czy Pana Stanislawa Melgiewskiego podsedka Lubelskiego Pana Piotra Strzebosza ÿ Pana Marczina Sarneczkeigo Sendziego Zidowskiego przestrzegaiącz ÿ thego osobliwie zwiemÿ abÿ zwierschnosczÿ iego mosczy Pana Woiewodÿ Lubelskiego nad Zidamÿ steÿ miarÿ niezdalo sie praeiudicam iakie odem nie dziacz w tym Thedÿ rozbieraniu ÿ uwazaniu przywileiow obudwu stron pierwszÿ wzgladnich na prawo pospolite ktore iasnie tho w sobie ma isz Zidzÿ nie mogą wseliakÿmÿ towarÿ kupczicz dlia odwizez Pewnosczÿ miesczanom ktore prawo constituczianÿ poslednieÿ semÿ declarowane iest tak abÿ Zidzÿ mimo pakta ktore z miaski maią kupiecztwa miesczanom nie odeÿmowaly anÿ sie im  bawilÿ a mianowicie karczem zakazano ÿm brzÿmacz ÿ solą kupczic skad sie tho znaczÿ isz ieslÿ ktorego kupiecztwa thedy ossobliwie sinkow ÿ gothowania dlia chrzesciąn tich rzeczÿ ktore do iedzenia ÿ piczie i iakzą prawo iczu pospolite browÿ czo thesz ÿ wewsitkich miesckich Coronÿ Polskieÿ zaskownie sie isz się Zÿdzÿ przedawaniem takich rzeczÿ niebawią Potym przÿpatrzalem sie przÿwileiom ich, ktore aczkolwiek obieszawanie ziwnosczÿ ÿ ukizanie ieÿ miedzy sobą im pozwalaią wsali ze the[g]o nie maią wÿraznie abÿ moglÿ senkawÿ pospolitewÿ się bawicz o chlebie iednak ÿ o gorzalcze nicz the przÿwileie mianowiczie w sobie nie maią ÿ owsem ieden decreth komisarskÿ ktory miedzÿ niemÿ a miesczanÿ Lubelskiemy in contuma[cia]m urosl na ktorÿm sie onÿ na barzieÿ sedzą aczkolwiek iem dopuscza kupowania ÿ przedawania civien[sibus] liquorem wsali ze thego doklada isz tho miedzy niemy samemy bidz ma ÿ zewnosczy nie ÿnsem ludziom przedawacz iam  dopuście tilko Zidom ktorich przÿwileiów onÿ iednak nie bÿli wazewaniu albowiem zaden Zid browaru w domu swÿm do tego czasu nie ma gorzalkÿ zasz przepalanie do nich od kilku dopiero lath we sto bÿm sposobem isz  Zidzi arendarzamÿ takich proventow od zamku biwaiącz onÿm tego nie zabrąnialÿ chlieba tes iako ÿ onÿ samÿ wiznawaią  na przedawanie pospolite niepiekają przywileje zasz miesczanie podzametczÿ takie ukazaly u ktorik Je[g]o M[o]scz[i] krół prawo Maÿdeburskie onem  dawsÿ wseliakich kupiecztw ÿ rzemiesz onÿm dopuscicz raczil ÿ we wsitkiem zdrugïemy miasti koronnÿ Polskyei niektore onera ktore zamkowÿ naliezą na nie włoziwsÿ zrownał czo thes y na miesczanach miasta Lubelskie[g]o gdÿ iem theÿ wolnosczÿ uziwacz niedopuscili przesz dekreth ex controversia vigralÿ Thÿm thedÿ rzeczom wsitkÿm przypatrziwsy sie ÿ uwarziwszÿ u siebie dobrze isz takie senkÿ ÿ prawu pospolitemu ÿ przÿstoÿnosczÿ chrzesczianskieÿ przecziwnoscy ÿ wielką uÿmą ÿ odieczie zewnosczÿ miesczanom podzameczkiem ucziniliby ktorzÿ thu tilko warzewem piwa a paleniem gorzalkÿ zewnoscz swą nawieczey opatruczą przÿwodzacz do exequuczieÿ prawo pospolite ÿ mandat krolia Je[g]o M[o]sczy oznaÿmnie tho Zidem wsitkiem Lubelskiem ÿ napominąm themu ninieÿsym  pisaniem moiem abÿ sie niewalslÿ  browarow smikniey  [nie] warzicz anÿ wsutakich trunków w domach sub[urbio Lublinensi] senkowacz takzeby sie mowazily u domach swich gorzalkÿ palcz zwycpalą (palcz) anÿ ieÿ kupowacz skad uradna sich  takze abÿ sie nie machili  chlebów piekacz na przedawanie chrzesczianom gdis tho piekarzom nalezÿ w by iednak zewnoscz ich samich nie zatrudniala sa thedÿ tego się ich pozwale abÿ miod na swą potrzebę domową sobie sicziz ÿ warzicz mogli gdis onÿ stronÿ warzenia miodu czerwonÿ swich przestrzegaią a w sakze go nikomu insemu iedno swÿm Zidom przedawacz maią takzeÿ wino ktore samÿ Zidowie sprawiaią miedzy sobą senkowacz mogą 

Czo sa bicze chleba piwa ÿ gorzalky thÿm sposobą iako ÿ w drogich glownich miesckich potrzebÿ swe opetrowacz maią zebÿ tich rzeczy od chrzescziąn dostawaly ÿ kupowaly mogą iednak miecz pewne ludzie miedzÿ sobą ktorzibÿ od miesczan podzameczkich anis  od zadnich ludzy obczich piwo beczkanÿ gorzalkę kwarthamy albo garczamÿ kupowaly a zas Zidom tilko a nie chrzesczianinom miarami przedawaly w sakze tham nie karczma iaka anÿ dom senkowÿ bidz ma abi tilko Zidowie piwo i gorzalkę maią sobie bracz do domow swich wczÿm wsitkiem abÿ sie przerzedzeni Zidowie pilnie zachowaly na powinąm ÿ przestrzegam pod ubeczeniem wysitkich tich rzeczy ktorich sie Zidowie nad tho zakazanie przedawacz ÿ senkowacz wiczli 

Dat[um] na ząmku Lubelskiem Dnia XXIIII Miescącza maia Roku panskie[g]o M.D.XCIIII

Source 2 Original

APL, Akta Miasta Lublina 178, 4.
Appears in Jan Riabinin, Materiały do historii miasta Lublina, 1317-1792, (1938), no. 369.

SIGISMUNDIS III Dei gratia etc. etc. Significamus praesentis literis Nostris quorum interest Universis et Singulis. 

Citatos fuisse ad Nos Judiciumque Nostrum literis Citationis Nostrae Perfidos et Infideles Seniores totamque Co[mmun]itatem Judaeorum Lublinen[sium] in Suburbio Castrensi Lublinen[si] habitantes de bonis illorum omnibus Ad Instantiam Famatorum Advocati Scabinorum, totiusque Communitatis in Subcastro Lublinensi degentium propterea. Quia illi in Contrarium Decreti Nostri inter easdem partes prolati omnes liquores tam mulsi quam Cerevisiae, vini adusti et omnis generis liquores nedum coquere, Verum et hominibus Christianis ultra praescriptum eiusdem Decreti Nostri propinare non desinunt, in gra[ve dam]num et praeiudicium eorundem Actorum prout Citatio praefata tax[at]am Decem Millium Marcarum in se continens latius de praemissis  testatur. In Termine itaque hodierno ex eadem Citatione incidenti et hucusque continuatis Partibus Actorea [sic] per Nobilem Nicolaum Wytkowski, Citata Vero  per Honoratum Joannem Grad Plenipotentes suos coram Judicio Nostro comparentibus eumque Terminum attentantibus. Et Actorea ex sua Citationes inciden[tes] ac hucusque  continuate Citatione propinen[tis] Citata vero’ sibi forum in Juditio Nostro competens non esse allega[n]ti. Nos  cum Consiliariis et Juris partes Nostris eo attento, quod tota Communitas, contra Decretum praefatum in conficiendis potabilibus peccare non potest siquidem hoc privati facere solent. Ideo Causa huic forum competens, ad praesens coram Juditio Nostro non esse adinvenimus, decernimusque eosdem Citatos, et quemlibet eorum in foro competenti esse conveniendos praesentis Decreti Nostri vigore mediante.

In cuius rei fidem sigillam Nostrum praesentibus est appressum Dati Varsaviae Feria Sexta post Festum Sancti Joannis Baptistae proxima. Anno Domini Millesimo Quingentissimo Nonagen[s]imo Sexto…