[Page 79]

VII. Vine and Wine

In their capacities as owners of vineyards, middlemen and traders, the Jews played a significant role in growing of grapes and the production of wine. The reforms instituted by Joseph II, it will be recalled, afforded freedom of choice in place of residence, except for the mining towns, opened up most fields of economic activity and bestowed the right to study in the schools. This state of affairs existed in Zemplén as well but great uncertainty followed the death of the ruler and during the period 1791-1819, no less than sixteen measures, at times one contradicting another, regulated the status of the Jews with regard to vineyards and the production of wine. The law of 1840 provided for considerable relaxation and there was equality of rights thereafter.

The Jews of southern Zemplen, the grape and wine area, were not a homogeneous social unit. To a large and growing extent, they were prominently involved in the wine business but among them were also many peddlers, petty merchants, artisans who were not accepted as members of the guilds, and tavern keepers. The latter occupation, of course, was associated with the wine business. The wine dealers, the brokers, the lessees and the vineyard owners were wealthy persons who did business on a large scale. Some of them came from Bohemia and Silesia with the poorer Jews came from Poland and Galicia and engaged in the other pursuits mentioned above. The latter were distinctive both in dress and in manner of living, and were not only persecuted by the authorities but also subjected to intolerance on the part of their own co-religionists who sought to prevent their settlement in the county. One example recorded in 1770 noted that “the Jew Abrahamovics, who had come from Poland, is penniless and homeless. He is therefore banished from Mad after having made many enemies among the Jews because of his actions”.

As early as 1737, the county had intended to bar Greeks, Armenians and Jews from dealing in wine except for those who possessed Polish passports and had come to obtain kosher wine. This regulation was well known and it was cited as late as 1840. At the outset, the Jews were mentioned together with the other peoples but with the passage of time, these others were gradually pushed out by competition and their importance in the wine industry diminished considerably. Laws which enabled free trade were enacted in the days of Joseph II and the historian, Antal Szirmay of Zemplen, who was also an authority on viniculture, commented that during the time of the king, when trade in the asu grapes was

[Page 80]

open to all the local population, had suffered no harm at all; to the contrary, they had enjoyed benefits. Szirmay was well familiar with all aspects of viniculture and production of wine, as evidenced in his numerous writings on the subject. Following the death of the king, the county renewed regulations which had been in effect during the time of Queen Maria Theresa, mother of Joseph II, according to which Jews were forbidden to deal in wine in Hegyalja. It was further proposed, on the pretext of their cheating, to remove them six miles from the town so that the name and reputation of the wines would be kept unblemished. The responsible authorities were also requested to keep an eye on the crop from the Jewish-owned vineyards, to record it and to notify their superiors. The Jews were particularly forbidden to have any connection with production of the asu wines, even the kosher ones, and they were permitted to make only regular wine. Upon the intervention of the Vice-regal Council, these regulations including the removal of Jews from Hegyalja, were never put into effect and remained a proposed programme only.

The conflict between the Jews and the county under the domination of the aristocrats with regard to the commerce in wine, continued unremittingly from the end of the eighteenth century for the nobles jealously guarded the privileges which they had acquired over many generations. A standard weapon in this struggle was the accusation that the Jews were adulterating the local wine and thus injuring its reputation. In 1798, the county did succeed in instituting marked restrictions and the Jews were in effect limited to the retail sale of wine in taverns. The purchase of asu grapes was forbidden as well as the watering down of the wine by extracting the essence first. The asu grapes had been a central issue for some time because no tithe (dézsma) was payable on them and because the nobles wished to preserve for themselves the right of priority purchase. This was the principal reason why they sought to limit the Jews, who were prepared to pay the peasants higher prices. Forbidden to purchase, lest they get ahead of the nobles, the Jews instead sent Polish nobles to whom the restrictions did not apply.

In any event, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Jews possessed vineyards which were cultivated by them or by hired help. They stored regular wine, asu and its essence in their basements. Some of the wine merchants were local people and some came from Poland. The local Jews were for the most part broker agents (factor) or merchants (kupec) with some Polish Jews also involved. As we have seen, tavern keeping was a common pursuit and the tavern operators sometimes served as wine dealers or even worked their own vineyards. The regulations enacted by the nobles in defence of their own interests could not halt the

[Page 81]

trends toward more liberal commerce and in 1800, Jews were permitted to gather the asu grapes for home use. The ineffectiveness of the county regulations may be seen from the fact that they were constantly being renewed. By 1801 there were no longer any legal obstacles to the making of asu for home use. It is interesting to note that Jews did own vineyards despite the prohibition against this, though it was declared that any vineyards acquired after 1800 would be confiscated and sold at auction, unless the Jewish owners disposed of them earlier. Possession of a vineyard in Hegyalja was forbidden even by leasehold, the only exception being in the northern parts of the county where the wine was not of superior quality.

Regulations and prohibitions followed each other in succession, all requiring sale of those vineyards which had been acquired after the set date. This was the situation even in 1808. As for freedom of commerce, in that year the city of Mad requested that production and dealing in wine be permitted to anyone who could obtain the highest price. This was certainly proof that unhampered trade was not only in the best interests of the Jews but of all, except the estate owners. Since such free trade in asu affected the priority claims of the feudal lords, however, the city's request was rejected. As a result, trade was hurt and Polish merchants no longer came to purchase either regular or asu wine. The county was compelled to repeal the regulations forbidding Jews to deal in this commodity which was so important to the region, and the county assembly admitted, according to an entry in the minutes, that “permission given to the Jews of the county appears to be a helpful act”. Despite this, the county was still on record officially that all vineyards owned by the Jews must be sold and a new date was even set – 1811. On the intervention of the Vice-regal Council, however, this decision was never implemented and a committee was set up to study the situation and take action. Chairman of the committee was Antal Szirmay but he resigned before the year was up apparently because, as an advocate of free trade, he was unwilling to defend the privileges of the nobility. He also opposed encroaching on the rights of the Jews. The matter dragged on and in 1817, the Jews were permitted to buy wine but Jewish vineyard owners were not permitted to make wine. The requirement that the vineyards must be sold was eased unless it could be shown that the proprietor had adulterated wine or had committed other offenses in its production. At the same time, the priority purchase rights of the estate owners were cancelled.

Two years later, the villages in the Hegyalja area requested that the county permit free competition and this was approved. A year later, however, matters were reversed. Jews were permitted to deal in regular

[Page 82]

wines only, and so that the peasant farmers should not be adversely affected, the county ruled that if wine had already been sold, the estate owners could not exercise their priority purchase rights. The result was that Jews were again forbidden to deal in asu or to prepare its essence. It should be noted, however, that this time the regulations made no reference to Jewish owners or lessees of vineyards, and the whole matter was apparently shelved at that time. The masters of the county changed their minds again in 1821. Trade in asu wine was permitted but the production of various wines was forbidden.

Contemporary documents emphasize the isolation of the Jews and their strange speech. The records admit to the existence of discrimination but also refer to the fact that only a minority of Jews were wealthy, while the majority were poor and depressed. The county records did associate the depressed conditions in viniculture with the mass emigration of Jews out of the county, yet the nobles continued to insist on their rights, in the face of the intervention by the Vice-regal Council which represented the emperor's court and not any special interests. Even in these circumstances, the county succeeded in postponing free trade in asu wine for another two years.

In addition to the county and the Vice-regal Council, there were other elements which were involved in the wine trade and in determining the role of the Jews therein. The case in Tallya is illuminating. The nobles of the village in 1825 presented a petition of accusation against Jewish merchants, vineyard owners, agents and tavern operators. They were charged with selling wine of inferior quality, whereas at the same price, the petitioners could have sold the superior wines of Tallya. According to the petition, the wines were stored in the cellars of certain persons who were bribed to spread the report that these were from Hegyalja, and hence of better quality. As a result, the local growers were unable to market their own product, which was indeed of good quality, and the agents were demanding higher fees than usual. The nobles added certain statistical information to bolster their case. They noted that in 1824 there were close to a thousand barrels of asu wine and essence in the cellars of Jews in Hegyalja. The county was on the verge of confiscating this wine and the Jews were able to avert the catastrophe only by hasty appeal to higher authority.

The nobles did not give up. Their representatives who took part in the National Assembly in 1825 were delegated to demand expulsion of the Jews from Hegyalja and to make the area off-limits to them such as mining towns in which Jews were forbidden to live, even under the reforms of Joseph II. The delegates were disappointed and the matter was never discussed. The county was left with no option other than to keep a close

[Page 83]

eye on the Jews in their wine dealings and to seek some pretext to curb them. In 1826, a special committee was set up to investigate the “fraudulent acts of the Jews”. The committee records are filled with accusations and complaints which were never fully looked into. The wicked intentions behind them were obvious, although undoubtedly there were cases in which the charges were justifiable.

One of the oft repeated complaints was that the Jews used to bring wine from other regions and represent it as the product of Hegyalja. Individual cases were cited: Jacob Klein and Samuel Polatschek were accused of making wine mixed with asu in Szerencs and bringing it to Tallya where they sold it as a local product. Tuvya Lefkovics was charged with doing the same thing in Liszka. Since Jews were forbidden to purchase asu grapes, most of the charges against them were based on that violation. Similar false charges were brought against the Jews in Tolcsva and Sarospatak to the effect that they obtained asu grapes from the poor, extracted the essence and mixed the sediment (torkoly) with wine and sold it as grape juice (must) before fermentation. Such actions of course affected the estate owners' rights of prior purchase. Complaint was made that Abraham David of Tallya and others in the village cooked the freshly made wine so as to give it a sweet taste like that of asu and that the middlemen agents took commissions from both the buyer and the seller. Another case cited was that of Ludwig Zimmerman who took seventy florins for a hundred barrels of wine. In Liszka, Samuel Fros demanded two florins commission on each barrel. Many disputes broke out on the problem of refunding of advance payments, and the amount of interest to be charged. In order to incite public opinion against the Jews, a rumour was spread that the prices of wine and brandy were fixed in the synagogue after prayers. Samuel Levi of Tallya was quoted as saying that the Jews of Mad decided in the synagogue on the price of brandy and determined that it should be sold to the villagers for two kreuzers cheaper than to the city people. However, one of the Jews, Solomon Schwartz violated this decision and as a result, was ostracized by the members of the kehilla. He and his sons were forbidden to set foot in the synagogue and he was not permitted to buy kosher meat. County records maintained that it was customary to determine the price of wine in the synagogues of Tolcsva and Sarospatak as well. The Jews of Patak explained this procedure on the grounds that if not for the price-fixing, they would never have been able to make a living as lessees only.

Since asu grapes were always more expensive than the raisins, the vintners used to make wine from the latter as well. This practice served as the basis for accusations against the Jews of Bodrogkeresztur to the effect that they bought wine from the peasants only if they would sell them the

[Page 84]

raisins too and this was harmful to the peasants' interests. Another charge was the slander that the Jews of Tolcsva bought the wine from the vineyard owners and then bargained so well with the merchants that they were becoming wealthy. Could this really have been so? The many bankruptcies recorded in the county archives do not substantiate this assumption. It would appear, from these many complaints and pretexts that the wine business in Hegyalja was at least in part, in the hands of Jews. The city fathers of Sarospatak seemed to confirm this fact when they said that they could produce numerous complaints against the Jews, but did not dare to do so lest the townspeople would no longer be able to sell their wines. Their complaints, in summary, were that Jews bought wine and asu grapes from regions outside of Hegyalja, adulterated the wine in various ways, bought asu grapes and made wine from them and did not act honourably when serving as middlemen. Presumably the non-Jewish merchants and wine producers, who were not subjected to such chargers, were all paragons of virtue.

In 1826, the county again sought to revive the proposal that Jews should be banned from the wine business and that they should be limited to tavern keeping only. The county assembly rehashed all its former decisions and included all the old regulations that had long since been done away with, as if everything were being started afresh. Once again the Jews turned to higher authority and the contrary instructions were not slow in coming. The county appealed and the matter dragged on. Numerous proposals were made, among them to forbid the Jews from serving as middlemen. By 1830, it was clear that there was need to draft general lines for a comprehensive law to govern all aspects of viniculture and the production and marketing of wine. The draft permitted Jews to produce and market wine, and the restrictions referred only to ownership of vineyards. In principle, the county sought in every way possible to deny the Jews the possibility of making a living from wine, but the Vice-regal Council was on guard, and did not permit the adoption of unduly severe restrictions. Consequently, the vineyard proprietors attempted in 1834 to set up the “Hgyalja Wine Trading Company” to control the business. Jews would certainly not have been accepted as members. This attempt remained on paper until 1859.

Despite all difficulties, it was impossible to restrain the spirit of the times. With regard to middlemen, it had been decided as early as 1791 that a Jew could not be a middleman but Jews filled that function nevertheless and regulations were therefore necessary to regulate their activity. In 1835, the county decided that a committee should be set up in each city to select the middlemen and it turned out that two of the nine in Újhely were Jews. A new decision permitted everyone to deal in asu,

[Page 85]

and there was no longer any discussion with regard to Jewish ownership of vineyards. Five years later, every obstacle placed in the path of Jewish economic activity was removed. The county did succeed in delaying the implementation of the law for a short while, but in 1841 the fifty-year long struggle between the county and its Jews came to an end.

The Jews of Zemplen were integrated into the primitive commerce by the end of the eighteenth century and their economic activity proved injurious to feudal interest, including the nobles' rights of priority purchase in the wine trade. The county authorities therefore sought to protect the latter from the competition of Polish, Greek, Armenian, Serb and Jewish traders, this ostensibly in the name of the tax-payers of the nation. As the influence of the Jews in commerce grew, the restrictive laws and regulations referred more and more to them, whereas the traders of other nationalities were quickly afforded equality with the Hungarians. Since King Joseph II had been the one to grant rights to the Jews, though these were curtailed upon his death, the aristocracy could not forget their hatred for the king. They looked upon the Jews as a foreign element, imposed upon them by a foreign king, and this explains the protracted struggle and the unwillingness to accept instructions from the Vice-regal Council which represented the Hapsburg government in Hungary. Nevertheless, the aristocracy had to acknowledge that more than once, during times of commercial crisis, only the Jews were able to be of help, and at such times, for lack of alternative, the county would ease their situation.

As a general rule, Jews were forbidden to purchase asu grapes for this was the preferential right of the nobles but from the point of view of the peasant farmers, it was more advantageous to sell to whoever offered the highest price rather than to serve an employer and sell to him only two or three years later after the wine had aged. The landed gentry sought to lower the prices whereas the Jews always offered higher prices. These were the real reasons for the enactment of the various restrictive regulations and their renewal from time to time. It followed, therefore, that the county preferred to permit the trade in wine but prohibited the Jews from purchasing grapes or even gathering grapes from the vineyards – at most, permitting only the production of asu for home use.

Until the end of the eighteenth century, there were practically no limitations on the purchase and sale of vineyards and Jews acquired such property but with the turn of the century, the county attempted to confiscate or attach these vineyards, or compel the Jews to sell them. All such efforts failed even though the vineyard owners, in defiance of the repeated prohibitions, did make asu wine. As the feudal rights were

[Page 86]

gradually undermined, the idea of free and open trade took root in Hungary and toward the middle of the last century; all restrictions came to an end. The number of Jews increased. There were 1125 Jews in Újhely; the second largest centre of Jewish population was Mad with 800, followed by Tolcsva with 602 and Sarospatak with 405. The total number of Jews in Zemplen was about 15,000. (1)

The former school supervisor, Ferenc Kazinczy, distinguished son of the county, was in close touch with the Jewish wine merchants who frequently visited the beautiful vineyards near the village of Szephalom where his estate was located. In one of his letters, Kazinczy wrote that he endured many difficulties when the administration in Galicia refused passports to Jews to enable them to visit Hungary, and that they were therefore unable to spend their money there. In his opinion, the Jews were experienced connoisseurs of wine and he noted: “I don't want to brag, but a certain Jew told me that this year he has not tasted a wine with better flavour and aroma than this”. On another occasion, he found reason to burst out and complain that a deal had not turned out in his best interest. That, of course, could happen in all bargaining. (2)

[Page 87]

VIII. Toward Integration and Schism

Raphael (Marton) Kestenbaum, who lived in Pelejte in Zemplén County, was a generous soul, an interesting personality, whose fame extended beyond the narrow geographical boundaries of Újhely and even long after the era in which he lived. Born in Poland, he was at first a workingman, then became a lessee, succeeded in establishing himself and became wealthy. He was married twice but had no children and this grieved him deeply. He owned a tavern in Újhely and despite his wealth, lived simply in a modest house. On the Sabbath and on holidays, all work ceased in his home and he scrupulously observed all the commandments but he was not a Hasid. He was not a learned man and knew little more than the proper order of the prayers. He was apparently unable to write. A friendly person, he established good relations with the magnates of the county but was not a follower of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum. He was diligent and thrifty and neglected no details. Hence he took pains to prepare his last will and testament some years before his death and deposited a copy of it in the county archives. When he felt that his end was drawing near, he gave his lawyer, a non-Jew, power of attorney to handle his will. He died in 1829 and his funeral was marked by the same simple modesty in which he had lived. No rabbi or community leaders were in attendance – only relatives who hoped to benefit from his estate. The wealthy man of simple tastes was buried without pomp and to this day, there is no certainty where he was interred. According to one theory, he was laid to rest in a plot in Pelejte. It has also been suggested that his grave was in Újhely, in a field alongside the road leading to Csorgo. It is told that a tombstone was erected in 1856 at the same time that a plaque was dedicated on the school which he had founded. The marker, familiar to all who came from Újhely, remained in place until the community met its bitter end.

The full significance of his will was not thoroughly grasped until the sub-prefect went through it and the text was read out at the county assembly. Three days after his death, the secretary made a certified copy of the will in preparation for its official reading. The document opened with a ten paragraph introduction. The testator first affirmed that he was of sound mind, and knowing that man was mortal, he had decided to bequeath his property. He expressed his gratitude to the county in which he had made his home for forty years and since he was convinced that the Almighty did not distinguish between the different faiths, he sought to give expression to this belief. He bequeathed 30,000 florins to the

[Page 88]

executors of his estate, none of whom were Jewish, for non-recurring expenses; 20,000 florins to the county hospital; 100,000 florins for the establishment of a Jewish school; 100,000 florins for aid to his relatives. These amounts were to constitute perpetual funds of which only the income could be used. He also provided funds to be used in full after his death for paupers and for several institutions. In his will, Kestenbaum endeavoured to give expression not only to his gratitude but also to his desire “to be worthy of being remembers as one who was interested in doing good and in providing assistance without regard to religious affiliation”.

Paragraph six dealt with the establishment of the school. In explaining his motivation, the testator noted that the “increase in the number of thieves and other wicked people who disturb the public peace, is a result of lack of education and study and having observed that in this county the Jews lacked for much, he had decided to correct this shortcoming and thereby transform them into people useful to society….” He believed that the school should be set up alongside the synagogue or connected with some other institution. The executor of the estate together with the rabbi and “two other Jews who in his view are honourable” should so administer affairs that orphans from his family should be educated and enabled to study at no cost. The rabbi of Újhely should be the supervisor of the school, but the formal records and the financial accounting should always be in cooperation with the executor. In the event that the supervisor was not the rabbi, he must in any event be a Jew and would receive a fixed salary.

The teaching staff would be appointed by the supervisor and the executor who would also determine their salaries. The orphans were to be provided with food, clothing and shelter and if there were not enough orphans from his own family, those in charge could accept other orphans as well. In conclusion, Kestenbaum requested that if the executors should change, final decision and full authority should be place in the hands of the county authorities. It was obvious, therefore, that Kestenbaum was prepared to rely completely on the local officials. This unusual step seems all the more strange since it indicated a desire for integration at a time when Jews still did not enjoy full civil rights.

The famous Jewish school in Újhely, which educated successive generation of young people for 106 years, was thus established thanks to this bequest.

The actual setting up of the school was beset by many problems and obstacles. Circles dedicated to strict Jewish tradition wished to utilize the income from the estate in a different manner, as was indicated in the minutes of the county assembly: “They wish to limit the course of studies

[Page 89]

There almost to Talmud alone and to conduct instruction leading to the training of Jewish teachers and even rabbis so that the school becomes a kind of academy, that is, an institution for the study of Talmud on a high level rather than an elementary school…” (4). the sharp controversy between the two sides in the kehilla continued for about ten years and was reflected in the documentation. It is interesting to note that this took place during the final years of the incumbency of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum. Leader of those advocating use of the income from the estate for the establishment of an elementary school was Moses Schoen who was scheduled to be the supervisor of the school under the terms of paragraph six. Schoen planned a curriculum in which religious and secular studies were equally divided and promised the support of the kehilla so that the new institution “would be able to compete with full-fledged academic high schools (!) in the big cities”. The rabbi of kehilla withdrew and supervision over the school was transferred to a man appointed by the kehilla. It should be noted that this difference of opinion was not mentioned in Rabbi Teitelbaum's book. Yismach Moshe.

Schoen made vigorous demands upon the county authorities to fulfil the terms of the will. He suggested the use of a plot of land near the synagogue on which stood a building which had previously been earmarked for such a purpose. He was so impatient that even before the county made formal decision, he gave instructions to have the structure renovated. The work proceeded rapidly and on October 16, 1838 the school was inaugurated in the presence of county and kehilla dignitaries. Reports of the event make no mention of the presence of the rabbi and it is reasonable to assume that since he had given up the supervision of the school, he was demonstratively absent. The principal address was given by Gabor Matolay, chief county trustee for the school.

The opening of the school served to bring a new class of people to Újhely. The three teachers were disciples of the Enlightenment. Moritz Reiner, who taught Hungarian subjects, also excelled as a portrait artist; Hirsch Schoenman who came from Germany, taught German and Hungarian, had been a rabbi in his country of origin and had published articles in Jewish journals in Germany and Hungary. Supervisor of the school in whom the kehilla had great confidence was Moritz Thoman, a prominent personality, well versed in tradition and an intellectual as well. He performed his duties faithfully till a ripe old age.

The new spirit also brought about changes in the pupil's manner of worship. At Schoenman's initiative, the cantor and congregation prayed together as if a choir. Many parents objected to this procedure and saw in it an “innovation destructive of the Jewish faith”. This occurred in 1840. Rabbi Teitelbaum's last year, and it is likely that he could not take up the

[Page 90]

cudgels because of his advance age.

During the first years there were three classes in the school with 40-60 pupils, boys only. The major subjects taught were reading, writing and arithmetic. The religious subjects were taught by outstanding Torah scholars such as Moses Knopfler. Public reaction to the school was cool at first, as indicated by the fact that out of some 300 children of the appropriate age, only about one sixth were enrolled, whereas the remainder studied in the traditional heder as had been the custom for generations.

The regulations making education compulsory were fully implemented in Zemplen from the beginning of the forties. The question then arose as to whether the kehilla should set up a separate school, or expand the existing one; this problem was rife for more than ten years. It should be borne in mind that compulsory education applied to the girls too. At first the Jews in two districts – Bodrogkoz and Galszecs refused to bear the financial burden, though their sons were supposed to study at that school. Efforts were made to broaden the economic base for support of the compulsory education such as utilization of the funds from the tolerance tax which were returned to the Jews of Zemplen, but circumstances prevented this from being carried out.

Following the death of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum in 1841, the question of his successor arose. His son, Rabbi Eleazar Nisan was at that time head of the kehilla at Sziget and the choice therefore fell on his grandson, Rabbi Jekuthiel Judah who was serving as a rabbi in Poland. His appointment was no sooner announced, however, about a month after the death of his grandfather, that a massive opposition arose. The Mitnagdim, who were apparently a majority in the community, sought to circumscribe the rabbi's freedom of action and to prevent his falling into the net of Hasidism. The terms of the proposed agreement with him appeared to constitute a sharp protest against the whole period of Rabbi Teitelbaum's incumbency and against the customs which he had introduced. Among other things, Rabbi Jekuthiel Judah was asked to worship together with the congregation on the Sabbath and on holidays and not to use a non-Ashkenazi ritual. The money from the Kestenbaum fund, which was supposed to supplement the salary of the rabbi, in accordance with the will, would be diverted to the public treasury and the rabbi would derive no benefit from it; the contract would be for six years only. Further conditions in the agreement served as a kind of threat: “If anyone of these terms should be violated, his appointment shall be terminated and his salary halted”. That was not all. An additional four humiliating paragraphs written in Yiddish so that everyone could understand clearly and without any possibility of misinterpretation, were to the effect that: - the Rabbi was forbidden to conduct certain prayers as was the

[Page 91]

custom among the Hasidim. He must under no condition hand out a talisman, either for a fee or without charge; - he must not curse or despise anyone in his sermons and must never talk for more than an hour and a half (obvious reference to the lengthy sermons of his grandfather). The agreement also fixed his salary and the terms of payment. It appeared, therefore, that although Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum had been rabbi of Újhely for over thirty years was respected by all and was the pride of the community, his methods did not last and Hasidism struck no deep roots in the city. There were those who said that at that time Hungary was no place for Hasidism. The great centres of that movement developed east of Újhely – in Sziget and Munkacs. (5)

Rabbi Jekuthiel Judah made no great efforts to live up to the terms of his employment. He did not participate in the synagogue services but worshipped at home in a separate Sephardic-Hasidic minyan (quorum for prayer), a fact which adversely affected the principal minyan of the kehilla. The community leadership did not side with the rabbi and after six year, he withdrew leaving behind him a divided community. He not only published his grandfather's writings, but later published a number of distinguished works of his own in the fields of Halacha and literature.

Only a few months after the rabbi's departure, the kehilla turned to Rabbi Leopold Loew, then serving in Papa, who was one of the leading advocates of the Haskalah and later editor and publisher of the German language periodical – Ben Chananja – and asked him to recommend a head teacher suitable for the school in Újhely. The very approach to Rabbi Loew indicated the leanings of the kehilla leadership, headed by Israel Berman, who laboured untiringly for the desired goal. The efforts to obtain additional funds to finance the compulsory education continued until 1848. The ensuing political situation made it impossible for the Jewish community to solve its educational problems and the matter was put aside as the Jews of the county were drawn into Hungary's war of independence.

Even since the days of Joseph II, the Jews of Hungary had diligently endeavoured to improve their legal status and above all, to bring about abolition of the heaviest tax of all – the tolerance tax. After much debate and after payment by the Jews of 1,200,000 florins as a one-time settlement, Ferdinand V abolished this tax in 1846. A committee of Jews was chosen to determine the share which was to be paid by each community and the Jews of Zemplen were assessed the sum of 41,072 – one of the highest levies in comparison with other counties. Until all the counties and cities had paid off their share of the impost, the committee remained in effect. Later, after the collapse of the Revolution (1849) a

[Page 92]

heavy fine was imposed collectively on the Jews because of their participation in the revolt, and the same committee was called upon also to decide the allocation of the payments due according to the scale for payment of the tolerance tax settlement. (7)

The Diet (National Assembly) of 1847-48 was on the whole unfavourable to the Jews. It abolished feudalism and all the special rights of the nobility but took no action with regard to the Jews. The right of free residence everywhere was, at first discussed, but the delegates were on the whole opposed to granting equal rights. Louis Kossuth of Zemplen County sought to raise the question of at least partial emancipation in that each individual municipal council would determine who among its Jewish residents would be given the right to vote. The delegates from many counties, Zemplen among them, rejected the proposal. This was the situation of inequality as the significant day of March 15^th, 1848 dawned.

The events of that day in Pest seemed at first to herald a bloodless victory for freedom and liberal principles. The precepts of liberty were summed up in the “Twelve Points”; the fourth of which called for: “equality before the law without distinction as to class or faith”. It seemed to many Jews that there were no longer any obstacles to complete fulfilment of the longed-for ideals and they responded with enthusiasm. To their great disappointment, however, the Diet was dissolved without taking decision. Undoubtedly, this irresolution led to outbreaks against the Jews which resulted in personal injury and property damage in Pressburg, Pest and elsewhere.

The hostility to the Jews found particular expression in forbidding them to serve in the ranks of the National Guard, which had as its primary function, the preservation of internal security. Only when hostilities broke out, and before the establishment of the regular Defence Army (honvedseg), did the Guard engage in battle action. When the situation became critical, the Hungarian authorities no longer hesitate to conscript Jews, and there were even some places where the citizens were not embarrassed to propose that the Jews alone be sent to fight. These incidents did not diminish Jewish patriotic zeal. In Újhely, 100 Jews enlisted in the National Guard and sent on active duty in the Kassa region. Among them were Joseph Frenkel and Rabbi Abraham Friedlieber. The latter had been honoured at his Bar Mitzvah by the presence of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum. He studied at yeshivas and was ordained by the rabbi of Szanto. He never served in the rabbinate but gave halachic decisions when asked. His inclination for “daring” innovations was well known, but he nevertheless frequently conducted services and gave sermons in the synagogue and as occasion offered, was an author

[Page 93]

and poet. He even wrote songs in Hungarian and when the members of the National Guard marched out of the city toward Kassa, they did so to the tune of his songs.

Nothing is known of any incidents in Újhely or in the county as a whole which affected the Jews or prevented their participation in the national struggle. When news came in September, 1848 that the Croats (horvat) had struck deep into the country, new battalions were formed and the kehilla in Újhely provided eighteen conscripts fully equipped at its own expense. A large crowd, singing war songs, escorted them to the camp at Sarospatak. Some of these songs had been written by local Jewish writers. With the formation of the Hungarian Defence Army, the Jews enlisted without further delay. In Újhely, a fourteen-year-old boy, Lajos Tiszti, enlisted. He fought as an artillery man throughout the war and later became a newspaper editor, but the young warrior did not remain faithful to his people. At maturity, he converted.

Precise records were not kept during those critical days. Contemporaries conjectured that there were about 20,000 Jews in the Hungarian Defence Army. It was estimated that the army as a whole was comprised of 180,000 men out of a total of about 10,000,000. If the Jews numbered about 200-300,000 souls, that is about one thirtieth of the population, they provided about one ninth of the army. Kossuth himself reinforced this estimate when he stated: “Twenty thousand (Jews) are fighting courageously in our army” (11). It follows, therefore, that Hungarian Jewry provided in proportion ten times more soldiers than the general population.
This patriotic zeal existed among the Jews despite the fact that they were still lacking in full civic rights, whereas other minorities, who had received full rights, turned about and fought in the Austrian army in the service of the Habsburgs against the Hungarian nation.

Naturally, Jews could not serve as senior officers since they lacked the necessary prerequisites but many attained the rank of junior officers. The register of soldiers then still alive, which was drawn up about forty years after the war, is open to suspicion. There were two lieutenants in Újhely – Moritz Friedlieber and Samuel Jung, corporal (tizedes) Adolf Lederman and three privates – Jacob Goldberger, Lorenz Friedman and Jacob Engel. Occupation of the latter is recorded as – beggar. (12) Vilmos Schwartz, a native of Újhely who was close to Kossuth, had the rank of captain (fohadnagy) and fought in many battles. He became known as a journalist and in recognition of his public service was named an honorary citizen of Újhely. (13)

In addition to their blood and manpower, the Jews also contributed liberally toward Hungarian freedom. The records show that there were

[Page 94]

generous contributions from the kehillas in Bodrogkoz, in the Szerencs region, Nagymihaly, Rakocz, Tokaj and Újhely. In addition to their outright gifts, the Jews of Újhely also loaned substantial sums to the government; loans which, needless to say, were never repaid. The Jews also furnished material and supplies as well as personal equipment for the enlistees in Tokaj and Nagymihaly. (14)

The county was little affected by the actual hostilities. Large Austrian and Hungarian military forces passed through only twice, in the southern portions in Tokaj during the first months of 1849.

Jewish loyalty was recognized only at the final session of the National Assembly on July 24, 1849 at Szeged, when the government was already facing its doom. However, even under such circumstances the proposed law for full and equal rights according to the principles of liberalism was linked to certain conditions. Chief among these was the requirement for inauguration of religious forms in the spirit of the times. These reforms were to have been promulgated by a conference composed of selected rabbis and representatives of kehillas. In August, Hungary fell to the Austrian and Russian armies and the equal rights law was lost.

The victorious regime took reprisal against the Jews because of their role in the war of liberation, though even before the final debacle, communities in the region overrun by Austria were punished. The penalty took the form of a cash fine and the obligation to provide supplies for the army. These collective punishments were in addition to the personal responsibility of individual Jews for their deeds during the short-lived independence of Hungary. Following the crumbling of all resistance, a general edict was issued requiring the Jews of Hungary to pay a fine of 2.300.000 florins on the grounds that: “in spirit and in deeds, the majority of Hungarian Jewry criminally supported the revolution and had it not been for their cooperation, the revolt would never have been able to spread as it did”. The Jews were called on to pay the fine in four annual instalments but the Austrian military regime quickly realized that the Jews would never be able to meet this obligation and the debt was gradually reduced. In September, 1850, the fine was cancelled and the emperor converted it into a fund for the advancement of Jewish education and the creation of a network of schools which Hungarian Jews were to bring into existence within four years. The total amount involved was set at one million florins. The committee which had previously determined the assessment to meet the tolerance tax now fixed the share of each kehilla in the counties for the million florin fund. Zemplen was required to pay 35,000 florins – one of the highest sums among the counties and only a few cities were asked to pay more, among them Pest, Pressburg and the counties of Veszprem, Borsod and

[Page 95]

Nyitra. The fund was to remain intact and only its income was to be utilized according to government decision. The size of Zemplen's share in this fund was indicative of the importance of the county's kehillas including Újhely.

The Jews of Zemplen numbered 25,529 in 1857 according to statistics of that year. A comparison which the previous census conducted in 1850 following the suppression of the revolt, showed an increase of 1337 in the number of Jews, whereas there was a reduction in the number of adherents of other religions during those seven years. For fear of reprisal from the victors, many citizens went into exile, among them Dr. Albert Roth of Újhely who then settled in Algiers. He bore his title by virtue of scientific work in the field of medicine which was published in Pest in 1841.(15) It appears that Albert Roth was the first Jewish physician with a degree in Újhely. (16) Regrettably, no further information has been found regarding his family or his fate.

During the time of struggle for national independence and thereafter, during the Austrian oppression, many development plans came to naught. The improvement and expansion of the Kestenbaum School came about on in 1852 when it was transformed into what would today be called a junior high school, open to both girls and boys. Community leaders who called for general education included Dr. Vilmos Schoen who was also noted for his diligent efforts to improve the plant stock in his famous vineyard at Tolcsva, (17) Abraham Friedlieber and others. Dr. Schoen was actively involved in school affairs for many years.

As the time approached for resumption of the educational programme, job offers for first class teachers were published in such Hungarian and German newspapers as Magyar Hirlap, Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung and others. It seems odd that a school in a small town should have had such pretensions. When the applications were in and the selections made, the teaching staff comprised a colourful assortment of personalities, Jewish and non-Jewish. Emanuel Goldberg, a native of Tolcsva, a pedantic and devoted teacher, was well-versed in Hebrew and in Talmud. Joseph Stern, born in Mad, taught Hebrew and Hungarian. Daniel Eödögh, the non-Jew among them, and occasional journalist and poet, loved and respected by his pupils, instructed in nature studies and geography. Isaac Rosenmayer, born in Germany and a graduate of a teachers' seminary, came to Újhely from Fulda where he taught in an academic high school. He excelled in physics and mathematics, was the correspondent of the periodical Ben Chananja and composed textbooks. When Hungarian became the general language of instruction, he was compelled to leave because of language difficulties. Those who were not accepted included Dr. A. Adler of Breslau and a priest who belonged to the Piarist order.

[Page 96]

The latter was actually accepted but his superiors refused to permit a member of a monastic order to teach in this school.

The school was organized as follows: the lower elementary grades comprised both boys and girls; in the upper elementary classes, the sexes were separated. The academic high school classes were also separated. Pupils who knew how to read and write in Hungarian, German and Hebrew and were satisfactory in mathematics could be promoted from the first elementary class to the upper where studies were continued for two years. It was possible to complete the elementary classes in one year each, but the advanced academic class lasted two years without exception. (18)

The most outstanding of all the intellectual personalities who were brought to Ujhely and helped to mould the character of the Jewish community there was undoubtedly Michael Heilprin. He was born in Poland in 1823, son of a merchant who regarded his business only as a means to enable him to devote his life to the study of Hebrew literature, Bible, Talmud, Maimonides and modern and medieval philosophy. Outstanding among his children was Michael, a prodigy who never went to school but studied at the feet of his father. Michael was a brilliant pupil excelling particularly in Hebrew literature, philosophy and languages. At the age of twelve, he was already writing poetry in Hebrew, Polish and German. Later he studied Latin, Greek, French and English. He was familiar with such classical poets as Homer, Vergil and Horace. He continued to study and learned the Rumanian, Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, Arabic, Syrian and Persian languages.

The family moved to Hungary in 1842 settling at first in Eperjes and then moving to Miskolc in 1846 where Heilprin opened a book store. After only four years in the country, he was already at home in Hungarian literature and published a poem (Zsido Kordal) which gave expression to the depressed political status of the Jews. His store became a gathering place for liberals in the city. His poems in Hungarian appeared one after the other – some of them anonymously. It was not the literary value of the verse which was noteworthy but the fact that their author, a Polish Jew, had assimilated so rapidly as to become a Hungarian poet. He was deeply affected by the fate of Hungary under the Austrian heel and by the growing liberal spirit. In 1847, he translated a well- known poem by Vorosmarty into Hebrew and published it in Vienna. The members of the National Assembly became familiar with his name when the Jewish question was discussed in the Hungarian parliament. Bertalan Szemere, Minister of Interior, esteemed him highly and held him up as an example of rapid assimilation to the spirit and language of the Hungarian nation. Another patriotic poem which Heilprin wrote in 1848 was

[Page 97]

circulated in the thousands of copies. He enlisted in the National Guard and thereafter became secretary of the literary bureau of the Ministry of the Interior. When the national assembly moved to Szeged, he moved with them and was a frequent speaker at public rallies. After the collapse of the revolution, he fled to Paris but returned to Miskolc in 1850. Kossuth said of him: “Aside from me, the best Hungarian of all is Heilprin”. He remained in Miskolc only a short while when he answered the advertisement and was in 1853 chosen to administer the Kestenbaum School in Ujhely.

In order to conform to the requirements he had to study and pass examinations and acquire a teaching certificate, which he did without difficulty. He treated his colleagues with great respect and was held in esteem by his pupils. He held a pedagogical council meeting at his home on a weekly basis at which lesson plans were drawn up for teachers of every subject for the ensuing week. Jewish intellectuals also gathered at his home for a weekly gathering which he addressed. Rabbi Jeremiah Loew was among his admirers. Unfortunately, things did not turn out well between him and the leadership of the kehilla. Perhaps he was simply too eminent for a small town and in 1856, after just two years, he left Ujhely, immigrating to the United States. The twenty-three years he spent there constituted the height of his career. He earned his livelihood from literary and journalistic activity and from his extensive contributions to Appleton's New American Cyclopaedia, of which he later became associate editor. His classic work was The Historical Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews (1879-1880). Despite his activity, he had time to provide humanitarian assistance to Jewish refugees from Russia arriving in the U.S. and to the colony of Hungarian exiles. His two sons, Angelo, born in Ujhely and Louis, born in Miskolc, had distinguished careers in academic-scientific fields.

It is worth noting that Michael, like his father, did not attend synagogue frequently. He indicated his respect for the rabbi by coming to hear his lectures occasionally. He did observe kashrut and during his stay in Paris, became a vegetarian so as not to violate the dietary laws.

Thus the Ujhely community was enriched by the presence of a new type of intellectual who had not previously been known there. The opening of the school in 1852 took place at about the same time that Rabbi Jeremiah Loew assumed the spiritual leadership of the kehilla, after that post had been vacant for five years. During their search for a rabbi, the community leaders had approached the Malbim (Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Jehiel Michael Weiser), a well-known preacher and Biblical exegetist, revered to this day. Aside from his literary prolificacy, he was a staunch opponent of both Hasidism and reforms in Judaism. The very

[Page 98]

fact that the Malbim was invited to come to Ujhely and that he, at first accepted, indicate the trends in the community with regard to those issues which were paramount in Jewish life in the middle of the last century. Under pressure of his community in Kempen, the Malbim turned down the invitation, but sent a letter of apology for having accepted in the first instance. Rabbi Loew, who came from Verbo, was known as the author of a book on Maimonides and was mentioned frequently in response of great sages such as the Hatam Sofer. He was a confirmed opponent of Hasidism and advocated a policy of moderation. Evidence of this was shown at the reception in his honour in the courtyard of the Kestenbaum School, when the rabbi passed between rows of pupils both of that school and of the Talmud Torah, who stood together and shouted their greetings of welcome. From there, he went on to assume his new post at the synagogue. (21)

The certificate of appointment was a literary work of art, produced by Abraham Friedlieber and listed the obligations and responsibilities of both the rabbi and the kehilla. The introduction indicated great expectations: “He is the venerable one whom we have chosen to be our rabbinical authority. We have placed our flock under his direction and he will lead us in the pillar of fire of the faith of our Torah. He will inculcate in our hearts justice, law and the paths of righteousness….” His duties included delivering sermons on fixed holidays, keeping records of births, marriages and deaths and supervising the Kestenbaum School. His salary and terms of payment were set forth and he was afforded the possibility of assistance from rabbinical judges in adjudication. One of his important tasks was to share his knowledge of the Talmud with the young.

The rabbi did indeed set up a yeshiva which eventually reached the level of a preparatory school for the Pressburg yeshiva. There were thirty-one yeshivas of this type in Hungary whose students were exempt from military service. In addition to the one in Ujhely, there were three others in Zemplen: In Tallya under the direction of Rabbi P. Tenenbaum; in Sarospatak headed by Rabbi Isaiah Beyern and in Tolcsva directed by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Glueck. (22) In this way, the rabbis promoted opposition to Hasidism among the Jews of Zemplen together with enlightenment and a moderate modernization which were still deeply rooted in the traditions of the forefathers.

Rabbi Loew played a role in supervising the Kestenbaum School, in conformity with the terms of the will and the wishes of the community. However, the institution was faced with the problem of how to increase the enrolment since many parents still preferred the old traditional heder for the education of their children. The school also began to introduce some of the state practices. Thus in 1854, the teachers and pupils

[Page 99]

inaugurated celebration of the May festival (majalis) closes to nature – this in addition to Lag B'Omer, or did it make any difference? Another revolutionary innovation was instruction in Latin which was taught by the principal Michael Heilprin in the third class of the secondary school. There was still another matter which suggested a synthesis of approaches, together with a most unusual spirit of tolerance. The teacher of nature subjects, Daniel Eördögh, left his position and was succeeded by Benjamin Dul, a Catholic by faith. He worked together with the Jewish teachers and under the direction of the supervisor who was the rabbi of Ujhely.

The committee in charge of the school zealously guarded the institution's independence in the face of government pressure and as an expression of anti-Hapsburg sentiment, refused to give up the teaching of Hungarian history in the Hungarian tongue. Out of a certain spirit of solidarity, the school did nothing to affect adversely the illegal schools, the hederim (zugiskola). (23)

Succeeding teachers who came to Ujhely were for the most part men of letters like Abraham Schreier who published Hebrew verse in various periodicals and Adolph Peisner whose illustrations drawn from Jewish folklore adorned Jewish newspapers. Peisner later went to Galszecs where a Jewish school was set up in 1856. (24)

Austrian absolutism began to weaken at the beginning of the sixties and Jewish hopes for the granting of equal rights rose with the meeting of the National Assembly in 1861. There was a reawakening of life and activity in the county and in Ujhely. Jews already participated in the elections, enjoying both active and passive rights. Jews were elected to the city council and sixteen of them were named by the county as members of various committees, all in the spirit of the emancipation of 1849 which had not, at the time, been implemented. Jewish physicians such as Dr. Schoen, Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Ungar and Dr. Thoman were appointed to various positions and their fame spread. The winds of liberalism blew freely as exemplified in the following instance. Elections were held in Ujhely in 1861 for the senior officials of the county. One of the candidates, who bore a Jewish-sounding name, was warmly received. However, when he asked for a vote and an inquiry was requested, there was bitter disappointment. It turned out that he was not a Jew and his candidacy was therefore dropped. (25) Unfortunately, the correspondent for the periodical, Ben Chananjah, did not report the name of this victim of Zemplen philo-Semitism. He was apparently a man of German descent and hence the error with regard to the sound of his name.

Six years elapsed before precise objectives were defined for the million-florin fund which had been set up for the advancement of Jewish

[Page 100]

education and the establishment of a network of schools. The proposals were listed as a rabbinical seminary and four teachers' institutes with model elementary schools attached; the remainder of the income from the fund was earmarked for the welfare of poor children, the blind and deaf-mutes.

First steps for implementation of the goals on the local scene were taken during the visit of the royal couple to Zemplen in 1861. They came from Italy and the entire southern part of the county prepared feverishly to welcome them. Chroniclers of the time made particular mention of the “victory arch” which the Jews of Hegyalja erected. It was prominently conspicuous from afar and was elaborately decorated in eastern style. When the royal party reached Zemplen border at Tarcal on May 29^th, Julius Weinberger presented a petition which he had composed and written out in German, listing a whole set of reasons for establishment of a model school in Ujhely. He maintained that Ujhely was the closes city to the north-eastern counties which had a thick Jewish population. Zemplen itself had a Jewish population of about 25,000 which was one third of all Jews in the administrative region of Kassa. Ujhely already had a Jewish school, founded in 1838, and it had assured financial support forever. The town's Jewish community was known throughout the county for its devout religiosity and adherence to tradition. Pupils of the teachers' institute would be able to obtain food and lodging among the Jews of the city. Finally, the city would provide a suitable atmosphere for adolescent youth and would protect them from sinful allures more than a big city. The petition, signed by the leaders of the kehilla, went beyond the request for the school and dealt also with general problems of the Jews of Hungary in general and of Zemplen in particular. It noted that the Jews of the county were closely associated with agriculture and viniculture, from the tilling of the soil for the grape vines through to the wine production and the merchandizing which followed. Yet many of them did not possess the right of permanent residence. The petition concluded, in summary, with a general appeal for equality for all citizens before the law.

The request for a model school was granted. About two years later, word came that the imperial Vice-regal Council had approved the establishment of such a school in Ujhely. Nothing further was heard about the request for a teachers' institute. (26)

Israel Singer who was a teacher at the new model school remained in Ujhely and was active there for fifty years. He had a broad education and had studied at Brno University (Moravia) where, among other subjects, he had learned pedagogy. Besides his teaching, he published twenty books on pedagogy and numerous articles. (27) The model school had a difficult

[Page 101]

time with some of the parents who preferred the old-fashioned heder and continued to send their children there rather than to a well-organized educational institution. The community leadership discussed the matter frequently. The religious studies were expanded and they even considered adjusting the vacation schedule to conform to that which was customary in traditional education, that is, in the holiday months of Tishri and Nissan. In any event, the official supervisory authorities were satisfied with the operations of the school. As luck would have it, a fire broke out in the building in 1868 and it was almost completely destroyed. In the deliberations that followed, it was proposed that the religious courses not be made compulsory and thereby appeal to those parents who sent their children to the heder for their religious education. When the school re-opened, instructions were received to discontinue the whole new programme and to conduct it as an elementary school for the kehilla, as designated in the Kestenbaum will. (29)

Elementary schools were established in other communities in Zemplen as at Homonna in the north, where the principal was Dr. Samual Ungar who was well qualified in religious studies and trained in pedagogy as well. The school in Tokaj was directed by Wilhelm Weiss. Both began operations in 1856. Despite the growth of the liberal spirit, and the effort of the Jews to integrate into the life and culture of the host country – or perhaps precisely because of that fact – a blood libel against the Jews was spread in Homonna in 1859, and had it not been for vigorous action taken by the county authorities, the results could have been catastrophic.

The sixties and the seventies were a period of revival for Hasidism after the setback which followed the death of Rabbi Teitelbaum. This revival was to an extent due to the activity of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Friedman, head of the rabbinical court in Liszka. He was the first native son Zaddik in Zemplen, born in Ujhely in 1798. He was orphaned at the age of eight. He studied under Rabbi Teitelbaum and then spent time at the courts of Zaddikim and rabbis in Poland and Hungary, imbibing of their wisdom. Hasidim from all parts of the country turned to him immediately after he had received his rabbinical title. He was a staunch advocate for his people; worshipped God with utter devotion, judged men leniently and feared the Almighty. He published two works; one on Biblical exegesis and the other – sermons and eulogies. His name was mentioned frequently in the response of leading rabbis of the time. He sought to be tolerant and understanding at all times. His followers compared him to the Prophet Samuel and to the High Priest, Aaron. He died in 1874. (32)

Rabbi Zvi Hirsch was an object of controversy. The “progressives””

[Page 102]

whom he never castigated, saw in him a “miracle worker” who practiced hocus-pocus and deceived the common people. The kehilla leadership, headed by Rabbi Jeremiah Loew who was known as a sworn Mitnaged, were not happy with him. The spirit of the times, with equal rights not yet achieved, served to divide and split the community as each group dug in stubbornly and displayed animosity to the other. Each group had its individuals who set the tone for the endless bickering: those in the Hasidic camp were termed “spiteniks” by the write for Ben Chananjah. In his opinion, they were arousing enmities and unfounded hatreds in school affairs. The story was told of one Jew who worshipped at the Bet Midrash, that is, he was not a Hasid, who sent his son daily to the school in addition to his studies at the Talmud Torah to learn German as required by the law of compulsory education. One day, shortly before Passover, the father took the Haggadah in his hands and asked the boy a few questions. The lad answered and quoted several appropriate sentences from the Haggadah in German but speaking them correctly. The father was infuriated. “The child is murdering our language (Yiddish)”, he stormed. The incident illustrated how great was the lack of understanding for the importance of general education or the knowledge of a language.

With the increase in the number of Jews in Zemplen, Hasidism gained in strength. In 1860, Ujhely had 4955 Jews, most of them Hasidim and the prayers in the central synagogue were therefore conducted according to the Sepharadi ritual. The Hasidim were also the majority in Liszka, the home of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch. The situation was different in the northern communities of the county such as Homonna where there were 2505 Jews and Nagymihaly – 2718. The total Jewish population of the county in 1860 was 25,538.

The following incident was characteristic of a place like Tokaj where the Hasidim were in the majority. A learned Hasid in that town chanced to discover that the silk buttons on his kapota (gabardine) were shaatnez (mixed wool and linen threads, contrary to Biblical injunction). The sect was thrown into panic and preparations were at once made for the construction of a factory to produce bone buttons, since otherwise, it would have been impossible to meet the sudden large demand. On the other hand, a delegation from the kehilla in Ujhely paid a formal visit to the college in Sarospatak on the occasion of its 300^th anniversary. A return visit quickly followed from the college there to the Kestenbaum School which had been in existence more than two decades. (34)

The kehilla in Ujhely was already showing clear signs of an internal split. On one side were the Orthodox, who feared the spread of progressive

[Page 103]

principles. The latter wanted a choir in the synagogue and sermons delivered in Hungarian. There was also dispute as to whether the taxes to the kehilla should be by fixed annual payment or by feels (gabella-krupka) to be levied on the members of the kehilla in accordance with services rendered, such as performance of marriages, burial, ritual slaughter, etc. For some reason, the orthodox favoured the payment of fixed taxes, unconnected with services, whereas the progressives favoured the krupka method. (To the best of my memory, this term was no longer used in our time). This difference of opinion was even discussed at one of the county committees at which a doctor, among others, representative of the progressives, maintained that the krupka was an inseparable part of the laws of Moses. A representative of the Orthodox point of view responded with some heat: “How can this krupka-doctor maintain such a thing? Why, he never had in his home even one pound of meat on which the krupka was paid”. (35)

Since it was difficult to ascertain who in the kehilla belonged to one camp or the other, even the rabbi was subject to suspicion by both sides. The differences between the Orthodox and the Hasidim were sometimes blurred. One of the heads of the kehilla, who handled the community's finances and was known as “half a Hasid”, even tried to dismantle the Kestenbaum School. Since he paid the teachers' salaries, he was indeed in a position to do considerable harm. Supporters of the school in Pest hastened to provide both material and moral assistance and saved the situation. (36) The rabbi's status became more and more uncomfortable. His positive attitude to the school found expression in his agreeing to teach the Hebrew subjects in five weekly lessons. This made it easier for the Hasidim to attack him. As might be expected, the pupils at the school could not maintain the same level as those studying at the traditional heder, where the number of hours devoted to the holy studies was almost unlimited. Instruction there took place all week long, from early morning to night and in these subjects along. (37)

Rabbi Jeremiah found it increasingly difficult to maintain a stand between the three major movements. Matters were made even more complicated when a Jewish problem arose in 1864, extending even beyond the immediate contentiousness. This was the acceleration by the imperial Vice-regal Council of the steps being taken for the establishment of a rabbinical seminary. The rabbi was required to take a clear stand despite his desire to steer clear of tensions. The seminary was to be financed, it will be recalled, from the fine imposed on the Jews because of their participation in the revolution of 1848-49. The first reaction of the orthodox began at a secret conference held in Ujhely on March 4, 1864. The five participants were the rabbis of Huszt, Szt. Peter, Szolos, Szikszo and the

[Page 104]

host, Rabbi Jeremiah. Rabbi Hillel Lichtensetin of Szikszo was the most vigorous opponent of the proposed seminary and served as principal spokesman of the conference. The rabbis spent long days and nights discussing the issue, dealing with matters of education in general and the seminary in particular. Without doubt, this conference in Ujhely marked the beginning of Orthodoxy's battle against the Reform movement. At the urging of Rabbi Hillel, six rabbis went to Vienna where they were received by the emperor. Despite his desire to avoid extremism, Rabbi Jeremiah joined the group. As a token of his respect for the delegation, the emperor permitted them to wear head covering during the meeting with him. (38)

Education played a supreme role in Jewish life and the Progressives were amazed at the achievements of the Orthodox and the drawing power of their methods. The Ujhely correspondent of Ben Chananjah lost his temper when he commented that the teacher was creating anarchy in the heder; he was a “crazy Hasid” who immersed himself in the mikveh (ritual bath) five times before the mid-day prayer on Rosh Hashana. The modern Jew was also distressed that the teacher wielded a cane which was not considered a proper educational method yet the heder system continued to attract children who diligently studied Torah and Rashi. What could be done? The Hasidim and the semi-Hasidim simply did not want to study mathematics. (39) The writer probably repressed memories of his own childhood education when he mastered the Torah and Jewish tradition and not in “five lessons a week”.

The outstanding event of the year was the letter sent by Moses Montefiore to the Ujhely kehilla in 1864. The reply was written in Hebrew and in English. (40)

Rabbi Hillel of Szikszo paid his second visit to Ujhely in 1865 on the anniversary of the death of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum. During this mass pilgrimage, which greatly distressed the local rabbi, Rabbi Hillel was the central personality and the chief speaker. The enthusiasm of the throng reached its climax during the third feast of the Sabbath when expiation for their sins was promised to all who partook of the leftovers. One of the local Hasidim, who had distinguished himself for his activities against the “Ashkenazim” (the Orthodox), was given special honour when he was appointed the shamash (caretaker) of the rabbi's home. Rabbi Hillel was considered the most daring of the opponents of Progressivism.

The process which was begun in Ujhely in March 1864 intensified and within ten days, a hundred rabbis assembled in Nyiregyhaza and signed a petition to the emperor asking him to prevent the establishment of the rabbinical seminary. A further gathering of rabbis in November 1865 in Nagymihaly, in the north of Zemplen, set down the principles of

[Page 105]

Hungarian Orthodoxy during this period of liberal change. Although the meeting represented only upper Hungary, its unequivocal decisions couched in the form of a verdict by a rabbinical court transcended limited boundaries. That judgment shaped and defined the forms of Zemplen Orthodoxy including that of Ujhely.

Its major features were: Exclusive use of Yiddish in sermons; the bima (reading stand) for reading of the Torah must be in the middle of the room otherwise it was forbidden to pray there; construction of a steeple over the synagogue building was forbidden; the rabbi and cantor must not wear ceremonial dress (ornatus); the women's section must be enclosed by a grille; it was forbidden to pray with a choir, to answer “amen” after such prayers or even to enter a synagogue where a choir sang. Finally, it was forbidden to change accepted customs. Seventy-one rabbis, equal in number to the members of the Sanhedrin (Supreme Council in the days of the Second Temple) signed the document, thus giving it maximum authority and the judgment was sent to every kehilla in Hungary. Some communities gave it scant attention, but it did contribute to a widening of the rift. In addition to general principles, the conference also discussed contemporary problems such as the rabbinical seminary and the status of the Pressburg yeshiva. The struggle against the liberal Jews by no means tone down the conflicts between the Orthodox and the Hasidim.

The rabbinical conference in Nagymihaly had an additional function – no less important – to delay and perhaps even to prevent implementation of the imminent emancipation. As a result, even Rabbi Jeremiah changed his vacillating attitude. He faced the issue forthrightly and in a call directed to many rabbis, he asked for the barring of the Szikszo rabbi from all conferences and gatherings dealing with equal rights for the Jews.

The sixties was a decade of internal divisions, both nationally and on the local kehilla level. The domestic friction in the religious circles hastened the split between the Orthodox and the Hasidim. The latter had already selected a group of their own leaders as if a first step toward establishment of a separate kehilla. Rabbi Jeremiah, who turned out to be the tragic figure in this complicated turmoil, decided to leave his post in Ujhely and despite his advanced age, transfer to another community. (41) The entire non-Hasidic public was thunderstruck by his intention to resign. A public mass meeting was called and in order to placate the rabbi, it was decided to build a new synagogue instead of that which had been in existence for about a hundred years. The meeting was of the opinion that the many minyanim in various places contributed to the internal disagreements. It was felt that the Hasidim constituted a sort of

[Page 106]

State within the state and of late, they had practically taken over the whole kehilla. The quarrels of their various sects among themselves disturbed community unity and sowed contention and strife. By adoption of these decisions, it was hoped to avert the departure of their faithful spiritual leader.

The leaders of the kehilla were proud of their intellectual rabbi who displayed proficiency in two worlds of thought. He used to explain Talmudic problems in scientific manner including the natural sciences. To be sure, this method of teaching was considered un-Jewish and was viewed with abhorrence by some people. (42)

The schism between the Hasidim and the Ujhely kehilla gradually became a reality and a gathering of community leaders ratified the existence of separate synagogues. The kehilla in Homonna shared the agony of Ujhely and gave expression to its feelings and its understanding while voicing support for the kehilla in the struggle. (43) The threatened resignation of Rabbi Jeremiah and the efforts to prevent it were the talk of the day in the city.

Many of the Hasidim were honestly and sincerely convinced of the justice of their ways but there were also irresponsible persons who did not hesitate to pour oil on the fire even after it was in full blaze. The correspondent of Ben Chananjah narrated the following incident: “A Hasid came to the rabbi's home and greeted him: 'I have heard and I know that you persecute the holy Hasidim' he said, 'and I have decided to dispute the matter with you. But first of all, let me hear something new from the Torah. You should know, however, that I am a complete Hasid and a scholar'.

“The elderly rabbi found it proper to repulse the provocative Hasid and replied: 'I see quite clearly that you are a Hasid since your very appearance gives you away. I am unable to say whether you have the capacity to study and I do not intend to find out. It is quite clear that you are impudent. Leave my home and never cross my threshold again”.

Rabbi Jeremiah agreed to remain on condition that the new synagogue building be put up within three years and the separate kehilla of the Hasidim should be subject to the authority of the central kehilla. The leaders accepted these terms especially since the Kestenbaum fund made resources available to them for construction. (45) The Hasidim refused to be subordinated and demanded complete autonomy. Controversies continued to plague the kehilla. Defamatory letters filled with mutual accusations were sent far and wide and vindictive legal suits were filed. (46) In June 1866 the lot on which the synagogue was to be built was purchased but the Hasidim demanded that the worship there be conducted according to the Sepharadi ritual, as at the synagogue in Tokaj where

[Page 107]

such ritual had been approved by the Ministry of Education.

The new law for equal civil rights was soon to be adopted. The proposal for the law was put forward in October 1867, very shortly after the conciliation between the Austrian ruler and Hungary as a consequence of which independence was granted and the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy came into being. The problem of the status of the kehillas made it necessary to call a General Jewish Congress of the Jews of Hungary to clarify controversial issues and reduce the sharp points of divergence. The question as to which group would administer the kehillas was the major issue. One side was prepared to make certain concessions to ensure full integration into Hungarian society, whereas the other side saw no contradiction between uncompromising devotion to tradition and customs on the one hand and loyalty to the state as free citizens on the other. Open conflict began with the attempt to seize control of the education fund. The Congress was preceded by an assembly of Jewish delegates from the kehilla, called under the auspices of Baron Joseph Eotvos, Minister of Education and Religion, for the purpose of airing opinions on the organization and structure of the kehillas as autonomous bodies, including their schools. Abraham (Albert) Friedlieber represented Zemplen in this assembly. In an attempt to avoid discussion of religious matters, rabbis were not invited but the differences of opinion were so intense that it was impossible to tone them down even without the rabbis. The assembly set up regulations to govern the elections for the Congress and decided in favour of setting up a unified central organization for Hungarian Jewry. Policies for elementary education in the kehillas and the establishment of a seminary for rabbis and teachers were also discussed. The orthodox objected to one central organization and demanded autonomy for each kehilla.

The regulations governing election of delegates to the Congress were drawn up by the lawyer and journalist, Morris Mezei, a native of Ujhely (1835) and a descendant of the teacher and translator “Professor Mordche”. Mezei left the city at an early age and completed his secondary education in Pest. He was associated with Jewish public life, was one of the initiators of the Jewish Congress and was later elected a member of the Hungarian Parliament serving two terms. He was also noted for his proficiency in commercial law. (47)

After an extremely stormy election, the Congress took place on December 14, 1868. At the insistence of the Orthodox and contrary to the original plans, rabbis were also elected as delegates. The Ujhely region was represented by two delegates: Rabbi Jeremiah Loew and Abraham Friedlieber. The original programme for the Congress, as proposed by the preliminary assembly, was not acceptable to the rabbi of Ujhely, and he

[Page 108]

voiced bitter criticism of Morris Mezei. The latter was unable to ignore the rebuke from the city of his birth and addressed a special letter to Abraham Friedlieber. The rabbi did not open his mouth at the public sessions of the Congress and his demonstrative silence was taken to task in the daily press.

The Congress was unable to overcome the internal conflicts. The proposal for organization of the kehillas was adopted when the Orthodox, who were in a minority, walked out. The main bone of contention was the demand by the orthodox for complete autonomy of the kehillas, and although the resolutions were adopted by the majority, The Orthodox refused to be bound by them. Within a very short while, the Orthodox compelled the government to enact a special decree (1871) which in its general lines, was similar to the decisions of the Congress but established that the kehillas of the orthodox organization were based on the Shulhan Arukh, and this alone was their yardstick. No regulations could be contrary to this standard. At the same time, these kehillas could not be considered a separate religion. The schism was complete. One group became known as the Congress kehillas (erroneously called Neolog) and the other were the Orthodox. Most of the kehillas in Zemplen joined the Orthodox organization.

During these stormy times there were some kehillas which did not affiliate with either of these two groups but adhered to the legal status which existed before the Congress. They, therefore, came to be known by the strange name of the Status-quo Ante movement – the status which had previously existed. The regulations and authority of the Congress organization and the Orthodox organization did not apply to the latter group and until 1927, they had no central organization of their own.

The initiator of this idea and creator of the Status-quo movement was Rabbi Jeremiah Loew, head of the rabbinical court in Ujhely. He, who had been criticized for remaining silent during the Congress, was responsible for greater achievement than many who had been extremely talkative. Among other large kehillas which followed Rabbi Jeremiah in his policy of moderation were Debrecen, Nyiregyhaza, Eger, Gyongyos and others in all parts of the country. Rabbi Jeremiah was apparently unable to set up a central Status-quo organization because of his frailty, and he passed away in 1874. His literary legacy was a book on new ideas about Maimonides. He served as rabbi of his community during a twenty year period in which decisive changes took place in the life of the Hungarian community.

Rabbi Jeremiah was succeeded as rabbi of Ujhely by his son, Rabbi Elazar who at first remained loyal to the legacy of his illustrious father in the matter of the Status-quo arrangement, but the anticipated pressures

[Page 109]

were quickly exerted upon him. Conservative circles in the kehilla were supported by prominent personalities, among them Rabbi Moses Ben Joseph Shick (Maharam Shick) of Huszt, the noted opponent of Hasidism in Maramaros county. As might be expected, the records present Rabbi Elazar as a controversial figure. On the one hand, the author of an introduction to his book described him as follows: “Pupils….came to him from all over and he taught them with great diligence. He also administered his rabbinical duties with pride…drawing upon his broad understanding and his zeal to serve all who turned to him… He was head of the Rabbinical Court of the entire community in Ujhely for twelve years. Then there arose a group of wicked, strong-armed men who sought to strike at God's commandments… and the community split…He then set up a kehilla of God-fearing Jews, which is still in proud existence… He remained in Ujhely for only another half-year and then went to Ungvar”. That was one opinion.

On the other hand, Abraham Friedlieber's son wrote in his memoirs about his father, who had prevailed upon Rabbi Jeremiah not to abandon the Status-quo kehilla that it certainly was not beneath the dignity of any rabbi to be at the head of a kehilla of that nature. By way of example, the author cited Rabbi Meir Perles, rabbi in Nagykaroly, an outspoken figure and a prominent authority frequently mentioned in response literature, whose personality lent authority to the new movement. Rabbi Perles was invited to teach Talmud in the rabbinical seminary, but rejected the offer. Rabbi Elazar forbade several ritual slaughterers from carrying on their profession and he became involved in a case concerning a hearse which had been ordered by the Hevra kaddisha (Burial Society). On this immediate issue, the split took place. In a vote, two thirds of the members of the kehilla with the right to vote cast their ballots against him. The minority, headed by Rabbi Elazar, withdrew from the kehilla and in 1886; two kehillas existed in Ujhely – in effect three. As already noted, about half a year later, the rabbi left Ujhely. (48)

Two large synagogues were built in addition to the Hasidic Klaus: the orthodox synagogue, constructed in 1887 with an adjoining bet midrash built eight years later, and the large synagogue of the status-quo community which was dedicated in 1888. Its bet midrash had been built a hundred years earlier, during the time of Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum.

  Sátoraljaújhely, Hungary     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page

Copyright © 1999-2024 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 7 Jan 2015 by MGH