Introduction
These incidents of interpersonal violence were recorded in semi-private registers kept by communal scribes across a period of approximately a decade during the second half of the eighteenth century in the Ashkenazic community of Altona. The Ashkenazic “triple” community, AHW, whose center was Altona, then under the Danish crown, is richly represented by surviving internal and archival records for the early modern period. Portions of these records have already appeared several times in EMW sources. (See Carlebach, EMW 2006; David Horowitz, EMW 2008; Debra Kaplan, EMW 2010; and Noa Shashar, EMW 2010.) The incidents recorded here range in severity. Some appear to be truly vicious acts, called “just short of murder” or “really a murder” in the records. In other cases the imprecise Hebrew verb הכה is used to cover a multitude of meanings: hit, attacked, assaulted, or perhaps, sexually assaulted. The different meanings are not always discernible from the context. The violent episodes usually occurred in predictable ways: as extensions of long simmering disputes over money, over honor, or over professional turf. Sometimes they appear to be expressions of excessive measures to instill discipline or fear as when burghers are accused of “hitting” their maid or men-servants, or when domestic disputes spill over the threshold.
Records of violent episodes that do not end in murder are significant to historians precisely because they depict acts whose memory is most susceptible to disappearing over time: outbursts of quick rage, petty quarrels that sometimes erupt into brawls. Jewish community officials in Altona were particularly sensitive to these incidents as they sought to prove to the local and royal Danish authorities that they could maintain law and order, but the fights themselves were quickly forgotten as soon as they were resolved or emotions subsided. Discussions of interpersonal violence in the early modern period almost always focus on statistics of murder because those are the only incidents that can be tracked through multiple sources and jurisdictions across time. By definition, cases involving homicide would have been brought, prosecuted, and recorded by the non-Jewish court system, leaving a tangible web of records for historians, but lower level encounters tended to leave far fewer traces in records of crime, thus the value of these lower level incidents. The questions I hope to explore today address the meaning of this level of physical violence and the means by which it was addressed. Was violence tolerated as a way of keeping disputes within the community? How did it compare to earlier records and to the larger population in this area? Does it indicate a lack of faith in the Jewish judicial system? Did people resort to violence as the swift and immediate rebuke their opponents deserved but would not get in a judicial venue? Was physical violence in this period as a means of resolving disputes primarily based on class? Was violence primarily the response of lower classes who couldn’t afford to litigate disputes? Did women in engage in the same level of physical violence as men, and if not, how did its expression differ?
The texts that follow are taken from two chronologically contiguous pinkassim, semi-private registers kept by shamashim (sextons) in Altona. The first is JTS ms. 10772. This pinkas is now available in digital form online at the JTS Library website. I have included the image number in citations. The second of these pinkassim is part of a treasure house of sources related to the triple community of Altona-Hamburg-Wandsbek at the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, ms. CAHJP AHW #20. My heartfelt thanks to the directors, Prof. David Kraemer and Yochai Ben-Ghedalia, and the staffs of both institutions for granting me access to these documents.
A later hand has inserted numerical pagination in the manuscripts and I have followed it for ease of use. I present the citations regarding violence in several related clusters. I thank Jordan Katz for her superb assistance with the transcriptions. Translations of the sources are my own.
Source 1 Translation
Preventing violence:
1A: JTS ms 10772, fol 14a, Image 29 :
Today [Friday 16 Iyyar 1766] the lay leader R Hirsch Breslau told me, at the order of the Lay leader of the month R Yokel, to tell the son of Shimon wasser treger that several people are complaining about his wicked deeds, and today he beat the son of Zimle ben Nathan. Therefore another warning from Kahal is issued to him that if any other person, regardless of who it is, comes to complain about him, he will surely go to jail, and there he will eat bread and drink water …There is no excuse in the world [that will excuse him in the future]
1B: CAHJP AHW # 20, fol 12:
Today, Friday, 3 Shevat I was sent by the parnas lay leader R Hirsch [Breslau] to Nathan Halle to tell him that Simon son of Lemel Kiten? gave him and table and a bench, and Nathan refused to return it. Therefore the parnas of the month asks the reason for this. He sends to said Nathan that he is obligated to return the said items to Simon in order to prevent them from coming to blows, for both are hotheads and we are concerned that a dangerous situation will arise.
1C: CAHJP AHW # 20, fol 13a:
Today Monday [10 Nisan 1768] I was sent to Mr Isaac and Mr Ephraim and Mr Ezriel the sons of Mr Michel Wagner to tell them that they should not make any quarrel or feud, and certainly not raise their hands, against Mr Hirsch b.P. Wagner nor against his wife.
1D: CAHJP AHW # 20 fol. 15:
Today Friday 2 Tamuz 1768 I was sent by the parnas of the month to the brothers sons of Michel Wagner to tell them that the servant of R Moshe son of parnas and lay leader R Goetschlick complains about them that they said they wanted to beat the said servant. Therefore the parnas and lay leader serves them a warning that they should not do this, neither they nor via incitement [of others?] [servant changes from male to female during course of the entry, likely a slip of the pen.]
1E: JTS ms 10772, fol. 77r, Image 153:
Today, Friday 17 Tevet [ז”תקכ] I was sent by the lay leader of the month R Hirsch Breslau to Mr Ephraim ben Michel Wagner and also to Ezriel ben Michel Wagner, because their brother Seligman complains to the heavens that they are desecrating God’s name and spoke about Seligman things that are not appropriate, to the uncircumcised, and moreover they want to beat Seligman, as in fact Ezriel has already with the iron axe, and if Seligman had not escaped there would have been a real premeditated murder. Therefore the parnas of the month should send a messenger to them that they should sit and do no harm in the future, by word, by deed, or by lifting of hands (violence) against their brother, and if not they will get a big injunction from Kahal, for there is judgment in the land and if they have a dispute between them they should bring it before the Kahal.
Source 2 Translation
The Shoḥet (Kosher slaughterer)
2A: JTS ms 10772, fol 27a, image 55:
Today, Tues 3 Tammuz [1766] came a writ from the parnas of the month, to tell the substitute for the parnas of the month, that the shoḥtim of Altona came to the parnas of the month and requested a meeting of the Kahal tomorrow because of the incident that transpired between the shoḥet, R Daniel, and Feivish, son of Aaron Levi. In truth, the parnas of the month does not wish to convene the Kahal and cause it discomfort during this heat. Therefore, since the parnas of the month is not present, the substitute for the parnas of the month, with all due respect, should seek to find out about this deed, who is innocent and who guilty in order that they should make peace until the next meeting of the Kahal. Therefore I was sent by the substitute parnas of the month, R Yokel, to the parnas of the month, aforesaid R Hirsch, [to say] that since R Hirsch deals with the sheḥita all year round, lay leader R Yokel requests that he deal with this matter as well because he too is not an insider in this matter. All this I told R Hirsch and I sent a reply to the parnas of the month.
After this, on the next day Wed. 4 Tamuz 1766, I went to the wife of Feivish ben Aaron Levi and also to the elders [?] to warn them that a rumor has reached said lay leader R Hirsch that they want to approach the gentile courts because of the incident with R Daniel. And they should not do this, for justice is to be found in Jewish courts, and there are judges in the land and the truth will emerge, and the kahal wants to find who is the guilty party in this matter. And if they do not heed this warning they will get a big injunction from the Kahal. They responded as one, that heaven forbid, they would not do that, and they also told me of the evil deeds of R Daniel shohet, who committed a real murder, for he came in the heat of a quarrel fuming with rage, with sword drawn in his hand and he grabbed him by the hair and the head and he wanted to slaughter him like a beast, and as any person would defend his life by trading skin for skin, R Daniel went and cut R Feivish in the arm and cut his finger and it was dangling by a hair, and then R Daniel went and threw R Feivish to the floor and broke his leg and after that he took the sharpening stone and rammed it into his mouth causing his teeth to fall out, and if a few butchers had not arrived to save him, R Daniel would have committed murder and he [Feivish] would be gone from this world, and indeed R Feivish has fallen gravely ill and lies in bed in great danger. But the truth will out, that he did not go to gentile court of his own volition but a messenger called Nisperlich came to him and asked him what happened, perhaps the matter came to attention through the ??? who is called von Balen, a burgher of the chamber, for he witnessed the entire deed of R Daniel and he said explicitly that that if R Feivish would not go to the authorities he would go to the authorities to tell them the entire episode, and that is what happened. After this, the parnas of the month sent R Hayyim shamash and me to tell them again in the name of the entire Kahal, and to threaten them, that they should not go to the gentile courts, as above mentioned.
On the same page, the next entry continues the sad spirit of the story, linked in mind of shamash recording it:
2B:
On that very night, Wednesday night, when the wedding of Juzpa ben Ziskind Stern took place, an evil deed was committed at the wedding, called ---hoiz, and one sin leads to another for the evil deed of R Daniel Shohet was already done, and then the box with money for the Land of Israel was taken, and until now we don’t know who did this evil deed, committed on Wed. night 5th Tamuz 1766 in the wedding house during the wedding sermon.
2C: JTS ms 10772, fol 82v, Image 164:
Today, Wed., 28 Shevat [ז”תקכ] R Hayyim shamash sent a writ from the parnas of the month to tell the parnas and lay leader R Hayim Birgel that the wife of Feivish ben Aaron Levi went to the parnas of the month, R Yehiel, saying that her husband was on the page of herem because of the wages of the guard during the time he was ill from the attack of the shoḥet. According to her, parnas Hayim Birgel sent her to the parnas of the month to hear and accept her complaint. The parnas of the month said that from his perspective, a great injustice has been done to put Feivish in herem: it is the same [punishment] as the shoḥet[!]; is it not enough that he [Feivish] suffered literally the five things but he should, in the end, be in herem as well? Therefore in his opinion, the parnas R Hayim should send to the Gab”d (acronym, head of the bet din, used to designate the Chief Rabbi) to remove him from the page of herem until the next meeting of Kahal, for then the Kahal will make the injunction that the guard should be paid. The said parnas of the month agrees to this as well, for there is no meeting of the Kahal now, and next month it will be his turn to be parnas of the month. At that point the parnas Hayyim can present the matter before the Kahal and then they can decide where the money for the guard will come from; in any event he should be removed from the herem, and the parnas of the month agrees that this is the right thing before God and man. To this, R Hayim the lay leader replied that it is lies within lies! The first, that Mr Feivish never stood on the page of herem but on the page of issur. [Second, he was put onto the page of issur] not for failing to pay the guard, but simply because he did not heed the call to appear before Bet Din because every person, no matter what, is obliged to appear when summoned by the shamash of the Bet Din. Since this is a matter of din torah, the Kahal cannot mix into this matter. The lay leader Hayim, can however, send to the guard, David Ashkenuz, to speak calming words to him that he should wait until the next meeting of the Kahal in order to remove M Feivish from the page of issur.
2D: JTS ms 10772, fol 83r, Image 165:
I was also sent that Sunday by the Kahal to R Daniel Shohet to tell him, that whereas he has been on the page of herem for a long time, and he pays no heed to it at all, therefore as Mr Feivish ben Aharon Levi is on the page of issur because of the guard David Ashkenuz, therefore R Daniel must pay the guard’s fee, and if he does not, the Kahal will send from house to house to tell people that they may not buy anything from R Daniel on pain of herem.
2E: JTS ms 10772 fol 83r Image 166:
Today, Sunday, 16 Adar, the parnas of the month R Hayim Birgel told me that I should instruct R Feivel, shamash of the Bet Din, to erase M Feivish son of A Levi from the page of issur.
Source 3 Translation
Women and Violence
3A: JTS ms 10772, fol 93r, Image 185:
Today, on the eve of Shavuot, I was sent by the parnas and lay leader R Hirsch Breslau to the wife of Feivish ben Leb to tell her that she had done a wicked deed and uncovered the headcovering from the head of the woman who is wife of Lipmann the butcher. This is not an acceptable way for Jewish women to behave, therefore, first of all the wife of Feivish above mentioned must return the headgear to the wife of Lipmann, and if not, she will get an injunction from the Kahal. Despite this, the wife of Feivish did not heed the injunction at all and she did not return the headgear.
3B: CAHJP AHW # 20 fol 9:
Today, on that Sabbath day [parshat ki tavo, 1767] I was sent by the parnas of the month to Meir ben Leyb of Altona to tell him that Yozpil Melamed is screaming to the heavens because of a quarrel between him (Meir ben Leyb) and his wife, and not only did the wife of said Meir throw a great stone at said R. Yozpil, and truly this was a stone that could have killed, and the intention should be counted as an action, and since R Yozpil has witnesses that she did this, they should have an injunction from the Kahal.
3C: CAHJP ms AHW # 20, fol 14:
Today the Parnas of the month, R Hayim Birgel, told me that it had been decided at the meeting of the Kahal that Mr Zekel son of Isaac AlmisHaren [?] is obliged to pay a fine of two Reichsthaler to the Kahal and six Reichsthaler to Mr Lazi, the householder, the cost of the physician, as said Mr Zekel assaulted the daughter of Mr Lazi. This is what the Parnas of the month told me at the meeting of the Kahal on Sunday, Isru Hag Pesach [the day following the holiday] [1768]
3D: JTS ms 10772, fol 94v, Image 188:
Also on Tuesday I was sent by the parnas and lay leader, said R Hirsch to Mr Zeckel, brother of Abraham son in law of Hirsch Leser, to tell him that as he assaulted the daughter of Mr Lazi, the householder, he may not travel from here until he stands before the court with Lazi, abovementioned, and if he does not heed this and leaves town, he will be put under the forcible ban.
3E: JTS ms 10772, fol 93, image 186:
On Shavuot day I was sent by the parnas and lay leader R Hirsch Breslau to the wife of Hayim son of Itzik to tell her that as she wishes to travel tomorrow to Hamburg with her furniture, and her husband does not want to leave his house, she is obliged to leave her husband a made-up bed to sleep on. Right as I was telling her these things, to the wife of Hayim above mentioned, the sons of Jacob ben Itzik and of Solomon ben Itzik came and made a tumult and assaulted the wife of Hayim above mentioned inside the house. I left the house immediately and I told these things to the parnas and leader R Hirsch Breslau.
3F: JTS ms 10772, fol. 94r, image 187:
On one morning of Shavuot, a Friday, [1767] the wife of Hayim ben Itzik came and complained about her husband Mr Hayim, that he raised a ruckus and tumult within the house; also that she owns one wooden bed and her husband does not want to grant her the bed; regarding this I told said R Hayim that he is obliged to give [to his wife] the above mentioned bed and everything that belongs to her, and if not he will get an injunction from the Kahal, moreover he will no longer enjoy any benefits from the Kahal. All this I conveyed in the name of the parnas and lay leader R Hirsch Breslau.
3G: JTS ms 10772, fol 94v, Image 188:
Today, Tues 12 Sivan I was sent by the parnas and lay leader R Hirsch Breslau to tell the wife of Mannes Glickstadt that as she hit her maidservant, and the maidservant left her house, therefore she is obliged to give to the said maidservant all the clothing of the maidservant…and all the other things that the maidservant left in her house, without any excuse, and if she has unresolved matters with the maidservant she can go to Bet Din.
3H: CAHJP AHW # 20 fol 9a:
Today, Hoshana Rabba, I was sent by the parnas of the month to Avraham son of Michel Gumpreich to tell him that due to the complaint/outcry of Hayim ben Avraham Cohen that Avraham [Gumpreich) hit the wife of said Hayim, he should desist from doing this in the future.