[Page 24]

The institution of “HaKahal” (the audience) in Slonim from the end of the 16th century onwards. - The maturity of the management of HaKahal in the difficult tests. - The reflection in the “register of the state of Lithuania”. - Slonim in the “state accounts.” - Slonim as an organic part of Lithuanian Jewry. - Participation in the expenses of Rozhnoi's plot - Expenses on “tyrannical corrupted people.” - The poll tax as a demographic measure. - The movement of the Jewish settlement in the city in the years 5480 - 5521. - The number of the city's Jews according to the census from 1766. – The dependence of the sub-communities in Slonim. - Dealing in agriculture. - Reb Binyamin Wolf and his son Shimon of Darevna. - Reb Ya'akov of Rahatna.

The researcher of the history of the Jews of Lithuania, the enlightened Russian historian Professor Bershadsky adequately defined the ways of the creation of the “HaKahal” in Lithuania (and in Poland), as we knew it during the period of the Jewish autonomy in the 17^th-18^th centuries, that is, “HaKahal”, as an autonomous body that governed and regulated the internal life of the Jewish population in each city and town began to take shape, when it was assigned by the central authorities of the state through the Central Jewish Committee, the duty (or the right) to carry out both the assessment and the internal distribution among the members of the community of the total amount of state taxes that the “HaKahal” must pay, and the collection of these taxes.

According to this historical definition, the “HaKahal” institution existed in Slonim as far back as the end of the 16^th century, during the period in which the Lithuanian Jewry was part of the Five Lands Council, when the Slonim Jewry paid its taxes through Brisk to the treasury of the Council of the Five Lands (as we saw above in the 5383 Committee in the register of the state of Lithuania, the payments of Slonim were even before 5383).

We saw above, how during the first twenty five years of the existence of the “Lithuanian State Committee”, from 5383 to 5408, “HaKahal” institution in Slonim stood firmly and respectfully in front of all its public functions: We saw it collecting and disbursing to the treasurer of the committee, centrally and punctually, the government taxes (“Pogolovani”, “Pobrotani”, “Podimani” and others) and the Jewish taxes (“sums”); We saw it appointing as the head of the rabbinate a qualified and great in Torah scholar from the city, and in this it seemed to establish a tradition and a level for the rabbinate in Slonim; We saw it, recently, erecting a magnificent temple, a religious center , which in the discussed period and in the periods that followed it was much higher than that, since it served for hundreds of years not only as a central and representative synagogue, but also as the main social and cultural center of the community members.

Indeed, the intensification of the “HaKahal” institution in Slonim for about 70 years, from the beginning of its formation in the eighties of the 16^th century until 5408, occurred during the time of the growth of the city and the settlement as well, under favorable economic conditions and political circumstances of years of relative peace and rights protected by the kingdom. Therefore, with the turn for the worse that began in 5408, with the wave of decline that came both at a sudden and at a great pace due to riots and wars, and at a slow pace due to economic depression, impoverishment and conditions of constant provocation on the part of the clergy and the townspeople, - one could assume that all these negative factors would have a negative effect on the autonomous of the cell of the self-government, on the institution of “HaKahal” and will weaken its structure and the degree of dual discipline, both of the members of the congregation towards it and of itself towards the central autonomous committee.

But it is without a shred of truth! This hypothesis has no factual ground at all. Once again, the meaning of the “it is time of trouble for Yaakov”, and it was precisely through calamities and decrees that Israel's unity was strengthened at the times of the difficult trials. And most importantly, to the extent that the existence of the independent government depended on purely internal factors, Jewish autonomy proved its vitality, and the “HaKahal” in Slonim also stood up to all the murky upheavals and fulfilled its duties in full.

On the contrary, the leadership of the community in Slonim proved its full maturity in the tests of Jewish solidarity that it encountered. And as the hostile atmosphere worsened, the recognition of the common Jewish destiny and the duty of mutual aid increased in Slonim and in the area. - Since the blood libel in Rozhnoi, when all the communities in the surroundings sent financial aid for the affected settlement, - to the first local institutions for the mutual aid of Slonim Jews, that we know of, which were: the “Society Gemiluth Chassadim”, and later “Bikur Cholim”, which were established back in the thirties of the 18^th century by the rabbi of the community at the time, Rabbi Asher.

Of all the committees of the State of Lithuania^[150]), - which were 32 in number, - that took place after 5408, and in which Slonim and the nearby settlements appear in the accounts and in connection with other matters; Of all these committees covering 111 years, starting with the committee in 5410 (1650) and ending with the last committee (before it was dispersed) in the year 5521 (1761)^[151]), that is, during the entire period of decline and depression which has already been discussed in the previous chapter - one uniform and continuous testimony stands out about the continuity of the “HaKahal” institution in Slonim in fulfillment of its national and civic duties.

In almost all state accounts, in which the various communities were listed based on the tax rates set for them, in all the “reisters” (lists of taxes and amounts), in all the “tarifahs” (lists of assessments) from the poll tax, in all the “sums” that were “made and done”, in all the debt notes given to the “debtors” of the “state”, (that is, to the creditors of the Central Jewish Committee), in order for them to be settled by the communities to which those who hold them were directed, - the Jewish community of Slonim appeared in all these levies and provisions immediately after the 4-5 main communities, and after it were the constant and faithful companions, that followed it, the communities of Dvortz and Zhittel, Muchet (or Mochid) and Palanki, Mosh and Stalavich, and… the rural communities in Deravna and Rahatni…

And so, we see Slonim and its surroundings and all the sub-communities that were depended on it, as an organic and active part of Lithuanian Jewry within the legal framework of the State Committee, as the settlement's taxes and payments

[Page 25]

flow into the central treasury and help to balance the general Jewish budget for all its needs and obligations.

Indeed, in difficult times, the payment dates were delayed more and more, that the desire to repay at their fixed time stood out even before 5408, and Slonim is also not absent from the lists of the debts, “that the communities and the settlements and the districts remained indebted to the state because of collections”^[152]). The appearance of Slonim in this debt list is becoming more and more frequent, as impoverishment increases and the settlement sinks into debt and usurious interest rate loans.

But, on the other hand, Slonim always responded promptly on times of trouble and distress, even without being asked for it by the committee. This is learned from the register of the state of Lithuania, - as already mentioned above, - that when the Jews of nearby Rozhnoi were in great danger because of the blood libel that came as a surprise, the leaders of its community tried to save the defendants in the “conventional” way and faced large expenses, several nearby communities sent them a large sum, three thousand gold coins, “for their expenses in dealing with their false blood libel”^[153]). Although there is no detail of these communities, we have no doubt that Slonim, as the closest community and as the district community, which was expressly authorized, 25 years before, according to the regulation of the Saltz Committee from 5394^[154]), to be the “head of the district” and spend funds on its own accord for “expenses to prevent revenge for the murder plot“, - Slonim sent financial help to Rozhnoi, as soon as the bad news about the plot arrived.

This is the only way to explain the wonderful fact that despite the difficulties and hardness, in the middle of the waves of depression, “HaKahal” suddenly turned from being a debtor to being the creditor of the State Committee, for we learn that in the year 5433 (1673), a few years after the Rozhnoi plot, an instruction was given by the State Committee, “to repay the Slonim community the amount due to it from the state, a total of nine hundred and thirty-six gold^[155])”.

“HaKahal” responded to all the committee's requests with both regular and one-time fundraisings. Thus, for example, in the years when the state committee was deeply in debt, in the year 5462 (1702), “when the distress and troubles fell on the whole the entire country, and the expenses and bribes were increasing… and there were also expenses for tyrannical corrupted people,” Slonim was a partner to the poll tax, which was specially founded for that purpose^[156]).

The same committee imposed on “HaKahal” in Slonim 150 sums for participation in the effort expenses involved in the Sejm seat in Warsaw. Chomsk Committee on 5465 (1705) shares with it the expenses due to a committee government that took place that year. According to the Harodna Committee on 5491 (1731), the Slonim community paid five hundred gold coins to a creditor on behalf of the State Committee, Pan Braukovski^[157]).

However, the leaders of the “HaKahal” in Slonim were on guard for the needs of the entire people of Israel, and did not cease to keep an eye on every seat of the Sejm that were held in the city, because in these meetings of the representatives of the Szlachta (nobility) from all parts of Lithuania, always floated and aroused matters and questions, on which the peace of Israel and the fate of Israel were dependent. And so, also in the penultimate Sejm meeting in the year 5444 (1684), the leaders of Slonim had expenses related to it^[158]).

In his introduction to the book “Register of the State Committee of Lithuania” that was edited by Prof. S. Dubnov, the editor wrote, that the complicated state accounts that fill the minutes of the committees for all the years of their meetings, i.e., for 140 years, constitute a distinct statistical historical material for assessing the size of the communities and their relative numerical importance within Lithuanian Jewry. But unfortunately, the lists, the registers and rates of all taxes of all kinds, and especially the sum, that is the tax for the committee's expenses, do not indicate absolute numbers but relative values, and they are so obscured and were edited with defects and flaws by the committee's scribes during the different periods, or were copied with disruptions in the various versions of the register that have reached us, which makes it very difficult to interpret, decipher and draw clear and visible conclusions.

Nevertheless, one should not be deterred by the difficulties, and the great Jewish historian advises the researchers of the various communities to continue to make full use of this material, despite the unclear discrepancies.

Indeed, in the light of this recommendation, the writer of these columns tried to do his best and extract from this complicated and ambiguous material the most benefit in order to clarify obscure chapters concerning Slonim^[159]). Thus, according to the changes that took place from one committee to the other in the assessment of the amounts and the poll taxes on the one hand and the state of the debts on the other hand, it was possible to follow the financial situation of the “HaKahal” Committee in various ways as well as the demographic changes in the town of Slonim and its surroundings.

Here, in this compact monograph, we will provide only a few relative numbers about the stages of the decline in the size of the Jewish population in the first half of the 18^th century, which was caused by the migration of many residents to the nearby towns and villages due to teasing of the city's residents, as well as by the extreme depletion of the city, - the decline was slower only with the improvement of the situation in the fifties, it stopped completely in the sixties and during the Oginski period, in the seventies and eighties, it turned to a rapid increase of the Jewish population.

Based on the assumption that the poll tax (“pogolovani”) and its division between the different districts and communities is the most tested measure for a relatively correct assessment of the size of the communities, - since the state committee, without a doubt, divided the tax between the communities according to the lists of persons of each community, which were submitted to it by each committee by the heads of the districts.

At the beginning of the 18^th century, until the Amador Council in 5480 (1720), Slonim's share in the annual poll tax of 60,000 gold coins for all Lithuanian Jews, was at the rate of 1,800 gold coins, that is: 3 percent of the tax (the estimate of the Brisk Council in 5473 – 1713 at the rate of 1400 gold coins, as the share of Slonim in “pogolovani”^[160]). It can be seen that the share was independent of the size of the settlement, and must be tied, without a doubt, to the very precarious financial situation of the “HaKahal” at the beginning of the century as we saw above from the lawsuit filed by the Zhirova Monastery in 1711).

From 5480 (1720) onwards, the “Pogolovani” in Slonim decreased at a constant rate for thirty years, until the beginning of the fifties (5512 - 1752) and then moved to a gradual increase according to the data in the following table:

[Page 26]

Table A. The relative changes of the Jewish settlement in Slonim in the years 5480 - 5521 (1720-1761)

The committee's place and the convergence year	The period between the current and the previous committee	The number of years between the current and the previous committee	The number of years between 5480 till the current committee	Slonim's share in the poll tax *	Slonim's share in the tax of the relevant committee	The value of the decrease in the population in relation to its size in Israel	The decrease (-) or increase (+) rate in relation to the previous committee	The decrease or increase rate for each year between committee to committee
Amador 5480	-	-	-	1800 gold coins	3%	-	-	-
Chomsk 5481	1720 – 1721	1	1	1700 gold coins	2.8%	6.6%	-6.6%	-6.6%
Chomsk 5490	1721 – 1730	9	10	1600 gold coins	2.7%	10.0%	-3.6%	-0.4%
Harodna 5491	1730 – 1731	1	11	1550 gold coins	2.6%	13.3%	-3.7%	-3.6%
Chomsk 5499	1731 – 1739	8	19	1400 gold coins	2.3%	23.3%	-11.5%	-1.4%
Chomsk 5500	1739 - 1740	1	20	1400 gold coins	2.3%	23.3%	0%	0%
Mir 5512	1740 - 1752	12	32	1466 gold coins	2.4%	20.0%	+4.3%	+0.4%
Slutsk 5521	1752 - 1761	9	41	1560 gold coins	2.6%	13.3%	+8.3%	+0.9%

From this table we see that the decrease in the years 1720-1750 was greater and more profound than the increase in the years 1750-1761 and that during the period of the decrease, there were years when the population decreased in 6% in one year. In contrast, the annual increase until 1761 does not exceed 0.9% per year.

There is not surprising, then, that at the end of 120 years, from 5408 - 5409 until the Oginski period, the Jewish community in Slonim found itself retreating in all respects, especially in terms of the size of the community and its general status. Not only did it not have any natural population growth for 120 years, but it also decreased a lot.

The tracking of the population and the changes in its size according to estimations of the “Pogolovani” tax ended in 1761. Three years later, in 1764, the state committee was dissolved, and Jewish autonomy in Lithuania came to an end. Since then, we again have no Jewish data of the period in question, according to which we can determine relative estimates regarding the size of the settlement, its increases or decreases.

But in 1766, two years after the dispersal of the state committee, the first official census of the Jewish settlement in Lithuania was conducted. This commissioner came to fill the void caused by the dissolution of the committee, since it was made according to the decree of the government's “Skarbovian Committee” (a kind of financial council by the “Podskarbi”, the Minister of Finance), for the purpose of determining the poll tax directly by the authorities (and not through the ”state committee”, as was customary since 1623, and which ceased to exist). Therefore, it is possible that a certain part of the population escaped being registered, but one should not exaggerate the assessment of this part, which can be estimated within the limits of a quarter to a third of the population.

According to this census, the number of Jews in Slonim in 1766 reached 1,154 (including the small “Perichalki” Jews in its vicinity)^[161]). After adding 30% on account of the aforementioned presumed escape from being registered, we will obtain a number that is very close to the reality of 1,500 people.

But we must not forget that it contains, according to the explicit determination of the census operators, the communities and small settlements in the vicinity. This is, of course, not the reference to the independent communities such as Zhittel, Dvortz, Darchin, Rozhnoi, but to the tiny settlements: Helinki, Ozrenicha, Kozlowshchina, etc., and the rural settlements Rohotna Deravna, Rudy and many others, which depended on the Slonim community.

As mentioned above, these settlements grew at the expense of their main community. From the estimates of the approximate numerical ratio between the urban and rural population within the Jewish settlement in Lithuania at that time, estimates known to us from various sources, this ratio was at a rate of 1:2 (that is, the rural Jewish settlement in Lithuania constituted in the second half of the 18^th century, about a third of the total Jewish population in the country). The term “rural” also included the settlements that are half urban, half rural, and in the case of Slonim, it also included in that period settlements such as: Helinki, Ozrenicha and Kozlowshchina.

From this it can be concluded that the number of living Jews in Slonim in 1766 reached approximately one thousand people.

The twenty years of prosperity of the city and the Jewish settlement under the Oginski administration, in the years 5532 - 5552, were enough to increase the number of community members again. The settlement grew at an accelerated rate due to the addition of Jews from other cities in Lithuania as well as from the vicinity of the city itself, who moved

[Page 27]

to Slonim following the opening of new horizons for livelihood, with the opening of the Oginski Canal.

In 1797, two years after the annexation of the area to Russia, the population census was conducted again, for the first time by the Russian government, which had begun to establish itself in the country. According to this census, the population in Slonim and its surroundings was 1360 people^[162]), that is, with the addition of about 30% of residents that were not registered, the number reached about 1800, about a quarter of them were in the rural and urban environment, and about three quarters, or about 1400 people were in Slonim itself, that is, about the same number it was before 5408.

With this it should be noted that the relative value of the Slonim community in relation to the entire Lithuanian Jewry has decreased dramatically since 5408. According to the share of Slonim in the poll tax in the register of the state of Lithuania in different periods and at different meetings, Slonim was approximately 3% of all Lithuanian Jewry. In the Amador Committee in 5480, Slonim still paid 3% of the general Jewish “Pogolovani” in Lithuania. Together with the entire surrounding area, as well as the rest of the communities and the addition of the sub-communities that depended on it (Zhittel, Dvortz, Polonka, Muchet, Mosh, Krashin, etc.) and the rest of the smaller settlements, the settlement of the Slonim district, which overlapped in its area the boundaries of the Slonim “Poviat” at the time – reached to six percent, and together with Rozhnoi (which was an independent community) to eight percent of all Lithuanian Jewry.

But this ratio has decreased over time. While the accepted estimate of the proportion of the Jewish population within the borders of Lithuania at the end of the 18^th century was a quarter of a million people, the settlement of Slonim in 1797 was only 0.6% of it, and together with the settlements that were dependent on it, only 4% of the entire Lithuanian Jewry.

To what extent all the communities and sub-communities listed above were dependent on Slonim (at least administrative dependence regarding tax payments to the state committee) we learn from a small detail provided as a side note in the register of the state of Lithuania. This register does not usually talk about the way the taxes were collected by the communities and especially who did it in the small settlements. Whether it was a local tax collector who acted on behalf of the community council on the spot, or an emissary collector from a more central settlement, and also who would put the “contributions” from the small settlements into the coffers of the state committee. But in one of the committees, the state scribe said that the sums owed by Polonka to the state were twice paid by a public emissary from Slonim^[163]).

From another section of the register of the state of Lithuania we also learn that the Slonim district served as a single territorial unit, and all the settlements located in it were subject to all the expenses of a “mamzer” (that is, expenses caused due to blood libels, “that a mamzer was found to be in some place, and God forbid, the plot was made on an individual or a several individuals”)^[164]).

According to the data in the register of the state of Lithuania, there were almost no cases in the Slonim district of breaking the yoke and breaching the general Jewish discipline, either towards the district community or towards the state committee. But one case recounted in the register of the state of Lithuania is unusual and interesting in several respects. And this is the case:

At the beginning of the 17^th century, Jewish tenants and bartender lived in the large village of Darevna next to Slonim. Over time they established themselves and formed a sub-community. From the relative assessment of the “sum” tax in the year 5444, it is possible to determine the size of this rural Jewish settlement at the end of that century: the “sum” tax of Darevna is exactly 10 percent of the tax which was imposed on the “Slonim community with the surroundings”^[165]). According to the estimated number of people living in Slonim with the surroundings in those years, it is possible to estimate the settlement of Darevna at the end of the 17^th century at 120-150 people, or about 25-30 families. The obvious conclusion from this calculation is that at that time the Jews were engaged in this village not only in bar tendering, leases, holding mills and similar rural livelihoods, but also in actual agriculture and various crafts, since even in such a central village, such as Darevna, it is impossible that there was room for more than two bar tenders and two or more three families dealing in leases, mills and the like. Also, there was no place for permanent haggling, since this village did not become a town in the sense of the economic structure of those days and remained a purely agricultural unit until recently. Hence, the settlement in Darevna, as well as the settlements in other villages in the vicinity, such as Rohotna and Rudi, which also had a considerable Jewish population, were not counted as semi-towns, but carried a distinct rural character, to the extent that most Jewish families engaged in agriculture, and perhaps also in crafts such as tailoring, etc. In this rural settlement, the wealthy bartender or lessee family of Reb Binyamin Wolf of Darevna, stood out, who according to all signs was not only the head of this community and its representative in relation to the “HaKahal” in Slonim and the state committee, but also served as a kind of local philanthropist, that handled himself all the needs of the public. In the same “sum reister” list, in which all the communities that carry the tax payment appear by their names and without any reference to their leaders or heads, in regard to this rural settlement, the community itself appears sometimes by its name sometimes its head Reb Binyamin Wolf of Darevna, is the main taxpayer of the tax amount on behalf of his community^[166]) (By the way, this detail sheds light on the patriarchal relations that prevailed in the 17^th-18^th century in tiny settlements, when the head of the community was its speaker and bigwig, and carried alone the burden of the entire public).

Reb Binyamin Wolf and his son Shimon were very esteemed and highly respected in the eyes of the “Rozni generals” and the state committee, to the point of raising them to the rank of a… general (and as we know, the state register writer used such titles and nicknames such as these in a very stingy way). And not without reason: because the state committee, which was in debt, received a loan from him in the amount of seven hundred goldens polish coins^[167]). But it quickly becomes clear that these rural generals knew not only how to be kind to the people of their community, but also firm towards others. The loan to the state carried a benefit, since the state instead of paying interest on the loan exempted the lender from all taxes and levies until the next meeting of the committee; And a stipulation was made, that if the state does not pay off its loan in the next committee, then the exemption from taxes will be extended even after the committee^[168]).

Three years later, in the Krinki Committee in 5447, the debts to Reb Shimon of Darevna, his father's, Reb Binyamin Wolf, and the exemption from taxes, “according to an agreement made with him”^[169]). But in the sums and reisters lists from the Chomsk Committee in 5451, there is no mention of the levy on the general of Darevna, and the committee does not mention if and when the debt was paid. However, four years later, in the Olkeniki Committee in 5455, Reb Shimon appears in the assessment of the amount and in the list of those who have to pay in nine installments the debts of the state committee according to promissory notes

[Page 28]

held by the creditors^[170]). Hence, the loan was repaid between 5451 and 5455.^[171]

But in the Seltz Committee in 5460, the loan of Rabbi Shimon of Darevna, which the committee owes to him, is mentioned again, but this time in the amount of a thousand gold coins^[172]). Did the committee need a new loan, or was the assessment of 5455 unjustly imposed? - In any case, twenty years later, after Reb Shimon's death, his son and heir, Reb Wolf, claimed to return the loan, and since he was not responded by the committee, this grandson, who was the grandson of the founder of the Darevna dynasty, rebelled against the committee and avoided paying any tax whatsoever. The state committee in return forcefully demanded from him to bear the burden of the public, together with all the people of Israel. Since the loan was given about 40 years ago, and the editing of the accounts in the state register was apparently not done in the best way, it was difficult for the committee to be convinced that the loan was indeed not repaid on time, and it demanded that Mr. Wolf substantiate his claim by inventing evidence. The deterioration of the events that turned into a scandal, is reflected in the record of the Harodna Committee in 5491: the committee's representatives demanded Reb Wolf to pay his taxes, but he relied on the record in the state register in the Amador Committee in 5480 and refused, he and his son as well as his “sheinkar in the village of Sievitch (which is next to Darevna) to pay any amount and even poll tax”^[173]). The committee sued him in court. Reb Wolf did not respond, despite the fact that a previous arbitration recognized half of his claim. The committee's emissaries demanded him to appear before an arbitration of a rabbi and two judges, and if not, - “then the selected counts will have the authority to register it in the “tariff reister” for both the sums and the poll tax”. This time Reb Wolf of Darevna got furious and apparently insulted and cursed the state committee in such expressions, that the writer of the committee refrained from putting them in the state register “out of courtesy” … (“and Reb Wolf's answer was epicurean and cannot be written”)^[174]).

The subsequent committees do not reveal what happened at the end of this complicated and unusual affair (although in the last committee, Slutsk 5521, the loan from 75 years ago is still mentioned, which means that Reb Wolf persisted in his rebellion)^[175]).

We have brought up this episode in particular here, as it is exceptional and is a unique case (except for the above-mentioned Zhittel case) of a conflict on the part of a community or personality in the Slonim district with the state committee, from which it can be learned about the general rule, that the main community in the district and the sub-communities that depend on it acted with discipline and respect before the supreme institution of Lithuanian Jewry.

A second rural settlement near Slonim that rose to the status of a sub-community because its name was explicitly raised and did not enter into the casual definition of “surroundings”, is the settlement in the village of Rohotna (called Rahatni in the register of the state of Lithuania). Similar to Reb Shimon the general of Darevna case was the case of Rahatni general, Reb Ya'akov, the head of the “HaKahal” that paid the sum taxes for the settlement. He always paid the sums and the poll taxes exactly. By the way, Rohotna did not rely solely on its head, and at various times it appeared in its own name, as a taxable entity^[176]). This settlement was not smaller in size than Darevna: in 5473, it paid a poll tax at the rate of approximately 10% of the poll tax that was imposed on Slonim. According to this estimate, even in the 17^th century there were about 100 people, or about 20 families, in Rohotna, most of whom were engaged in agriculture. Starting with the Vilna Committee in 5470 and onward, Rohotna belonged, according to the state reister lists, to the surroundings of Dvortz, and the name of Reb Yaakov of Rohotna floated up from time to time^[176]).

Similar settlements with Jewish farmers arose in other villages around Slonim: in the settlement called in the register of the state of Lithuania “small Palanke” (near the village of Palanki)^[177]), in the villages of Vedavitz (near Rohotna)^[178]), Koivavits (near Mosh)^[179]) and more Darchin and Kosova were also at that time accounted as sub-communities with a more agricultural character than a town. Proof of this, that Kosova was already considered a sub-community with their own rabbi, we find that the register of the state of Lithuania mentioned the name of the rabbi of “HaKahak”, “Reb Mendel of Kosova^[180]).

Notes:

150. The reference is both to the committees that appear in the register of the state of Lithuania, published by Dubnov, and to those mentioned in the “supplements and additions to the register of the state of Lithuania”, published by Israel Heilperin. Return
151. And these are the committees: the committee in an unknown place in the year 5410, Chomsk Committee in 5412, Saltz Committee in 5415 and 5422, Zablodavi Committee in 5424, Chomsk Committee in 5427, Saltz Committee in 5430 and 543 , Zablodawi Committee in 5436, Chomsk Committee in 5439, Saltz Committee in 5444, Krinki Committee in 5447, Chomsk Committee in 5451, Olkeniki Committee in 5455, Mir Committee in 5457, Saltz Committee in 5460, Mir Committee in 5462, Chomsk Committee in 5465, Brisk Committee in 5473, Vilna Committee in 5474, Warsaw assembly in 5477, Amador Committee in 5480, Chomsk Committee in 5481, Horodna Committee in 5487, Chomsk Committee in 5490, Horodna small assembly in 5491, Chomsk Committee in 5499 and 5500, Zelua Committee in 5508, Mir Committee in 5512, Slutsk and Nashviz in 5521. Return
152. For example, in the Chomsk Committee in 5412, section 501; Saltz 5415 section 525; Zablodawi Committee in 5424, Section 580, Saltz Committee in 5444, section 799; Mir Committee in 5462, section 57 (Heilperin) and more. Return
153. See Saltz committee in 5422, section 553. Return
154. Saltz committee in 5394, section 296. Return
155. Saltz committee in 5433, section 706. Return
156. Mir Committee in 5462, section 57 (in the supplements and additions to the register of the state of Lithuania, of Heilperin). Return
157. The register of the state of Lithuania, Horodna small assembly in 5491, section 946. Return
158. Ibid, Saltz committee in 5444, section 799: “The holy community of Slonim owe… and after deducting an amount of 85 for Shimkash. Return
159. All the references from the register of the state of Lithuania concerning Slonim, with a special introduction on the taxes and the amounts that the community paid to the committee, as well as statistical tables on the assessment of the taxes and the relative size of the Jewish settlement from 5683 to 5521, - I published in a special monograph: “The settlement in Slonim and the State of Lithuania”, intended for the “sources volume” of the “register of Slonim and its surroundings”. Return
160. The register of the state of Lithuania, Brisk Committee in 5473, section 60 (Heilperin). Return
161. See Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, entry Slonim. Return
162. Ibid. Return
163. The register of the state of Lithuania, Zablodawi Committee in 5436, section 735: “Palanki 58 from the sums… after Reb Moshe Shatz from Slonim repaid 15 golden coins … ”. Return
164. Ibid., ibid., section 725. Return
165. Ibid., Saltz committee in 5444, section 799. Return
166. Ibid., see Saltz Committee in 5433, section 706; Zablodawi Committee in 5436, section 735; Chomsk Committee in 5439, section 772 and more. Return
167. The title of “general” was given to them by the Saltz Committee in 5444, section 799: a sum of 74 on behalf of the general, the honored Rabbi Reb Shimon Binyamin Wolf of Deravna. Return
168. Ibid., Ibid.: “And the Honored Rabbi Reb Shimon is exempt from the sum of the state and from all the other taxes, whatever they may be, and the the Honored Rabbi Reb Shimon cannot claim profits from the above-mentioned”. Return
169. Ibid. Krinki Committee in 5447, section 28 (Heilperin). Return
170. Olkeniki Committee in 5455, section 48 (Heilperin). Return
171. Ibid., Saltz Committee in 5460, section 908; Also in the same committee, section 55 (Heilperin); Chomsk Committee in 5465, section 59 (Heilperin). Return
172. Horodna small assembly in 5491, section 944. Return
173. Ibid., ibid. Return
174. Slutsk Committee in 5521, section 951. Return
175. Brisk Assembly Committee in 5473, section 60 (Heilperin); Saltz Committee in 5460, section 906; Vilna Assembly Committee in 5474, section 62 (Heilperin). Warsaw Assembly Committee in 5477, section 63 (Heilperin); Comsk Committee in 5499, section 80 (Heilperin) and more. Return
176. Reb Yaakov Rohotner is also mentioned in the Saltz Committee in 5460, sections 55, 56 (Heilperin); In the Amador Committee in 5480, section 941; In the Chomsk Committee in 5481, section 74 (Heilperin); In the Horodna Committee in 5487, section 77 (Heilperin). Return
177. Heilperin: Chomsk Committee in 5499, section 80; Chomsk Committee in 5481, section 64, Chomsk Committee in 5490, section 78; Horodna Committee in 5491, section 79; Chomsk Committee in 5500, section 81; Slutsk Committee in 5521, section 949. Return
178. Slutsk Committee in 5521, section 87, 88 (Heilperin). Return
179. Ibid., Ibid. Return
180. Saltz Committee in 5460, section 56 (Heilperin). Return

  Slonim, Belarus     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page

Copyright © 1999-2024 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 04 Apr 2023 by JH