Freie Universität Berlin / Free University of Berlin

Univerzita Karlova v Praze / Charles University in Prague

Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften / Faculty of History and Cultural

Studies (Berlin)
Filozofická Fakulta / Faculty of Arts (Prague)

Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut / Friedrich Meinecke Institute of History (Berlin)

Ústav Anglofonních Literatur a Kultur / Department of Anglophone Literatures and
Cultures (Prague)

Text and Event in Early Modern Europe

An Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate

Ph.D. Dissertation

On the Frontiers of Sacred Spaces: the Relations Between Jews and Orthodox
Christians in the Early Modern Ruthenian Lands on the Example of Religious
Proselytism and Apostasy

Mikhail Beider

Supervisors:

First referee: Prof. Dr. Claudia Ulbrich (Freie Universität Berlin)

Second referee: Prof. PhDr. Jan Županič, Ph.D. (Univerzita Karlova v Praze)

Date of Dissertation Defense: May 10, 2016

2016
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation, “On the Frontiers of Sacred Spaces: the Relations Between
Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Early Modern Ruthenian Lands on the Example of
Religious Proselytism and Apostasy”, addresses religious contention between Orthodox
Christians and Jews through the examination of some of the most momentous instances
of a radical alteration and reconfiguration of a person’s confessional identity that
transpired amid the representatives of the two faiths during the 15th-17th centuries in the
Eastern Ruthenian territories of Europe. The work draws on a variety of Jewish and
Christian sources including polemical works, chronicles, private and official
correspondence, legal texts, criminal cases, exempla and folklore. The questions of the
motives of an individual or a religious faction to preach their dogma to the followers of a
contending faith, the convictions and influences causing a person to abandon his religious
domain in favor of another, and the approaches of the ecclesiastical and political
hierarchies towards the proliferation of their faith amongst heathens, as well as in regards
to the rejection thereof by their flock, are placed at the center of the analysis. Also
considered is the problem of integration of neophytes in the new community, the
mechanisms employed for the redefinition of their identity, and the peculiarities of their
interaction with governmental bodies. In that respect, the scrutiny of a polysemantic
social process such as the change of faith in a complex from a methodological point of
view territory – the Polish-Russian borderlands, presents a unique approach to the study
of this multicultural region.
Going beyond the boundaries of traditional historiography, which
predominantly consigned Jews as victims of zealous proselytism and forced conversions
imposed by the dominant Christian realm, within the framework of the presented
dissertational research, the adherents of Judaism appear as ideologically motivated parties
that were concurrently involved in the dissemination of their faith amongst the Orthodox
faithful. On that account, an argument is put forward on the intolerance of Jews in
Russian controlled territories during the Early Modern period being based not on racial
chauvinism, but rather impelled by religious contention and the anxieties of ‘Judaizing’.
This predisposition is demonstrated by the keenness of both the Russian State and the
Church on welcoming the Jews who baptized into Orthodoxy within their geographical
and spiritual domains as equals, and even granting generous privileges for their
embracement of the Christian faith. Given the definitional and oppositional relationship
between Christianity and Judaism, and by extension, between Christians and Jews, in
light of the threat of Judaic proselytism, the apprehension of which is found across
ecclesial polemics and legislative proclamations of the time, the act of Jewish conversion
to Christianity came to symbolize the ideological triumph of the Church over the
Synagogue. These issues, being at the forefront of the contemporary historiographical
research on Early Modern Eastern European Jewry, suggest stimulating avenues of
further research.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thema der Dissertation “On the Frontiers of Sacred Spaces: the Relations
Between Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Early Modern Ruthenian Lands on the

2

Example of Religious Proselytism and Apostasy” sind jene Auseinandersetzungen
zwischen orthodoxem Christentum und Judentum zwischen dem 15. und 17. Jahrhundert,
in denen die konfessionelle Identität zwischen beiden Gruppen radikal verändert und neu
definiert wurde. Dies geschieht auf der Grundlage einer Vielzahl von Quellen:
Polemiken, Chroniken, private und offizielle Briefe, Rechtstexte, Gerichtsakten, Exempla
und volkskundliche Quellen wurden ausgewertet. Im Zentrum der Analyse stehen Fragen
wie die nach den Motiven eines Einzelnen oder einer religiösen Gruppe, ihre Dogmen
den Angehörigen einer anderen Glaubensrichtung zu predigen. Welche Motive hatte ein
einzelner oder eine religiöse Gruppe, andere missionieren zu wollen? Welche Faktoren
führten dazu, dass jemand seine religiösen Überzeugungen zu Gunsten eines anderen
Glaubens aufgibt? Welche kirchlichen und politischen Machtverhältnisse waren dabei im
Spiel? Ein weiteres Thema betrifft die Frage, wie die Konvertiten in ihre neue
Gemeinschaft aufgenommen wurden, wie ihre Identität neu definiert wurde und wie die
Aushandlungsprozesse mit den Behörden gestaltet waren. Indem der Glaubenswechsel
als ein polysemantischer sozialer Prozess in einem – in methodischer Hinsicht komplexen
Territorium - dem polnisch-russischen Grenzland – verstanden wird, wird es möglich,
einen neuen Zugang zur Erforschung dieser multikulturelle Region zu finden.
Die Dissertation überwindet auf diese Weise die Sichtweisen der älteren
Geschichtsschreibung, die Juden zumeist als Opfer von Proselytismus und
Zwangskonversion in einer christlich dominierten Umwelt gefasst hat. Stattdessen
erscheinen die Anhänger des Judentums ihrerseits als ideologisch motivierte Gruppen,
die gleichermaßen bestrebt waren, ihren Glauben unter den orthodoxen Christen zu
verbreiten. Auf dieser Grundlage wird argumentiert, dass die Intoleranz gegenüber den
Juden in russisch kontrollierten Gebieten in der frühen Neuzeit nicht auf rassistischen
Patriotismus, sondern auf den religiösen Konflikt und die Angst vor der „Judaisierung“
zurückzuführen ist. Beleg dafür ist die Bereitschaft des russischen Staates und der Kirche,
konvertierte Juden in ihrem weltlichen und geistlichen Einflussbereich zu tolerieren und
ihnen die Ausübung ihrer Religion zu gestatten. Angesichts der Beziehung zwischen
Christentum und Judentum, die per se als oppositionell galt, und damit implizit auch
zwischen Christen und Juden, und vor dem Hintergrund der Gefahr des jüdischen
Proselytismus, die in kirchlichen Polemiken und juristischen Traktaten jener Zeit
formuliert wurde, symbolisierte der Akt der Konversion vom Judentum zum Christentum
den ideologischen Triumph der Kirche über die Synagoge. Solche Beobachtungen, die
von zentralem Interesse für die aktuelle geschichtswissenschaftliche Forschung zum
frühneuzeitlichen Judentum in Osteuropa sind, eröffnen vielversprechende Perspektiven
für zukünftige Arbeiten.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tato disertační práce “ On the Frontiers of Sacred Spaces: the Relations

Between Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Early Modern Ruthenian Lands on the
Example of Religious Proselytism and Apostasy” (Na hranicích posvátna – vztahy mezi
judaismem a pravoslavím na území obývaném Rusíny v raném novověku na příkladu
náboženské konverze a apostáze) se zabývá náboženskými konflikty mezi pravoslavím a
judaismem. Na základě různorodých židovských a křesťanských pramenů – polemických
spisů, kronik, soukromé a úřední korespondence, právnických textů, soudních případů,

3

exempel a folklórních zdrojů – práce zkoumá některé z nejzávažnějších případů
radikálních změn a rekonfigurací konfesní identity, k nimž došlo mezi věřícími obou
náboženství v 15. až 17. století. Středem zájmu je motivace jednotlivců nebo
náboženských frakcí šířit svou víru mezi stoupenci nepřátelské církve, dále přesvědčení a
vlivy způsobující změnu vyznání a rovněž přístup představitelů politických a
náboženských hierarchií k šíření jejich víry i k odpadlictví. Kromě toho se práce zabývá
otázkami integrace konvertitů do nového společenství, způsoby vymezování jejich nové
identity a zvláštnostmi jejich interakce s vládními orgány. V tomto ohledu jde o
metodologicky jedinečný přístup ke zkoumání komplexního společenského procesu,
kterým je změna víry v mnohokulturním regionu na polsko-ruské hranici.
Na rozdíl od pohledu tradiční historiografie líčící židy většinou jako oběti
fanatického proselytismu a konverzí vynucených dominantní křesťanskou mocí, ukazuje
předložená disertace, že přívrženci judaismu představují spíše ideologicky motivované
skupiny vyznačující se společnými snahami šířit svou víru mezi stoupenci pravoslaví.
Z tohoto hlediska vychází argument, že základem nesnášenlivosti vůči Židům v raném
novověku na územích pod ruskou nadvládou nebyl rasově motivovaný šovinismus, ale
spíše náboženský konflikt a obavy z judaizace. Na tuto tendenci poukazuje zájem
ruského státu i pravoslavné církve přistupovat na svém území a v oblastech pod jejím
duchovním vlivem k pokřtěným židům jako k rovnoprávným s křesťany a dokonce jim za
jejich konverzi udílet různé výsady. Vzhledem k protikladům mezi křesťanstvím a
judaismem a křesťany a židy a se zřetelem na hrozbu židovského proselytismu, na níž
reagují tehdejší náboženské polemiky a právní dokumenty, se obrácení stoupenců
judaismu ke křesťanství stalo symbolem ideologického vítězství Církve nad Synagogou.
Tyto otázky, které jsou v popředí dnešního historického výzkumu židů v raně novověké
východní Evropě, naznačují nové a podnětné směry jeho dalšího vývoje.

4

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 1. Judaic Proselytization in Medieval and Early-Modern Ruthenian Lands: the

Case of the Judaizer Heresy
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. 28
§1. The Perception of Jews and Judaism in Early Ruthenian Literature ................................................ 32
§2. On the Inception of the Judaizer Heresy .......................................................................................... 36
§3. The Historical Portrait of Zacharia Skhariya, the Proselytizing Jew ............................................... 38
§4. On the Question of Ivan III’s Correspondence with Zacharia of Crimea......................................... 41
§5. On the Dissemination of the Judaizer Heresy in Russia ................................................................... 43
§6. The Judaizer Circle of Moscow ........................................................................................................ 51
§7. Joseph Volotsky’s Polemical Battle Against the Judaizers .............................................................. 53
§8. The Debacle of the Judaizers ............................................................................................................ 58
§9. The Teachings of the Judaizers......................................................................................................... 63
§10. The Literature of the Judaizers ....................................................................................................... 67
§11. Judaic Proselytism and the Judaizer Heresy ................................................................................... 75
§12. Jewish Mission to the Slavs ............................................................................................................ 79

CHAPTER 2. From the Shtetl to the Cross: Baptized Jews in the Early Modern Russian
State
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 84
§1. Jewish Settlement in Russia in the mid-17th Century: Forced or Voluntary? .................................. 86
§2. The Case of a Baptized Jew Trained in Firearms .............................................................................. 89
§3. Baptized Lithuanian Jewess Melanya Klemenova in 17th Century Muscovy .................................. 90
§4. Baptized Jews versus Patriarch Nikon ............................................................................................... 97
§5. Doctor Danila von Gaden, a Baptized Jew at the Royal Court ....................................................... 101
§6. On the Conversion of Jews into the Christian Orthodox Faith ........................................................ 103
§7. On the Motives of Jewish Migration to Russia and the Conversion to Orthodox Christianity ....... 109

CHAPTER 3. Between Martyrdom and Conversion: the Baptism of Jews During the
Cossack Uprising (1648-1656)
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 114
§1. The Chronicles, the Author’s Sources and Jewish Contacts with the ‘Other’ ................................ 115
§2. Forced Conversion and Martyrdom in the Name of the Faith ......................................................... 120
§3. The Anti-Christian Themes in Jewish Chronicles and Jewish-Christian Sentiments...................... 123
§4. On the Acceptance of Baptism ........................................................................................................ 129
§5. The Religious Motives of the Pogroms ........................................................................................... 135

CHAPTER 4. Jewish Proselytism and Christian Apostasy in Imperial Russia: the Case of
Alexander Voznitsyn and Boruch Leibov
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 139
§1. The Policies on Jews and Judaism in Imperial Russia .................................................................... 140
§2. Boruch Leibov, the Jewish Philanthropist ....................................................................................... 145
§3. The Proceedings of the Investigation of Voznitsyn’s Apostasy to Judaism .................................... 149
§4. The Investigation of the Judaizer sect in Kazan 1748-1749 ............................................................ 162

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 168

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 174

5

 Introduction

Since the introduction of monotheism in Eastern Europe and the Christianization

of Slavs in the 9th- 10th centuries, biblical narratives and themes continuously made their
way through various literary, iconographic and oral channels into the intellectual universe
of Orthodox Christianity. From the time of its inception, therefore, the Russian Orthodox
Church found itself in a precarious juxtaposition with the dogmas of Judaism. While the
starting point of a tangible Jewish-Christian contiguity in the Ruthenian Lands is
considered to be Medieval Kiev, by the Early Modern period, when the vast majority of
these territories came under the control of the Polish-Lithuanian crown, Jewish
communities of Ashkenazi origin settled throughout the urban centers in the region and
entered the social, economic and cultural spheres as far as it was legally permitted.
Despite the continuous attempts by the governmental and religious authorities of both
communities to limit the interaction with the other group, the neighboring proximity of
the Church and Synagogue in the urban spaces resulted in a persevering transference of
ideologies and customs in both directions not only within the borders of the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also into the spiritual realm of the adjacent Russian state.
To test the boundaries of the Jewish – Christian Orthodox cross-cultural and inter-faith
transmission during the Early Modern period, this study focuses on examining the
instances of a radical alteration and reconfiguration of a confessional identity, both
individual and collective, and presents an analysis of the phenomena through the
framework of the practices and processes associated with the acts of religious proselytism
on the one hand, and the paradigms of apostasy on the other. The following questions are
placed at the center of the analysis: the motives of an individual or a religious faction to
preach their dogmas to the followers of a contending faith, the convictions and influences
causing a person to abandon his or her religious domain in favor of another, and the
approaches of the ecclesiastical and political hierarchies towards the proliferation of their
faith amongst heathens, as well as in regard to the rejection thereof by their flock.
With the Christianization of the last pagan nation in Europe - Lithuania - in the
14th century, Judaism unequivocally replaced paganism as the binary opposition to
Christianity in Early Modern Eastern Europe. In that respect, while a baptism of a Jew
came to represent the ideological triumph of the Church over the Synagogue, a
conversion of a Christian to Judaism was construed to attest to the exact opposite. As far
as the Orthodox Church was concerned, Jewish communities living side by side with
Christians posed a tangible danger to Christendom, and the evidence presented in this
study contends that while such anxieties were ominously embellished by polemical
prejudice, the apostasy of Christians to Judaism had in fact taken place in the Ruthenian
lands during the Early Modern period. Conversely, even though the Orthodox
establishment did not conduct active missionary activities, the same era saw a drastic
increase in the scale of conversions to Christianity from the region’s Jewish communities.
Yet, never before has the Jewish – Christian Orthodox religious contention in the Eastern
Slavic lands as a whole been made the subject of inquiry; nor has there been an effort to
collect cases and documents, such as the ones presented in this study, in order to produce
a typology of motives that stimulated doctrinal dissemination and confessional re-
affiliation, to assess the context of Judaic proselytism in the fervently Christian-Orthodox
region, and to scrutinize the counter-measures applied by theocratic authorities in order to

6

prevent the tergiversation of their flock from the established religion. Likewise, the
problems of the integration of neophytes in the new community, the mechanisms
employed for the redefinition of their identity, and the peculiarities of their interaction
with the governmental bodies in the region have not been made the subject of a
systematic scholarly research.
In the Early Modern Russian state, the conveyance of a foreign faith amongst
Christians, just as the apostasy from Orthodoxy, were acts legally regarded as crimes
punishable by death. Notwithstanding the associated dangers, going against probability
and normative patterns of intellectual history, amongst the Orthodox faithful of Ruthenia
(including members of the high clergy) there were those who transgressed the bounds of
the doctrinal limitations of Christianity, upon being introduced to the tenets of Judaism
by the carriers of the faith. Naturally, secrecy was a crucial aspect of the deviation from
Christian worship and by extension of the practice of and the conversion to another
religion, and if the concealment succeeded, the fate of the proselyte would not have
become known and therefore not depicted in writing. Accordingly, while the known
instances of the embracement of the Jewish faith by Christians are few in number
(moreover of a formal conversion to Judaism), the evidence of such cases has survived
predominantly in denunciative averments and criminal investigations that prevalently
resulted in the execution of the convicted apostates by the means of burning at the stake.
Innately, these events worked to bolster anxieties amongst the Slavic-Orthodox spiritual
leaders, the governmental authorities and the general population alike apropos the
existential threat of proselytism, or ‘Judaizing’, originating from the observers of the
Jewish law.
While Jewish settlement on the territories controlled by the Russian monarchy
was restricted by law, as a result of a series of successful military campaigns against the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the first half of the 17th century, a substantial
number of Jews entered the geographical domain of the Russian State as captives, and
were subsequently permitted to remain in Muscovy based on the condition of their
embracement of Christianity. The unprecedented mass conversion of these Jews to
Orthodoxy motivated the Church and State authorities to supersede the policy of
exclusion, based on ethnic belonging, by a policy of integration, based on religious
allegiance, henceforth decreeing the act of baptism to signify the authorization of the
admission of Jews into the fold of the Russian society, both spiritually and legally. An
analogous policy was endorsed in the nascent Cossack Hetmanate, a Russian vassal state
in Eastern Ukraine, whose leadership tolerated Jewish presence on these territories
strictly based on the condition of their conversion to the Christian Orthodox faith. Given
the definitional and oppositional relationship between Christianity and Judaism, and by
extension, between Christians and Jews, it necessitated the belief that this conversion
experience participated in the literal sense of the term, the sense of changing one thing
into another, and in this instance, it’s opposite1.

Relevance. Currently, scholars working in the sphere of Jewish studies

increasingly express the need to expand the field of research to reference the problem of

1 Morrison K. (1992): “Understanding Conversion”. University Press of Virginia,

7

the change of faith in the Jewish realm2. For almost a century, the sensitivity of the
subject matter of conversion from Judaism, and even more so, of Jewish proselytism,
hampered the study of these phenomena in the context of the ever-increasing sentiment of
assimilation in the USSR. The examination of archival materials and primary sources
concerning the acts of Christian apostasy to Judaism and the baptism of Jews into
Orthodoxy during the Early Modern period, therefore, presents an opportunity to
scrutinize the roots of the issue of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism from the perspective of
religious contention. Moreover, research into these complex processes, involving the re-
configuration of confessional adherence and cultural transfiguration, contributes to the
study of the formation and functioning of the conventional models of perception of
adherents to other faiths and ‘foreigners’ in the Slavic Orthodox society. In that sense, the
reception of neophyte Jews in Muscovy exemplifies a particular paradigm, which allows
to analyze the mechanisms of the development of tolerant and xenophobic attitudes
towards new members of the Russian social stratum.
The inter-ethnic, inter-confessional and inter-cultural dialogue in the modern
world constitutes a vexed issue that requires a constant search for solutions. In this
regard, the research conducted in the given field represents particular significance. The
study of the interfaith contention through the paradigm of proselytism on the one hand,
and of the integration of migrant-converts into the Russian socio-cultural milieu on the
other, promises to offer new perspectives on contemporary issues.

Key Concepts and Terminology. It is necessary to define the central concepts

scrutinized in the context of the dissertational study. Due to its equivocal usage and
understanding in divergent cultural settings and historical contexts, the terminology
delineating the changes of a religious affiliation in particular requires meticulous
demarcation.
The use of the concept of Proselytism, or Proselytization, in this study closely
follows the definition designated in Webster’s dictionary, which depicts it to be an act of
“inducing someone to convert to one’s faith”3. As specified by Medgyessy, this activity
aims at reaching the individuals who are members of a particular confessional group, or
which have already accepted a certain religious belief4. In the given context, the person
conducting the proselytizing is strongly convinced that the existing religion of the
targeted person is inferior to his own and therefore should be transgressed and replaced.

2 Endelman T. (2001): “Welcoming Ex-Jews into the Jewish Historiographical Fold //
Broadening Jewish History Towards a Social History of Ordinary Jews”. The Littman Library of
Jewish Civilization, Portland. Pg. 82-92.

3 Merriam-Webster Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytizing

Accessed February 24, 2015.

4 Medgyessy L. (2004): “Mission or Proselytism? Temptations Tensions and Missiological

Perspectives in Eastern European Christianity: A Case Study of Hungary”. In “Contextuality in

Reformed Europe: The Mission of the Church in the Transformation of European Culture”.
Edited by Linemann-Perrin C., Vroom H., and Winrich M. Rodopi publishing, Amsterdam-
New York. Pg. 99.

8

Accordingly, the notion of proselytism can connote a pejorative, and at times a
threatening meaning: Robeck has described it as “a kind of evangelistic malpractice
involving improper activities” 5, including economic enticement and coercion. A related
term, Mission, in the given context refers to “a ministry commissioned by a religious
organization to propagate its faith”6. Congruently, the case studies examined in the
dissertation, for the purpose of the analysis of the phenomenon of proselytism, are replete
with the patterns and processes that substantially correspond to the outlined
classifications.
Although Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms states that Convert, Proselyte
and Neophyte are synonyms7, since all three terms denote a person who has embraced
another creed, opinion or doctrine than the one previously adhered to, the distinctions
between the terms have been drawn on an ideological basis. The term Neophyte is an
adjective used to describe “a person who has recently joined a religious group” 8 .
According to Heideman, while Convert commonly implies a sincere and voluntary
change of belief, Proselyte denotes merely a switch to another religion, suggesting less a
sincere and voluntary embracing, than a yielding to the persuasions and urgings of
another, be it an earnest missionary or zealot, or someone with less praiseworthy
motives9. In a similar vein, the National Christian Council had identified the following
distinction: “Conversion has been confused with proselytism, but there is a difference.
The proselyte may have no inner change of life, hence he has no conversion. He is one
who has passed from one religion to another, changing some external features of his life,
manners, and customs. But these may not correspond to any spiritual illumination,
reconciliation, and peace”10. Whereas from the perspective of anthropology of religion,
Conversion has been regarded as a process of “rationality” (i.e. “the intellectual challenge
of the encounter of the macrocosm”), and a passage of acculturation11. Whatever the

5 Robeck C. (1996): “Mission and the Issue of Proselytism”. International Bulletin of
Missionary Research, Vol. 20. No. 1. New Haven. Pg. 1.

6 Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission.

Accessed February 24, 2015.

7 Gove P. (1973): “Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms”. A Dictionary of Discriminated

Synonyms and Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words. 4th ed. Merriam Publishing,
Springfield. Pg. 189, 646.

8 Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neophyte.

Accessed February 24, 2015.

9 Heideman E. (1996): “Proselytism, Mission and the Bible”. International Bulletin of

Missionary Research, Vol. 20. No. 1. New Haven. Pg. 10.

10 Sharma A. (2014): “Hinduism and The Concept of A Missionary Religion”. In “The Oxford

Handbook of Religious Conversion”. Edited by Rambo L. and Farhadian C. Orthodox

University Press, New York. Pg. 429.

11 Dong Y. (2012): “Understanding Religious Conversion: The Case of Saint Augustine”.

Pickwick Publications, Eugene. Pg. 58.

9

meaning, the conversion never takes place outside of a cultural context12. Thus, given the
circumstances in which a member of the Jewish community made the decision to baptize
into Orthodoxy, paralleled by the stimuli that influenced a Slavic-Orthodox individual to
renounce Christianity in favor of the tenets of Judaism, for the purpose of the analysis of
the given paradigms, it is essential to take the prescribed delineations into consideration.
The term Apostasy, in turn, refers to the act of “the abandonment or renunciation
of a religious faith” 13 . An apostate, from the viewpoint of a religion, church, or
confessional group that is being abandoned, becomes a proselyte from the perspective of
the corresponding religion, church, or confessional group that is being joined 14 .
Perceptibly, how apostasy and an apostate are defined depends on the position of the
respective church or religion, as well as on the ways or methods leading to the recognized
conversion.
The Jewish religious law, the Halakhah, features a clearly defined terminology,
which distinguishes between Anusim (“‫”אנוסים‬, lit. “coerced”) - Jews who were forced to
abandon Judaism and convert to another religion against their will15, and mumarim
(“‫”מומרים‬, lit. "the ones that were changed”) or Meshumadim (“‫”משומדים‬, lit. "the
destroyed ones") – Jews who willfully and deliberately abandoned the Jewish faith16. The
Babylonian Talmud further distinguishes between the apostate out of convenience
(“‫”מומר לתיאבון‬, lit. “the apostate out of appetite”), and the apostate out of conviction
(“‫”מומר להכעיס‬, lit. “the apostate out of spite”)17.
On the acceptance of non-Jews into the fold of Judaism, the Halakhah specifies
that the conversion must be implemented “for the sake of Heaven” (i.e. not for ulterior
motives) 18 . The procedure of the conversion process is outlined in detail in the
Babylonian Talmud, and consists of the verbal acceptance of the Torah, followed by the
commandment of circumcision (for males), an immersion in a mikve (ritual bath) and a
sacrifice (not applicable after the destruction of the Temple)19. Once the procedure is


12 Rambo L. (1993): “Understanding Religious Conversion”. Yale University Press, New
Haven. Pg. 20.

13 Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy.

Accessed February 24, 2015.

14 Lemer N. (2012): “Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights”. 2nd Rev. Ed. Martinus

Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden and Boston. Pg. 136.

15 Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Avodah Zarah (“Foreign Worship”), 54a.

16 Ibid., Tractate Hullin (“Profane”), 41a.

17 Stern S. (1994): “Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings”. Brill Publishing, Leiden. Pg.

106. Referencing Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Avodah Zarah 26a.

18 Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin (“The Order of Damages)”, Tractate Gerim 1,7.

19 Ibid., Tractate Yevamoth (“Levirate Marriage”), 41a.

10

complete, the ger (“‫”גר‬, lit. “convert”), or ger zdedek (“‫”גר צדק‬, “righteous convert”),
becomes a new creature, “similar to a new born infant”; his previous, non-Jewish ties are
completely severed20. As a Jew, the convert is included in the category of Israel, and is
treated as an “Israel in all respects”21.
Judaizing or Judaization, an imperative concept within the context of the given
study, has been defined as “imbuing with Jewish principles” 22 , “conforming to or
bringing into conformity with the spirit, character, principles, or practices of Judaism”23,
and “the adoption of the Jewish customs and beliefs”24. In the Russian language, the term
reads as “жидовствовать”, and had been defined to mean “being of that (Jewish) law”
(“быть закона этого”)25.
The doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church also differentiates between forced
and voluntary Apostasy by prescribing different degrees of penance: according to the
canonical rules 73 and 81 of St. Basil the Great, the voluntary (conscious) apostasy from
Christianity is to be punished by a lifelong repentance, while the apostasy committed out
of fear of death or torture is to be punished by an eight-year long penitence26. In contrast
to Heresy, which embodies an “erroneous doctrine, distorting the fundamentals of the
Christian faith”27, apostasy is characterized by a complete negation of the Church’s
teachings, and must be clearly expressed by an external action (i.e. an open proclamation
of the break with Christianity, the adherence to the dogmas of other religions or cults,

20 Stern S. (1994): “Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings”. Brill Publishing, Leiden. Pg.

106. Referencing Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yevamoth 22a, 48b.

21 Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yevamoth 47b.

22 Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/judaize. Accessed February 24,
2015.

23 Ibid.

24 Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: http://www.kdictionaries-
online.com/DictionaryPage.aspx?ApplicationCode=18#&&DictionaryEntry=Judaize&Search
Mode=Entry. Accessed February 24, 2015.

25 Dal
V. (1880): “The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language”.
Typography of M. O. Wolf, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2, Pg. 295.

26 “The Rules of St. Basil the Great” In “The Rules of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church

with the Interpretations of Bishop Nicodemus (Milos)” (2004). The Holy Trinity Orthodox
Mission. Pg. 52, 55.

27 Protopop Cipin V. (2008): “Heresy”. In “The Orthodox Encyclopedia”. Edited by the

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill. Published by the Research Center of the Russian
Orthodox Church, Moscow. Vol. 18, Pg. 598.

11

etc.)28. The participation of a Christian in the rites of a foreign religion constitutes
apostasy even if the participant does not share the teachings of that religion 29 .
Furthermore, only an individual who had undergone baptism, but later renounced the
Christian faith, can be formally charged with the apostasy from Christianity. The
terminology employed in the Russian language borrows from the Greek ἀποστασία
(apostasía), whereby the terms апостат (lit. “apostate”) and вероотступник (lit.
“digresser of faith”) connote betrayal and shame30. By the stipulations of the Council
Code of 1649, in Russia the apostasy from Christianity became legally regarded as an
offence punishable by the means of burning at the stake31.
The process of the reception of Jews into the fold of the Russian Orthodox
Church is outlined in the so-called ‘Trebnik’, literally “Book of Prayer”. The baptismal
ceremony, upon which the individual emerged as a Christian and received a new name,
was preceded by a verbal negation of Judaism and three days of confession and
instruction on the fundamentals of the Orthodox faith 32 . Adjectives выкрест
(lit.“christened”), перекрест (lit.“re-christened”), новокрещенный (lit.“newly
christened”) often accompanied the individual for the rest of their lives33.
It is also necessary to delineate the geographical and chronological frames of the
study. The territorial boundaries of the research encompass the geographical exonym
‘Ruthenian lands’, a cross-border region of Eastern Europe. During the Early Modern
period, this historical territory was divided between the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth and Muscovy (later The Tsardom of Russia and The Russian Empire),
and corresponds to the modern day Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia34. The term
‘Ruthenia’ is the Latin rendering of ‘Rus’’, which refers to the wider area occupied by the
Medieval state of Kievan Rus’, and denotes an ethnic community and society, its
territories, language, culture and ecclesiastical life (predominantly Orthodox Christianity)
before the distinction between Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian identities was fully

28 Maksimovich K., Protopop Cipin V. (2001): “Apostasy”. In “The Orthodox Encyclopedia”.

Edited by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Aleksey II. Published by the Research
Center of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow. Vol. 3, Pg. 94-95.

29 Ibid.

30 Markov N. (1902): “Apostasy” in “The Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia”. Petrograd

Publishing, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 3, table 1153.

31 Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”.

Institute of History of the USSR, Leningrad. Pg. 15.

32 The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (1646), Kiev. Reprint, 1996. Liturgical

Literature, Kiev. Pg. 55.

33 Dal V. (1880): “The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language”.

Typography of M. O. Folf, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1, Pg. 295.

34 Plokhii S. (2006): “The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Pre-modern Identities in Russia,

Ukraine, and Belarus”. Cambridge University Press, New York. Pg. 10-15.

12

developed35. The concept of the ‘Early Modern period’ is understood to span from the
mid 15th to the mid 17th centuries36.

Sources. The source base for the study of the phenomena of proselytism and
apostasy in the Early Modern Ruthenian lands has a number of specific features, the most
notable of which is the absolute minimum portion of texts authored by the apostates
themselves. This is the case not only for Ruthenian realities, but also for the entire
Eastern European region as opposed to, for example, German lands, where Jewish
converts to Christianity often wrote autobiographies, diaries, etc.37.
The sources utilized for the dissertational research are comprised of both
published and archival materials, and can be divided into several groups. The first group
relates to texts of a narrative character, which can be further distinguished as polemical,
theological and liturgical writings of a religious nature; works of a historical genre –
chronicles of Ruthenian (Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian), Jewish, and Polish
origins; as well as travel writings. The most significant works from the first group include
abbot Joseph Volotsky’s “The Enlightener”38, monk Savva’s “The Epistle Against Jews
and Heretics”39, the Kabbalistic work of Rabbi Moses of Kiev “Lily of Secrets”40, and
the “Book of Prayer” compiled by Metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiev41. The chronicles
examined include: “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”42, the Khmelnitsky

35 Berezhnaya L. (2008): “Ruthenian Lands and the Early Modern Multiple Borderlands in
Europe. Ethno-Confessional Aspect” in “Religion and the Conceptual Boundary in Central and
Eastern Europe: Encounters of Faiths”. Edited by Bremer T. Palgrave Macmillan Publishing,
New York. Pg. 41.

36 In the context of the history of Russia, the concept is analyzed in Kamensky A. (2000):

“Middle Ages” and “Modern Times”: the Boundaries of Concepts in the Context of Russian
History” // “Historian in Time”. Third Zimin Readings: Reports and Presentations of
Scholarly Conferences. Moscow. URL: http://annales.info/rus/zimin/zimin3.htm

37 Carlebach Е. (1995): “Converts and Their Narratives in Early Modern Germany. The Case of

Friedrich Albrecht Christiani.” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, New York. No. 40. Pg. 65-83.

38 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903.

39 Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against Jews and Heretics.” Readings at

the Society of Russian History and Ancient Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3.

40 Moshe ben Jacob of Kiev (1509): “Lily of Secrets”. Partial ed., Johan Anton Krieger, Koretz.

1788. (Reprint Jerusalem, 1995).

41 “The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (1646). Liturgical Literature, Kiev. (Reprint

Kiev, 1996).

42 Typography of Edward Prats (1846-present): “The Complete Collection of Russian

Chronicles”. 43 Volumes. The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy of

Sciences. Saint Petersburg.

13

Era Chronicles43, “The Chronicle of the Witness”44, Tatishchev’s45 and Karamzin’s46
historiographical works. The travel writings include the account of Paul of Aleppo of his
travels in Ukraine and Muscovy in 1650’s47, Samuel Collins’ account of his tenure in
Moscow in 1660’s48, and the memoirs of Johan Georg Korb, the Austrian ambassador to
Russia at the end of the 17th century49.
The second group is comprised of personal, governmental, Church and military
correspondence, as well as of Rabbinical responsa, which contain information on the
relations between Jews and Christians, specifically involving the cases of the change of
faith during the given time period50. Also considered are the governmental records of the
Russian and Polish authorities, records of the Jewish self-governing bodies such as the
Lithuanian Rabbinical Council (Vaad) 51 , and commercial contacts made between


43 Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel of Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”. The first edition

(Krakow 1649/1650) was published by the Hebrew University, Department of the History
of the Jewish people, Jerusalem, 1968.; Rabbi Shebbetai ben Meir Katz ha-Kohen (1651):
“The Scroll of Darkness”. Amsterdam, A.M. 5411. Published in “The Jewish Community of
Poland”. Youth Department of Zionist Organization, Jerusalem. Vol. 2. 1953; Rabbi Nathan
Nata ben Moses Hanover (1652/53): “The Deep Mire”. Venice, A.M. 5413. Ed. and rev. Israel
Halpern. The United Kibbutz, Tel-Aviv, 1966

44 “The Chronicle of the Witness” (1670s). Prepared for publishing by Dzira Y. 1971.
Scholarly Thought, Kiev.

45 Tatishchev V. (1847): “Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times”. Imperial

Moscow University, Moscow.

46 Karamzin N. (1842): “History of the Russian State”. Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences,

St. Petersburg.

47 Paul of Alepo (1660s): “The Travels of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch to Russia in the

Middle of XVII Century, Depicted by His Son Archimandrite Paul of Alepo”. Edited by Murkos
G. 1896-1900. Typography of the University, Moscow. Vol. 2.

48 Collins S. (1671): “The Present State of Russia: In a Letter to a Friend at London”. Printed

by “John Winter for Dorman Newman At the Kings Arms in the Poultry”, London. Chap. XXV.
From the first edition at Houghton Library, Harvard University. Edited by Poe M. (2008),
Department of History Publications, University of Iowa.

49 Georg J. (1906): “A Diary of a Journey to Muscovy”. Publishing house of A. S. Suvorin, Saint

Petersburg.

50 For example, a volomous correspondence between a baptized Lithuanian Jewess Melanya

and the Russian authorities has survived in various parts of the ‘Orders of the Clerical Table’
fund, stored at the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts in Moscow.

51 Materials of Lithuanian Vaad were published in a journal entitled “Jewish Antiquity”

(1909-1912). Published by Tipo-Lit, St. Petersburg.

14

Christian and Jews52, amongst others. Various documents, containing information on the
migration to Russia and baptism of Jews from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in
the 17th century, are stored at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts in Moscow. While
the publications of the archival sources pertaining to the subject, such as those by D.
Feldman53, T. Oparina54, M. Prokopenko 55, have been utilized in the dissertation, the
original manuscripts contained in the archive have also been examined, wherever
possible, and referenced accordingly.
Of a crucial importance is the publication of primary sources related to ‘the
Heresy of the Judaizers’ by Lurie and Kazakova56. Furthermore, a principal consideration
is given to the “Registry and Inscriptions” series, published in St. Petersburg between
1899-1913, which encompasses an extensive compilation of varied documented material
containing references to Jews of Russia and the neighboring territories dating back to the
16th century57. Also of prime relevance is the “Archive of South-Western Ruthenia”,
published in Kiev between 1852-1914 by the “Temporary Committee for the Analysis of
Ancient Acts”. The collection is comprised of sources from various archives of Ukraine,

52 Records of the Supreme Privy Council with details depicting business operations of the

Jews in Russia in early 18th century were published in “The Collection of the Imperial
Historical Society of Russia” (1888), Saint Petersburg.

53 Feldman D., Minkina O. (2007): “The Fair Jewess” in Russia XVII-XIX Centuries: Images and

Realities”. Ancient Archive, Moscow; Feldman D. (2005): “”Pleading for Mercy are Old-Law
Orphans…” The Case of the Petitions of Jews of Breslau for the Baptism into Orthodoxy” //
Historic Archive, Moscow. No. 1. Pg. 198-202; Feldman D. (2009): “And in Kazan the Jews are
to be Ordered to Baptize…” The Documents Relating to the Transfer of Captive Jews to the
Volga Region in 1655”. Bulletin of the Hebrew University, Moscow. Pg. 207-238; Feldman D.
(2012): “A Note from the Musketeer Office on the Baptized Jew Yaakov of 1667”. (Parralels,
Moscow. Pg. 181-188; Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer
Sect”. Publications of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20).
Moscow. Pg. 296-323; Feldman D. (1999): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow
Investigation of the Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740” Parallels No.
6-7. Appendix, Pg. 1-82 Moscow.

54 Oparina T. (2009): “The Audience of the Tsar as a Reward for Conversion to Orthodoxy //

Spatial and Temporal Crossroads of Cultures”. Altai State University publishing, Barnaul

55
Prokopenko M. (2001): “The ‘Jewish Motives’ of the Case Against Patriarch Nikon: The
Denunciation of a Baptized Jew M. Afanasev to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich in 1666”. Publication
of the Hebew University, Moscow. №6 (24), Pg. 349-366.; Prokopenko M. (2003): “Baptized
Jews Versus Patriach Nikon: The Materials of the Invsetigation on Pariach Nikon in 1666” //
Jewish Moscow: Collection of Articles and Materials”. MEKPO Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 330-
338.

56 Lurie
Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Anti-Feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –
Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

57 Polyakov Y. (1899-1913): “Registers and Inscriptions. The Collection of Materials for the

History of Jews in Russia” Jewish Historic-Ethnographic Society, St. Petersburg.

15

Belarus and Lithuania, as well as of documents submitted to the Committee by private
individuals, monasteries and various agencies. The archive contains documents dating
from the 14th to the 18th centuries, numbers 37 volumes, and is arranged by subject,
which includes the history of the Orthodox Church and religious relations (Vol. 1, 1883),
acts related to the Jewish population (Vol. 5, 1890), and acts related to the Cossacks and
the Bogdan Khmelnitsky epoch (Vol. 3, 1898), amongst others58.
The third group of sources encompasses the proceedings of criminal
investigations pertaining to the acts of apostasy from Christianity to the Jewish faith, as
well as legislative and other normative-regulatory documents enacted by the
governmental and religious authorities concerning Jews and Judaism. Of principal
importance is the published corpus of materials (decrees, records of the investigation and
interrogation reports) on “The Case of the Burning at the Stake of Captain-Lieutenant
Alexander Voznitsyn for Apostasy into the Jewish Faith and Boruch Leib for
Enticement” 59 . Also considered is the collection of documents pertaining to the
investigation of the ‘Judaizing’ sect in Kazan stored at the Russian State Archive of Early
Acts60. For the citation of the enacted legislature, utilized was the Complete Collection of
Laws of the Russian Empire61, as well as the compendium of laws relating to Jews
compiled by V. Levanda62.

Historiography. The history of the Jewish-Christian relations in Ruthenia during

the Early Modern period was made the subject of research for the first time in the late
19th-early 20th century. For the most part, the works produced during this period are
greatly ideologized and emotionally charged; this applies to publications of both Slavic
and Jewish historians. Thus, while the works devoted to the same problem intrinsically
generated opposite assessments, the ideological position and the ethnic origin of the
authors must be taken into consideration for the analysis of this kind of material.

58 The Temporary Commission for the Analysis of Ancient Acts (1852-1914): “Archive of

South-Western Ruthenia”. Kiev.

59 Markon I. (1913): “The Case of the Burning at the Stake of Captain-Lieutenant Alexander

Voznitsyn for Apostasy into the Jewish Faith and Boruch Leib for Enticement”. In “Re-lived: A
Journal Dedicated to the Social and Cultural History of Jews in Russia”. Typography of
Fleitman I., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 4. Appendix, Pg. 81-112.

60 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 296-323;
The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”.

61 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1649 (1830). First edition,

Saint Petersburg. URL: http://www.nlr.ru/e-res/law r/coll.php?part=l.

62 Levanda V. (1874): “The Complete Chronological Collection of Laws and Regulations

Relating to Jews, from the Legal Code of Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich to the Present Time”.
Typography of K. Trubnikov, Saint Petersburg.

16

 The ideological and emotional engagement is particularly perceptible in the
discussion of the problem of baptized Jews in the Russian state. The reasons for such a
morbid sentiment in relation to the conversion from Judaism are likely rooted in the
realities of the second half of the 19th-early 20th centuries. The threat of assimilation, and
the open manifestation of anti-Semitism (in the intellectual sphere, as well as physically
in the form of pogroms), gave rise to a vigorous opposition from the Jewish intelligentsia.
A vivid example – a renowned historian and activist S. Dubnow, who asserted that
baptism inevitably led to the loss of a Jewish identity, and thus evaluated the
phenomenon stringently negatively 63 . The Jewish historian E. Frenk held the same
position, maintaining that: “the greatest scourge for the Jews were the renegades. Not to
mention the feeling of resentment caused by the instances of leaving the community, who
had to suffer so much for the adherence to the religion of their fathers, the apostates
became a misfortune for their relatives”64. This phrase, depicting the situation of the 18th
century, is an obvious extrapolation of the author’s personal attitude towards the realities
of his time. For the Jewish intellectuals, baptism symbolized “the national suicide of
distinct individuals”65. This explains the reluctance to refer to an in-depth study of the
phenomenon of the change of faith in the Jewish sphere. The notable exceptions were the
sporadic publications depicting the biographies of prominent individuals of a Jewish
origin who were on service at the Russian court, such as doctors Danila fon Gaden66 and
Antonio Sanchez 67 , advisor to Peter the Great Peter Shafirov 68 , and Count Anton
Devier69.
Until the 2000s, the only comprehensive work entirely devoted to converts from
Judaism in the Early Modern Ruthenian lands was S. Ginsburg’s book “Meshumadim in
Tsarishn Russland” (“Converts in Tsarist Russia”). This work, however, like many other
essays belonging to this period, encompasses primarily a descriptive narration, and
references are not provided. The focus of Ginsburg’s analysis became the same

63 Dubnow S. (1913): “On the Departing” (Letter to the Editorial Office). Voshod Journal, Saint

Petersburg. No. 29, table 6-8.

64 Frenk E. (1914): “Relations Between Jews and Christians” //“History of the Jewish People”.

Peace publishing, Moscow. Vol. XI, Pg. 388.

65 Zombart V. (1912): “Baptism of the Jews”. Foreword by S. Vermel. Stolyar publishing, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 3.

66 Berhin I. (1888): “Two Jewish Doctors at the Moscow Court”. Voshod Journal, Saint

Petersburg. No. 3, Pg. 114.

67 Gruzenberg S. (1898): “Doctor Sanchez”. Voshod Journal, Saint Petersburg. Book VII, Pg.

22-38.

68 Trubin S. (1872): “Nestlings of Peter the Great. 1701-1725. Materials”. Russian Antiquity,

Saint Petersburg. Vol. 5, No.6, Pg. 903-951.

69 Shubinsky C. (1892): “The First General of the Saint Petersburg Police”. Typography of

Suvorin A., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 48, Pg. 426-448.

17

prominent courtiers with Jewish roots widely depicted in the Russian historiography,
such as Shafirov and Devier.
Virtually all of the aforementioned works predominantly concentrated on the
biographical details of personages of a Jewish origin, whereas the phenomenon of the
change of faith was not made the principal focus of the analysis. While the scale of
Jewish conversions in the Early Modern Ruthenia remained unclear throughout the 20th
century, in recent years, the interest of researchers in the subject had markedly increased.
D. Feldman, a senior archivist at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts in Moscow had
made a number of publications of archival sources related to the baptismal records of
Jews in Russia during the period in question70. Correspondingly, a notable case study on
the subject was produced by T. Oparina, which depicts the conversion of a Polish Jew to
Orthodoxy in the early 17th century71. An attempt to systemize the phenomenon of the
Jewish conversion to Christianity across Eastern Europe had been made by W.
Moscovich72, however his section on the ‘Russian territories’ addresses well-known
figures such as Shafirov and Devier.
The problem of coerced baptisms of Jews during the Cossack uprising in Ukraine
(1648-1656) had been addressed in the writings of M. Mieses73, M. Nadav74, E. Fram75, J.

70 Feldman D., Minkina O. (2007): “The Fair Jewess” in Russia XVII-XIX Centuries: Images and

Realities”. Ancient Archive, Moscow; Feldman D. (2005): “”Pleading for Mercy are Old-Law
Orphans…” The Case of the Petitions of Jews of Breslau for the Baptism into Orthodoxy” //
Historic Archive, Moscow. No. 1. Pg. 198-202; Feldman D. (2009): “And in Kazan the Jews are
to be Ordered to Baptize…” The Documents Relating to the Transfer of Captive Jews to the
Volga Region in 1655”. Bulletin of the Hebrew University, Moscow. Pg. 207-238; Feldman D.
(2012): “A Note from the Musketeer Office on the Baptized Jew Yaakov of 1667”. (Parralels,
Moscow. Pg. 181-188; Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer
Sect”. Publications of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20).
Moscow. Pg. 296-323; Feldman D. (1999): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow
Investigation of the Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740” Parallels No.
6-7. Appendix, Pg. 1-82 Moscow.

71 Oparina T. (2009): “The Audience of the Tsar as a Reward for Conversion to Orthodoxy //

Spatial and Temporal Crossroads of Cultures”. Altai State University publishing, Barnaul.

72 Moscovich W. (2003): “Attitudes Towards Baptized Jews in Eastern Europe in the 17-18th

Centuries”// “Jewish-Polish and Jewish Russian Contacts”. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem, Gdansk. Jews and Slavs Vol. 11, Pg. 79-87.

73 Mieses М. (1939): “The Participation of Polish Jews in the Wars of Pre-Partition”. Maor

publishing, Warsaw.

74 Nadav M. (1984): “The Jewish Community of Nemyriv in 1648: Their Massacre and Loyalty

Oath to the Cossacks”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian
Studies, Vol. VIII. No3/4. Pg. 376-387.

75 Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 - New Analysis”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 61, No. 2. Pg. 164.

18

Katz76, S. Plokhii 77. These scholars had expressed divergent assessments of the genesis
of the conversions. Pointing to the fact the Cossacks did not kill the Jews who accepted
Orthodoxy, Mieses argued that the animosity against the Jews was based on religious
differences rather than on ethnic hatred or social inequality. Fram, however, maintained
that for the rebels, the social, economic and political motives prevailed over the religious,
and the Jews, being aware of the causes of the rebellion, accepted Orthodoxy “by their
own free will”, thus saving their lives. Plokhii, in turn, contended that while the
Catholics, not the Jews, were the main enemies of the rebels, the Cossack leadership
endorsed the practice of forced baptisms of the Jews nonetheless. While Nadav
demonstrated that Jewish conversions to Orthodoxy were accompanied by an oath of
fidelity to the Cossacks, Katz asserted that the practice of martyrdom in the name of the
faith (“kiddush ha-shem”) by the Jews depicts that the Cossacks offered the Jews a
choice between conversion and death.
Considerable research has been conducted on the conversion of Jews to
Christianity in the Early Modern Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and other European
territories. Particularly relevant are the works of M. Teter, who in her numerous
publications had examined cases of Jewish conversions to Catholicism in Poland based
on the analysis of primary materials. Teter’s research has depicted the accounts of both
the proselytizing efforts of the Catholic Church directed at the Jewish communities78, as
well as the cases of voluntary conversions to Christianity based not only on ideological
convictions, but also motivated by the desire to improve one’s social standing, and for
financial gain79. In his research on the subject, A. Kazmierczyk had addressed the
question of whether the phenomenon was ever a realistic threat for the Jewish
community, concluding that it was predominantly of a marginal character 80 . E.
Carlebach’s examination of the autobiographies produced by Jewish converts to
Christianity in the Early Modern German lands revealed that while Christians generally
did not consider their baptisms as ‘true conversions’, the elements of their Jewish

76 Katz J. (1997): “On the Events of 1096 and 1648”. The Historical Society of Israel,
Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 62.

77 Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University

press, Oxford.

78 Teter M. (2003): “Jewish Conversions to Catholicism in the Polish-Lithuanian

Commonwealth of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”. Springer publishing, New York.
Jewish History. Vol. 17, No 3. Pg. 257-283.

79 Teter M., Fram E. (2006): “Apostasy, Fraud, and the Beginnings of Hebrew Printing in

Cracow”. AJS Review Vol. 30:1. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 31-66.

80 Kazmierczyk A. (2009): “Conversion in the 17th–18th Centuries: a Serious Problem?” //

Between Coexistence and Divorce: 25 Years of Research on the History and Culture of Polish
Jewry and Polish–Jewish Relations. International Conference. The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, March 17–19.

19

identities were never fully eradicated81. In a paper addressing Jewish conversions to
Christianity in Medieval Europe, P. Tartakoff maintained that according to the Christian
theology of the time, in order for Christianity to be true, Judaism had to be misguided82.
While Jewish conversions to Christianity constituted a religious victory for the Christian
authorities across Western Europe, for the Jews they represented a religious defeat – in
the context of this theological jostling for preeminence, apostasy to Christianity involved
surrendering to an age-old rival 83 . Extensive research has been conducted on the
conversion of Jews to Catholicism in the Iberian Peninsula during the period of the
Inquisition, including notable publications by N. Roth 84 , D. Graizbord 85 , and J.
Amelang86. The findings have revealed that amongst the apostates there were those who
persisted to adhere to the tenets of Judaism in secret, however that entailed a severe social
stigma that the renegades bore by the virtue of being confessional ‘border crossers’.
The comparison with the later practice of Jewish baptisms in the Russian Empire
was conducted on the basis of the dissertation of E. Schainker 87. Correspondingly,
examined was the dissertation of C. Levin, which addresses Jewish conversion to
Christianity in Medieval Northern Europe 88 . The specifics of the formation of the
conventional perceptions and stereotypes of the Jewish – Christian Orthodox relations are
discussed in the publications of O. Belova and V. Petruhin89. Referring to the historical-

81 Carlebach E. (2001): “Divided Souls. Converts from Judaism in Germany 1500-1750”. New

Haven&London, Yale University Press.

82 Tartakoff P. (2015): “Testing Boundaries: Jewish Conversion and Cultural Fluidity in

Medieval Europe, c. 1200–1391”. Speculum Vol. 90, Issue 03. The Medieval Academy of
America, Cambridge. Pg. 736.

83 Ibid., Pg. 737.

84 Roth N. (2002): “Conversos, Inqusition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain”.

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

85 Graizbord D. (2004): “Souls in Dispute. Converso Identities in Iberia and the Jewish

Diaspora”. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

86 Amelang J. (2013): “Parallel Histories. Muslims and Jews in Inquisitorial Spain”. Louisiana

State University Press, Baton Rouge.

87 Schainker E. (2010): “Imperial Hybrids” Jewish Conversions in Russia in the Nineteenth

Century”. A PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

88 Levin C. (2006): “Jewish Conversion to Christianity in Medieval Northern Europe.

Encountered and Imagined, 1100-1300”. New York University.

89 Belova O., Petruhin V. (2007): “”The Jewish Myth” in Slavic Culture”. Gesharim, Moscow;

Belova O. (2006): “The Religious Practices of the Jews Through the Eyes of Slavs”// “Religious
Practices in Modern Russia”. New Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 111-133.; Belova O. (2003): “Ours
or Foreign? Jews and Slavs Through the Eyes of Each Other. Collection of Essays”. Sefer
Publishing, Moscow.

20

cultural context and the analysis of the social origin of the Polish-Lithuanian Jewry,
utilized was the research of M. Teter90, G. Hundert91, G. Scholem92, S. Stampfer93, J.
Doktor94, J. Kalik95 to name a few. The problem of the integration of foreigners and the
concept of ‘foreignism’ in Muscovy had been addressed in the publications of T.
Oparina96, V. Kovringina97, and M. Khodarkovsky98.
The question of Jewish proselytism in the Ruthenian lands correspondingly began
to be addressed by scholars in the mid-19th century, albeit with diligent caution. Writing
on the ‘Jewish question’, a Russian novelist N. Leskov maintained that “while the Jews,
like all deeply religious people, are inherently predispositioned towards proselytizing
their faith… the old Muscovite concern of the Jews encompassing a danger to the
Orthodox faith is unsubstantiated”, and was accordingly critical of the existing
governmental regulations addressing this matter99. Making a reference to the infamous
‘Judaizer heresy’ of Novgorod and Moscow (c. 1471-1504) and “Skhariya the Jew”, who
is “attributed with the implantation and spread of Judaic teachings in Russia”, Leskov

90 Teter M. (2006): “Jews and Heretics in Catholic Poland: A Beleaguered Church in the Post-

Reformation Era”. Cambridge University Press, New York.

91 Hundert G. (2004): “Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: A Genealogy of

Modernity”. University of California Press, Berkeley.

92 Scholem G. (1971): “Redemption Through Sin” // The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other

Essays on Jewish Spirituality”. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 78-141.

93 Stampfer S. (2003): “What Actually Happened to the Jews of Ukraine in 1648”. Springer

publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17, No 2. Pg. 207-227.

94 Doktor J. (2004): “Conversions within Shabbatianism”. Institute of Jewish History, Warsaw.

Jewish History Quarterly, No. 1 (209).

95 Kalik J. (2003): “The Orthodox Church and the Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian

Commonwealth”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17, No 2. Pg. 229-237.

96 Oparina T. (2007): “Foreigners in Russia XVI-XVII Centuries. Essays on Historical Biography

and Genealogy”. Progress Tradition, Moscow.

97 Kovrigina V. (1998): “The German Quarter in Moscow and its Inhabitants at the end of XVII-

First Quarter of XVIII centuries.” Archeographic Center, Moscow.

98 Khodarkovsky M. (2001): “The Conversion of Non-Christians in Early Modern Russia”//”Of

Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia”. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca and London. Pg. 115-143.

99 Leskov N. (1883): “Jews in Russia: a Few Remarks on the Jewish Question”. Reprint 1919,

Petrograd publishing, Saint Petersburg. Part 1, Pg. 4.

21

argued that Skhariya himself “detached from Orthodox Judaism” and accordingly “the
Jewish people are not responsible before Christianity for his actions”100.
The first historian who drew attention to the ‘Judaizer heresy’ as a historical
phenomenon was Vasili Tatishchev101, although his account had been criticized for the
distortion of sources102. The historians who contended that elements of Judaic doctrine
were at the core of the heretical movement that beleaguered the Church for centuries to
come included Kazansky103, Berlin104, and Speranski105. Sobolevskii, in turn, composed a
list of the ‘literature of the Judaizers’, which included works of a Jewish origin
referenced in the writings of the principal opponent of the Judaizers archbishop Gennady
Gonozov, such as Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfils’“Six Wings” and Maimonides’
“Logic” 106 . In the Soviet historiography, the term ‘Judaizers’ was used with great
reservation, and the ‘Judaizer heresy’ was predominantly referred to as the ‘Novgorod-
Moscow heresy’. In his analysis, one of most authoritative experts on the sources
pertaining to the subject Y. Lurie had identified the heresy to have been an anti-feudal,
reformative-humanitarian movement and categorically denied its association with
Judaism107. An attempt unique for the Soviet period to offer a new perspective on the
origin of the heresy was undertaken by G. Prohorov, who contended that a decisive role
in its origin was played not by Talmudic Jews, but rather by the Karaites, for whom the
practice of proselytism was inherent108.

100 Ibid.

101 Tatishchev V. (1847): “Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times”. Imperial

Moscow University. Book 5, No.4. Pg. 109-111.

102 Lurie Y. (1955) “The Novgorod-Moscow Heresy of the end of XV-Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 76-77.

103 Kazansky P. (1849): “The Venerable Josef of Volokolamsk”// “Additions to the Works of the

Holy Fathers in Russian Translations”. Moscow, Pg. 224-270.

104 Berlin I. (1910): “The Judaizer Heresy”//”Jewish Encyclopedia”. Brokgaus and Efron

publishing, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7, Table 577-582.

105 Speranski M. (1907): “The Psalter of the Judaizers in the Translation of Feodor the Jew”.

Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquity at Moscow University,
Moscow. Vol. II, Pg. 13, 18, 38-39.

106 Sobolevski A. (1903): “Translated Literature of Moscow Ruthenia in XIV-XVII Centuries”.

Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 396-428.

107 Lurie Y. (1957): “On the Question of the Ideology of Nil Sorkski.” Works of the Department

of Ancient Russian Literature, Leningrad. Vol. 13, Pg. 221, 222.

108 Prohorov G. (1972): “The Debate of Gregory Palamas with “Chione and Turks” and the

Problem of “Judaizer Subtilize”. Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature,

Leningrad. Vol. 17, Pg. 339-369.

22

 J. Bruckus 109 , and subsequently M. Taube 110 , had put forward substantial
evidence identifying Skhariya the heresiarch to be one with Zacharia ben Aaron ha-
Kohen of Kiev, a Jewish copyist and annotator who in the second half of the 15th century
translated and transcribed a number of astronomical, philosophical and metaphysical
works in Hebrew. Furthermore, in a series of publications, M. Taube demonstrated the
connection between the Judaizer movement and the Ruthenian translations of Hebrew
texts made in Kiev by Jews in the second half of the 15th century111. Based on the
analysis of the contemporaneous Kabbalistic works of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob ha-Goleh
(the Exile) of Kiev, M. Schneider112 had proposed that the theological-eschatological
convictions of the prominent Kievan Rabbi, which promulgated the importance of
proselytes for the advent of the Messianic Age, serve as the missing link between the
Ruthenian translations from Hebrew and the spread of these texts amongst the Orthodox
faithful of Novgorod and Moscow.
M. Muslow and R. Popkin113 made an attempt at outlining most of the known
cases of conversion from Christianity to Judaism across Europe from the 16th to the early
18th century. Their book includes a brief account of the apostasy to Judaism of the retired
Russian navy captain Alexander Voznitsyn under the guidance of a Jewish tax farmer
Boruch Leibov, and their eventual execution by burning at the stake. The scholars
concluded that “while Jews generally converted to Christianity for social, economic, or
political reasons, in the case of conversions to Judaism, it were usually powerful
intellectual and personal reasons that motivated the convert to leave the dominant
Christian world for the insecurity of the marginalized Jewish community”. Accordingly,
in their research on the Jewish diaspora of Bosphorus, Kashaev and Kashkovskaya114

109 Bruckus J. (1930): “Judaisierende”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 9. cols., Berlin. Pg. 520–522.

110 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs Vol. 3, Jerusalem. Pg. 168-175.

111 Taube M. (2005): “The Fifteenth Century Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the

Heresy of the Judaizers: Is There a Connection?”// “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy,

Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. Ed. by V. Ivanov. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 185-208;
Taube M. (1995): “”The "Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of the
Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Cambridge. Vol. XIX. P. 671 -685; Taube M. (2010):
“Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph: Historical Studies in
Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issue 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 315-353.

112 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 244.

113 Muslow M., Popkin R. (2004): “Secret Conversions to Judaism in Early Modern Europe”.

Brill, Leiden.

114 Kashaev S., Kashkovskaya N. (2009): “Archeological Data on the Jewish Diaspora on

Bosphorus//Archeologia Abrahamica: Research in the Area of Archeology and Traditions of

23

revealed that a form of proselytism was practiced by the Jewish communities of the
region up to the Modern period, thereby “setting the stage for changes in the ethnic
composition of the communities for the future”.
In a similar vein, addressing the phenomenon of Christian apostasy to Judaism in
the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, M. Teter published a thorough account of the
legendary Ger Zedek (“righteous convert”) of Vilnius115. Teter has demonstrated that the
renowned tale that glorifies the conversion to Judaism and the subsequent martyrdom of a
Polish Duke Walentyn Potocki, is likely based on the case of Rafal Sentimani, a Croat
man whom, in 1753, the Lithuanian Tribunal condemned to death by burning for the
apostasy from Catholicism to Judaism. In that regard, based on the analysis of the
writings of the contemporaneous Polish Rabbis, Teter noted that in contrast to the
Christians, who viewed Jewish conversions to Christianity in triumphalist terms as proof
of the verity of their faith, the Jewish religious leaders took a very ambiguous position
towards converts to Judaism, only rarely expressing a sense of triumph in such cases.
Exploiting various archival records, in the same publication Teter had presented an
additional number of cases of Christian apostasy to Judaism that occurred in Polish
controlled territories during the Early Modern Period, most of which ended in the
martyrdom of the apostates.
On the question of Catholic apostasy to Judaism in the Early Modern Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth also notable is the publication of H. Węgrzynek116. Her
research showed that in the aftermath of the reformation, the weakened Roman Catholic
Church in Poland, ravished by the anxieties of Judaic proselytism, sought to prevent
excessively close contacts between Catholics and Jews.

Novelty. The presented dissertational research offers a cross-dimensional

perspective to the study of the change of faith in the Jewish sphere in the Polish-Russian
borderlands, and Muscovy proper, during the Early Modern Period. Based on the
examination of the primary sources and archival materials, scrutinized are the issues of
the adaptation of Jewish apostates in the Christian Orthodox realm in the context of the
anxieties related to Judaic proselytism and ‘Judaizing’, which were prevalent in the
Ruthenian societies of the time. While considerable research had been conducted on the
Jewish-Christian religious symbiosis in Western and Central Europe, this study directs its
focus on the conjuncture of the proselytism and apostasy phenomena in the continent’s
Eastern territories incorporated under the spiritual domain of the Christian Orthodox
Church.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam”. Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archeology,
Moscow. Pg. 55-78.

115 Teter M. (2005): “The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reassurance”. AJS

Review No. 29:2. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 237-263.

116 Węgrzynek H. (2005): “Was the Catholic Church in Poland Afraid of Conversions to

Judaism in the Early 16th Century?”. Institute of Jewish History, Warsaw. Jewish History
Quarterly, No. 1, Pg. 7-15.

24

 The investigation into the processes of the alteration of a confessional adherence
in Ruthenian lands requires the identification and demarcation of the ideological,
symbolic, cultural and territorial-geographic frontiers, which separated the ethno-
confessional communities of the region. Accordingly, the analysis of the premises,
stimuli and proselytizing forces that caused an individual to renounce his or her faith in
favor of a contending religious doctrine, divulges the foundations of the societal cohesion
and stratification of the Early Modern Jewish and Christian-Orthodox communities.
Thus, the particularities of the relations between former co-religionists serve as the
indicators of Jewish self-identification117. The acquaintance with a foreign religion and
culture, information on the social and/or spiritual benefits offered by the change of
religious allegiance transpired through the interaction (intentional or accidental) with the
representatives of the other confession. In this regard, the analysis of the interpersonal
and intercultural relations compels to revise the conception of the isolation of the Jewish
community from external contacts and influence.
In historiographical works, particularly of Jewish origins, the baptism of Jews was
regarded as a marginal phenomenon, and the very act of conversion was interpreted as an
involuntary demeanor, performed due to external pressure or out of despair. Thus, in a
monograph on Jewish presence in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries, J. Kalik maintained
that “most of the baptized Jews, if not the majority, considered themselves to have been
anusim (forced converts), and returned to Judaism at the earliest opportunity to do so…In
most cases Christened Jews reverted back to Judaism as soon as they were able to escape
from the Russian territory”118. While the veracity of this depiction and actuality of such
occurrences is undeniable, the sources examined in the presented dissertational study
reveal that conscious conversions of Jews to Orthodox Christianity and their voluntary
settlement in the Russian state had also transpired throughout the Early Modern period.
Traditional historiography generally depicted Jews as victims of zealous
proselytism imposed by the dominant Christian realm. Within the framework of the
presented dissertational research, the adherents of Judaism appear as ideologically
motivated parties that were concurrently involved in the dissemination of their faith
amongst the Orthodox faithful. Despite the pronouncements against the practice of
proselytism and the acceptance of converts by prominent Rabbinical authorities (i.e.
Rabbi Solomon Luria in 1565119) and regulating institutions (i.e. the Rabbinical Council
of Lithuania repeatedly in 1644 and 1647 120), the evidence presented in this study

117 Magnus S. (2010): “Good Bad Jews: Converts, Conversion, and Boundary Redrawing in
Modern Russian Jewry: Notes Toward a New Category // Boundaries of Jewish Identity”. Ed. by
Glenn S. and Sokoloff N. University of Washington Press, Seattle. P. 132-160

118 Kalik J. (2010): “Jewish Presence in Russia in XVI-XVIII Centuries”. // “History of the Jewish

People in Russia. From the Ancient Times Until the Early Modern Period”. Bridges of Culture,
Moscow. Pg. 328.

119 Lurie S. (1565): “The Sea of Solomon”. Wahrmann publishing, Jerusalem (1995).

Yevamoth 4.49.

120 Teter M. (2005): “The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reassurance”. AJS

Review No. 29:2. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 244.

25

contends that Jews conducted proselytizing activity in the Early Modern Ruthenian lands
nonetheless. Accordingly, the Christian perceptions of Judaism as a proselytizing
religion, accompanied by the related anxieties and suspicions, were to a certain degree
justified in rare instances.

Research Methods. The methodological basis of the dissertation is determined in

accordance with the specificity of the source base and the objectives of the research, and
manifests an interdisciplinary character. The systematization of the examined sources is
implemented by applying the historical-comparative methods121, in order to place the
historical relevance and cross-cultural variation at the center of the data collection and
analysis. Textual analysis serves as the basis for the identification of recurring themes,
narratives and images used in various polemical texts and chronicles, produced in the
Early Modern Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia, pertaining to Jews and
Judaism, and for the juxtaposition of their content with archival material, such as
governmental and ecclesiastical records, personal and official correspondence, legislative
documents, etc.
The dissertation comprises a junction between two types of narrations. The first is
based on the micro-historical approach122, which entails research into the unique life
experiences of individuals, functioning in the specific historical and cultural
circumstances. While this approach is bound by our personal theoretical framework and a
predetermined agenda, it encompasses the analysis of singular facts, or events – in this
case, instances of religious alteration of individuals belonging to Jewish and Slavic-
Orthodox ethno-confessional groups, with the objective of addressing the questions
pertaining to the phenomena of proselytism and apostasy in the Early Modern Ruthenian
lands. The second type relates to parallelism123 - a more traditional typological approach,
applied for the identification, comparison, explanation and essentially systemization of
significant events, actors and social processes within the framework of an established
paradigm. The aim of such a narration is to correlate the fragments of available sources
with a broader contextual dimension – the relations between Jews and Orthodox
Christians in the geographical area and time period in consideration. The synthesis of
these approaches, conjoining the ‘individual’ and the ‘stereotypical’, acts to delimit the
scope of the phenomenon, and to determine the spectrum of possibilities available to a
person in a specific cultural and historical context.
While the analysis of the ideological exchange between Judaism and Christianity
is conducted in the background of events that are separated by decades and, at times, by
centuries, such as ‘the Judaizer heresy’, the investigation of Alexander Voznitsyn’s


121 Neuman L. (2006): “Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.”

6th edition. Pearson, Boston.

122 Ginzburg C. (2012): “Microhistory, Two or Three Things That I Know About It”.

In “Threads and Traces”, University of California Press, Berkeley. Chapter 14, Pg. 193-214.

123 Wells M. (2002): “Parallelism: A Handbook of Social Analysis. The Study of Revolution &

Hegemonic War”. Xlibris publishing, Bloomington.

26

apostasy to Judaism, the Cossack uprising and the Russo-Polish wars, the
contextualization of the local realities with their immediate environments is given
primary consideration. Although the work does not claim to be a complete systemization
of the patterns of Jewish-Christian Orthodox relations and the degrees of influence on
one another’s beliefs, through the examination of distinctive varieties of proselytism and
apostasy between the two faiths in the Early Modern Ruthenian lands, an attempt is made
at providing an insight into the complex network of intellectual, social and religious
correlations that existed between the two communities.

Structure of the Dissertation. The dissertation is composed of an introduction,

four chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography. The order of the chapters is arranged in
accordance with the succession of the cross-confessional confrontation between Jews and
Orthodox Christians in the Ruthenian Lands during the Early Modern Period. The first
chapter discusses the manifestation and consequences of Jewish proselytism in the
Russian state through the examination of an event that left a significant mark in the
history of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Jewish – Christian Orthodox relations,
denoted in ecclesiastical and scholarly terminology as ‘the Heresy of the Judaizers’. The
second chapter assesses the specificity of Jewish apostasy to Orthodoxy in the 17th
century, relative to the perception of Judaism as a contending and threatening religion by
the Russian Church, governmental authorities and general population alike. The third
chapter analyses the phenomenon of forceful coercion of Jews into the Orthodox faith
during the Cossack uprising and the implications of the transformation of the Jewish
confessional identity for both Jews and Christians. Through the examination of the
criminal investigations pertaining to the acts of Judaic proselytism and apostasy of
Orthodox faithful in Imperial Russia, the fourth chapter evaluates the impact of religious
contention on the enactment of state policies concerning Jews, Judaism and the eminence
of baptism. The conclusion enunciates the extrapolations made in the context of the
dissertational study.

27

Chapter 1: Judaic Proselytization in Medieval and Early Modern Ruthenian Lands:
The Case of the Judaizer Heresy

After the fall of Constantinople and the forfeiture of independence by Bulgaria

and Serbia, at the end of the 15th century Muscovy represented the sole remaining realm
of Christian Orthodox ecumene, the might of which was constantly growing. According
to the chronology of the time period, however, the year 7000 of the utilized Byzantine
calendar (1492 from the birth of Christ) was associated with the end of the world and
Final Judgment. While such anxieties predominantly remained the property of a narrow
circle of monks, Moscow’s political achievements demonstrated to its princes that they
were favored by the heavens. Although the connotation of Moscow as the Third Rome
did not emerge for another few decades, the semblance of Moscow with Jerusalem and
Second Constantinople was already in use124. Yet, at the court of Ivan III, who seemed to
be destined to become the sole guardian and zealot of the Orthodox faith, as well as
within the highest ranks of the Russian clergy, appeared individuals whom
contemporaries accused of betraying the Orthodox dogmas and of the practice of
Judaism. Such a course of events has naturally been perceived with an apparent
dissonance, as a combination of the improbable; the acceptance of the possibility that
these events are backed by tangible facts is prevented by an obvious incongruity.
The phenomenon of the “Judaizer Heresy” receives the greatest attention amidst
the heretical movements in Medieval and Early Modern Russia. Rarely is this episode
excluded from the works on the history of Russia of 15th-16th centuries. Correspondingly,
the widest range of opinions amongst researchers can be observed on this subject. While
in the Soviet historiography the heresy of the Judaizers was largely perceived in
accordance with Marxist postulates as a mass anti-feudal movement125, contemporary
researchers tend to define the heresy predominantly as an ideological phenomenon126.
Some believe this movement to be genetically and typologically close to the spiritual

124 The expression “New Jerusalem” is contained in one of the manuscripts of a preface to an

Easter Computus, composed in 1492-1494 by Metropolitan Zosima. In another manuscript

of the preface, Moscow is named the “New Constantinople”. In Tikhonyuk I. (1986): “Easter
Computus of Metropolitan Zosima of Moscow // Research on the Sources of History of the
USSR XIII – XVIII centuries”. Sciences, Moscow. Pg. 54-55.

125 Rybakov B. (1934): “Militant Clerics of XVI Century”. Anti-religion journal, Moscow. vol. 3,

Pg. 31-34; Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –
Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad; Lurie Y. (1960): “Russian Writing
at the End of XV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad; Klibanov A.
(1960): “Reformation Movements in Russia in the First Half of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,
Moscow.

126 Turilov A., Chernezov A. (1989): “On the Cultural-Historical Characteristics of the Heresy

of the Judaizers // Hermeneutics of Ancient Russian Literature XI-XVI Centuries”. Gorky

Institute of World Literature, Moscow. Pg. 409; Korenevsky A. (2001): “New Israel and Holy
Russia: Ethno-Confessional and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Medieval Russian Judaizer Heresy”.
Ab Imperio, Moscow. No. 3, Pg. 134-137.

28

movements of the Renaissance 127 , whilst others find it appropriate to compare the
Judaizers with the Hussites and the Waldensians128. For some, the Judaizer movement is
a symbol of a spiritual peregrination and freedom of thought129, for others – a group of
devious schemers, who employed the technique of conspiracy in order to manipulate
factions at the royal court130.
Differently assessed is the role of the Jewish factor in the genesis of the heresy:
from its recognition as primary131, to its total negation132. All of the diverse perspectives
on the essence of the heresy can be reduced to two fundamental conceptions. According
to the conception of proselytism, the Judaizer heresy constitutes one of the most
successful attempts of the conversion of Orthodox Christians to Judaism, or at least to the
adherence and practice of certain Judaic rituals, in the history of Jewish-Christian
Orthodox relations in Eastern Europe. The other conception contends that the heretics
constituted the first rationalist sect in the history of Russia, which rejected the Christian
dogmas such as the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. In this case, the
phenomenon of ‘Judaizing’ is considered within the context of the anti-Trinitarian
movements, which emerged across various European countries during the threshold of
the transition from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period. According to Seebohm’s
conception, however, the Judaizer heresy was an original Russian phenomenon, which
emerged due to a conflict between the hierarchy of the dominant Orthodox establishment
and the members of the White Clergy, backed by a circle of educated noblemen at the
Moscow court, who strived to reform the Church based on the principles of
rationalism133. The appeal of the heretics to the texts of the Old Testament, as well as to

127 Lilienfeld F. (1976): “John Trithemius and Fedor Kuritsyn (On Some Features Of the Early

Renaissance in Ruthenia and Germany)” // “Cultural Heritage of Ancient Ruthenia”. Sciences,

Moscow. Pg. 116-123.

128 Begunov Y. (1996): “Yan Gus and Eastern Slavs”. Words of the Division of Ancient Russian

Literature. Pushkin House, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 49.

129 Konchev H. (1992): “More on the Issue of the Essence of the Heresy of Judaizers in the

Balkans and Russia in IX – XV Centuries // Russian-Balkan Cultural Links in the Middle Ages”.
BAN publishing, Sofia. Pg. 75-78.

130 Froyanov I. (2007): “The Drama Of Russian History: On the Road to Oprichnina”. Parad

publishing, Moscow. Pg. 45.

131 Ettinger S. (1995): “Influence of Jews on the Judaizer Heresy in Muscovy”. The Hebrew

University, Jerusalem. Jews & Slavs, Vol. 4.

132 Howlett Y. (1993): “The Testimony of Archbishop Gennady on the Heresy of “Novgorod

Heretics Judaizer Philosophizers””. Words of the Division of Ancient Russian Literature.

Pushkin House, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 46. Pg. 53-61.

133 Seebohm T. (1977): “Ratio und Charisma: Ansätze und Ausbildung Eines Philosophischen

und Wissenschaftlichen Weltverständnisses im Moskauer Russland”. Mainzer philosophische

Forschungen, Bd. 17. Bouvier publishing, Bohn. Pg. 194-201.

29

other texts of a Jewish origin, gave their opponents grounds to accuse them of being
Judaizing apostates134.
The question of the scale of Jewish proselytism during the Middle Ages and the
Early Modern period remains a matter of dispute135. Whilst Judaism is predominantly
regarded as a non-proselytizing religion, in a sense that its tenets do not require active
engagement in seeking proselytes, the Jewish faith does nonetheless accept converts into
its fold, and possesses a sense of a mission: to shed light unto the nations136. Accordingly,
is it possible that in the background of the persecution of Jewish communities across
Europe during the 14th-15th centuries, a certain Jewish faction (of Kiev) made an attempt
to acquire new prospects in barbaric Muscovy, within the territory of which a Jewish
population did not exist? Is it conceivable that in a country where baptism took place five
hundred years prior, and where the Orthodox faith had germinated deep and robust roots,
high-ranking members of the clergy were amongst the first to deviate from Christianity
and embrace the heretical teachings? Finally, is it plausible that while these very priests
became the rectors of Kremlin cathedrals, their followers felt at ease at the court of the
Grand Duke and heir to the throne, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, who became the first regent
in Russian history to be crowned according to the Byzantine rite? If, however, these
accounts are fictional, then what were the motives behind their creation and
dissemination?
The primary material on the Judaizer Heresy is contained in the writings of the
Novgorod archbishop Gennady Gonozov, as well as of the abbot of the Volokolamsk
monastery Josef Sanin (Volotsky). While Gennady’s epistles are firmly dated to have
been written between 1487-1490, the chronology of Volotsky’s essays and the time of the
writing of his principal work “The Book on Heretics”, which according to a later
tradition became known as “The Enlightener”, is not as clear and has been a matter of
dispute. Thus, Panov had suggested that the first 4 parts of Volotsky’s treatise were
written around 1488, and the rest of the work – not earlier than 1493 and around 1500137.
Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov maintained that Volotsky gradually produced the work

134 Ibid., Pg. 117.

135 Golb N. (1987): “Jewish Proselytism: A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early
Medieval Europe”. University of Cincinnati, Ohio; Berger D. (2008): “Reflections on
Conversion and Proselytizing in Judaism and Christianity”. Center for Christian-Jewish
Learning at Boston College, Boston. Studies in Christian-Jewish relations Vol. 3; Muslow M.,
Popkin R. (2004): “Secret Conversions to Judaism in Early Modern Europe”. Brill, Boston.

136 Broyde M. (1999): “Proselytism and Jewish Law: Inreach, Outreach, and the Jewish

Tradition”. In “Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of
Proselytism”. Edited by Witte J. and Martin R. Orbis books, New York. Pg. 45-60.

137 Panov I. (1877): “The Judaizer Heresy”. Journal of the Ministry of National Enlightenment.

February. Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 267,
footnote 1.

30

between 1493-1515138. Of a different opinion was Lurie, who asserted that Volotsky
drafted the initial edition of the work in 1502-1504139, and completed the treatise no
earlier than 1511140.
Having been produced within the atmosphere of a polemical dissent, which
engulfed the intellectual echelon of Muscovy at the end of the 15th – beginning of 16th
century, “The Enlightener” had representatively been acknowledged as the first Russian
theological treatise. Thus, Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, one of the most renowned
historians of the Russian Church, asserted that “The Enlightener” can be considered as
“our first attempt at a scholarly theological work”, and had no doubt that the tractate is an
“original composition in a theological sense”141. Archbishop Georgi Florovski, on the
other hand, contended against its originality: “His entire “The Enlightener” is based on
selective samples and testimonies” 142 . Podskalski, in turn, characterized “The
Enlightener” as “a first attempt at a systematic presentation of the Church teachings”143.
Symbolically, the first theological treatise of the Russian Church features a
comprehensive repudiation of the various tenets of Judaism, which, according to
Volotsky, were professed by the Judaizers of Novgorod and Moscow.
This chapter presents an in-depth study of the primary sources, the literature and the
individuals associated with a poignant episode of Russian history, which became known
in Church terminology, and subsequently in modern historiography, as the ‘Heresy of the
Judaizers’. The objectives of the examination include the identification and analysis of
the factors pertaining to the genesis of the Judaizer heresy and its consequent
proliferation, the inquiry into the reaction of Russian Orthodox intellectuals to the
purported manifestation of Jewish proselytism and the resulting apostasy of the high-
ranking members of the clergy and nobility, as well as the consideration of the extent and
significance of the incidence on the relations between Christians and Jews in the
immediate geographical region.

138 Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1996): “The History of the Russian Church”.

Publishing of Spaso-Preobrazhensk Valaamsk monastery, Moscow. Book 4, Chapter 1, Pg.

306.

139
Lurie Y. (1960): “The Ideological Battle in Russian Writing at the End of XV – Beginning of
XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 105.

140 Ibid., Pg. 464.

141 Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1996): “The History of the Russian Church”.
Publishing of Spaso-Preobrazhensk Valaamsk monastery, Moscow. Book 4, Chapter 1, Pg.
325.

142 Florovski G. (1937): “The Ways of Russian Theology”. YMCA Press, Paris. Pg. 19.

143 Podskalski G. (1996): “Christianity and Theological Literature in Kievan Rus (988-1237)”.

Byzantinorossica publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 433.

31

The Perception of Jews and Judaism in Early Ruthenian Literature

The roots of the ancient Ruthenian book-learning, and culture in general, are
characterized by a long marked paradox: despite the nearly complete absence of Jewish
communities in the Medieval Ruthenian lands (with the exception of a documented
community in Kiev 144 ), a characteristic topos of the early Russian literature is a
comprehensive anti-Judaic polemic. This includes its first and fundamental works – “The
Words of Law and Grace” written by Ilarion sometime in 1030s, as well as the oldest
surviving collection of Russian chronicles, the “Primary Chronicle”, dating to the 12th
century145.
The most likely explanation of this enigma is not so much the role of a small Jewish
community of Medieval Kiev, but rather a historical situation arising from the era of the
Khazar regional domination during the 8th to the 10th centuries: according to various
written and archeological evidence, segments of the Khazar royalty and nobility
converted to Judaism during this period146. As the Khazar Khaganate controlled a greater
majority of the Ruthenian lands up to the end of the 9th century, forcing the Kiev princes
to pay royalties147, the anxiety of the imposition of Judaism by the Khazars endured as a
common theme in the subsequent Russian literature. Thus, the Primary Chronicle
describes that in 986, the Khazars made an attempt at converting Kievan Ruthenia to
Judaism by sending missionaries to the court of Prince Vladimir148. Along with the
Jewish missionaries from Khazaria, however, Vladimir received preachers from three
other monotheistic Churches, the authority of which was provided by the associated
political organizations, as is highlighted in the text. These were Muslims from the Islamic
Bulgar state, Catholics (referred to as “Germans from Rome” 149 ), and Orthodox
emissaries from Byzantium150. In the discourse that occurred between the delegates and

144 Kulik A. (2004): "The Earliest Evidence of the Jewish Presence in Western Rus’”. Harvard

Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 27, No. 1/4. Pg.
13-24; Golb N., Pritsak O. (1984): “Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century”.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

145 Pereswetoff-Morath A. (2002): “A Grin without a Cat. Adversus Judaeos Texts in the
Literature of Medieval Russia”. Slavonic Monographs, 4. Lund University, Lund. P. 83.

146 Dunlop, M. (1967): “The History of the Jewish Khazars”. Schocken Books, New York;

Olsson J. (2013): “Coup d'état, Coronation and Conversion: Some Reflections on the Adoption
of Judaism by the Khazar Khaganate”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 23, Pg. 495-526.

147 The Primary Chronicle (1999). Edited by Likhachev D. Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 6.

148 Ibid., Pg. 25-26.

149 In Russia at the time, all Western Europeans were referred to as “Germans”, or ‘Nemtsi’

(‘Немцы’), with the root of the word being “немой”, meaning “mute”.

150 Ibid., P. 26.

32

the Kievan Prince, the Khazar’s sermon encompassed a polemic against Christianity:
“they worship him, whom the Jews crucified, while the Jews worship the one true God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”151. After inquiring on the essence of the Jewish laws and
ritual practices, Vladimir baffled the Khazars with a provocative question: “Where is
your land?”. The Jewish emissaries replied that their land was in Jerusalem, but then were
forced to admit their exile: “our fathers, having angered God, were banished and
scattered amongst different countries, while our land was given to the Christians”152. At
the conclusion of the discourse, Vladimir issued a final deprecation to the Khazars: “by
preaching the law renounced by God, do the Jews intend to devastate every land where
their law would be accepted?” 153. While it is evident that the Khazar assertions described
in the Chronicle were presented in a Christian (Byzantine) redaction, this depiction of a
confrontation between Vladimir and the Khazars, regardless of whether it actually took
place, not only justified Kiev’s decision to baptize into Orthodoxy in 988, but also came
to symbolize the theological supremacy of the Orthodox Church over Judaism, Islam and
Catholicism alike.
Another example of a Christian-Jewish polemic is found in “The Life of Cyril
Constantine”, traces of which appear in the “Primary Chronicle”154. According to the
text, in 861 the much revered ‘apostle to the Slavs’ Saint Cyril the Philosopher
participated in a dispute on the matters of faith with Rabbis in the capital of the Khazar
Khaganate. The central issues of the debate included the following: does the Old
Testament contain references to the Trinity? Can God fit into the womb of a woman? Can
God change his Testament? Is there a difference between the concepts of Law and
Testament? Christ or the Anointed One? Is there a difference between the notions of
icons and idols?155 Josef Volotsky addressed essentially all of these questions in his
polemical works on the Judaizers at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries.
The anti-Judaic polemic further translated into practical dealings, as evidenced by a
recently discovered 11th century rulings of Metropolitan Georgiy of Kiev, in which he
prohibited to “accept bread from a Jew if he baked it himself, as well as brewed honey
and beer”156. Furthermore, “The Church Charter of Yaroslav”, a 12th century legal act
regulating social relations falling within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, issued a fine to
any bishop who would conduct a wedding ceremony between a “Slavic Orthodox” and a

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid., Pg. 41.

154 Turilov A., Moshkova L. (1999): “The Life of Cyril Constantine”, in “The Library of the
Literature of Ancient Ruthenia”. Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2, Pg. 15
(http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=2163).

155 Ibid.

156 Turilov A. (2004): “The Answers of Georgiy, Metropolitan of Kiev, to the Questions of Abbot

German”. In “The Slavic World Vetween Rome and Constantinople”. Vol. 11, Moscow.

33

Jew or a Muslim, meanwhile stipulating imprisonment for an Orthodox woman coming
into such a union, and a fine or banishment for an Orthodox man157. Accordingly, these
texts evidence the existence of a Jewish community in Kiev, with which the Church
authorities attempted to limit any sort of relations for their parishioners, quite possibly
due to fears of proselytization.
In the Early Modern Russian state, the anti-Judaic disposition of the foundational
Russian laws was often regarded as archetypal and worthy of replication. Vasili
Tatishchev, a 17th-18th century nobleman and the author of the first full-scale sketch of
Russian history158, explained the first anti-Jewish pogrom to occur in the Ruthenian
lands, which broke out in Kiev after the death of Prince Sviatopolk II in 1113, by a
supposition that under Sviatopolk, the Jews deprived the Christians of trade and
livelihood “because of their deceitful nature”159. Tatishchev went on to write that when
Vladimir II Monomakh succeeded Sviatopolk II as the Grand Duke of Kievan Ruthenia,
his first command was to “banish the Jews from all of the Russian lands” and from that
point on to not let them enter back in: “and if they were to enter in secret, it was
permissible to rob and kill them. From that time, there aren’t any Jews in Ruthenia, and
when they arrive, the people rob and kill them”160.
In “The History of the Russian State” (1824), a highly authoritative work on the
history of Russia, Nikolay Karamzin generally agreed with Tatishchev on that
Monomakh banished the Jews from the Ruthenian lands in 1113161. However, in his
narration of the ancient Russian chronicles, Karamzin reported that in 1124, “the Jews
were also burned” in a great fire in Kiev162. Tikhomirov, who was generally critical of
both Tatishchev’s and Karamzin’s sources, first noted the discrepancy, writing that “the
Jews were the bankers of Medieval Ruthenia and had large sums of money pass through
their hands”. Due to Kiev being a major trade outpost between Europe and Asia,
Tikhomirov concluded: “although a ban on the Jewish presence in Kiev might have in
fact officially been issued in 1113, it did not materialize in practice due to the influence
of the Jews on the city’s commerce”163. Israel Berlin proposed that Tatishchev’s account
on the banishment of the Jews from Kiev was obtained from a later, possibly 17th century
source, written by a chronographer who wished to express to his contemporaries how

157 Schapov Y. (1976): “The Status of the Ancient Russian Princes in XI-XV centuries”. Science.

Institute of History of the USSR. Moscow.

158 Tatishchev V. (1768): “Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times”. Imperial

Moscow University. 5 Volumes.

159 Ibid., V. 2. Pg. 128.

160 Ibid., Pg. 129.

161 Karamzin N. (1842): “History of the Russian State”. Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

St. Petersburg. Pg. 87.

162 Ibid., Pg. 89.

163 Tikhomirov M. (1975): “Ancient Ruthenia”. Sciences. Moscow. Pg. 136-137

34

“Monomakh, the greatest of the Medieval Ruthenian princes, dealt with “sneaky Jews”,
and how they should be treated henceforth164.
It is important to note that the anxieties and suspicions of the Russian Orthodox
Church regarding the proselytization of the customs and beliefs by foreigners are rooted
in the times of Medieval Ruthenia. Whilst the Early Modern Muscovy state saw itself as
the factual descendant and custodian of the religion, traditions and culture of the Kievan
Ruthenia, the governmental and the ecclesiastical authorities made every attempt to limit
the contact between the Orthodox faithful and the individuals of other confessions. Not
only were virtually all foreigners rendered as heretics and cultivators of ungodly
practices, but also the merchant class regarded the interlopers as unwanted competitors.
Nonetheless, in the interests of trade, the government allowed for foreign merchants to
enter the state but on rather strict terms – often they were allowed to go no further than
border towns, their stay in the country was limited to specified terms, and, especially in
the case of Moscow, the foreigners were forced to live in segregated parts of town or at
times outside the capital all together165. Moreover, visiting the homes of foreigners, as
well as the consumption of their food and drink, was forbidden for the local
population166.
The difference in the fate of the Jewish Diasporas in Russia and the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth is greatly tied to the difference of the states’ social and
economic arrangements: the Russian system did not encompass the niche that allowed for
the Jews of Western Europe and Western Slavic states to function as treasury ushers, tax
collectors, money landers and hold other official posts. The organization of the social
class in Russia was poorly developed, whereby the monarchic authorities controlled
virtually the entire economy and taxation. At the same time, the system greatly relied on
the nobility class, or the boyars, which while comprising different ethnicities, was
interlaced by the Orthodox faith. The characteristic trait of the ancient Russian culture,
with its irreconcilable, rigorist sentiment of both the Church and State towards the
persons of other confessions continued well into the Early Modern Period. Such
convictions were well articulated in the “Golden Chain”, a late 14th century collection of
the Russian Orthodox Church dogmas and ecclesiastical rulings: “The epitome of God’s
enemies are the Jews, heretics, those holding a devious faith, and the apostates from
Orthodoxy”167. The outbreak of the Judaizer heresy at the end of the 15th century
inevitably bolstered these sentiments to the paramount.

164 Berlin I. (1919): “The Historic Fate of the Jewish Nation on the Territory of the Russian

State”. Publishing house of the Jewish Historic Library. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 165-166.

165 Milyukin A. (1909): “The Visits of Foreigners to the Moscow State”. Saint Petersburg. Pg.

59.

166 Ibid., Pg. 62.

167 Ponomarev L. (1916): “On the Literary History of Ancient Russian Collections of the

”Golden Chain”. Scholarly Notes of Kazan University. Book 8, Pg. 21.

35

On the Inception of the Judaizer Heresy

At the end of 1470, the independent Republic of Novgorod requested Kazimir IV

of Poland to send Prince Mikhailo Olelkovich, the brother of the Kievan Prince Simon
Olelkovic, to become its ruler, in an attempt to breakaway from the influence of the
ambitious Ivan III of Moscow168. Shortly after his arrival, however, Novgorod fell under
Moscow’s control following the Battle of Shelon in 1471, and Mikhailo withdrew from
Novgorod. Although this episode is essentially unconnected with any religious motives,
Mikhailo’s brief stay in Novgorod, according to the various sources, led to the spread of
the Judaizer heresy in Novgorod, and in Moscow thereafter.
The testimony of the Novgorod archbishop Gennady Gonozov holds that the
entourage of Mikhailo Olelkovich included a Jewish individual, who subsequently had
spread his religious beliefs amongst the Christians in Novgorod169. Monk Savva’s “The
Epistle Against Jews and Heretics” contains the first mention of the name of the
heresiarch - “Zacharia Skara”170. In the “Narrative of the Newly-Appeared Heresy”,
Josef Volotsky named the Jew from Kiev as “Skhariya”, and pronounced him to have
been a prominent astrologist and practitioner of black magic171. Soon after Skhariya’s
appearance in Novgorod, a group of other Jews arrived from the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania, namely: “Joseph, Shlomo, Skaryavei, Moses and Hanush” 172 . Skhariya’s
“secret” knowledge attracted a number of high-ranking members of the clergy, who may
have been interested in the questions pertaining to the end of the world, which certain
echelons within the Church associated with year 1492 173 . According to Volotsky,
Novgorod priests named Aleksey and Denis often “conversed with the Jews” and were so
enthralled by Skhariya’s teachings, that they expressed the will to convert to Judaism and
“undergo circumcision”, but were prevented from doing so by their mentors in order to
ensure the secrecy of their teachings174. While Aleksey nonetheless took the Jewish name

168 Typography of Edward Prats (1841): “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol.

4. Chronicles of Novgorod and Pskov. The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian

Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 189.

169 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Metropolitan Zosima”

In “Anti-Feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 377.

170 Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against the Jews and Heretics.” Readings

at the Society of Russian History and Ancient Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3. Pg. 1.

171 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 4.

172 Ibid.

173 Romanova A. (2002): “The Ancient Russian Calendar-Chronological Sources of XV-XVII

Centuries”. Bulanin publishing. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 113.

174 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 4.

36

of Abraham, and his wife was re-named to Sarah, he also inveigled into the heresy other
members of his family, fellow clergymen and parishioners175. Priest Denis, in turn,
enticed such high-ranking clergymen into the heretical practice as the archpriest of St.
Sophia Cathedral Gabriel, the deacon of the Church of Boris and Gleb Gridya, as well as
various other members of the upper stratum of the Novgorod clergy176.
When in 1478, yet another Novgorodian revolt against Moscow’s rule was crushed,
the Novgorod Church lost its autonomy and Grand Duke Ivan III personally came to the
northern republic to attend to the details of Church reforms177. During his visit, Ivan III
must have been introduced to the Judaizer priests Aleksey and Denis, who managed to
establish themselves in front of the Grand Duke in such a way, that he subsequently
brought them to Moscow. Aleksey was appointed as the archpriest of the Cathedral of the
Assumption, a leading position among the Moscow clergy, while Denis became the priest
of the Cathedral of the Archangel Michael at the Kremlin178. Although there is no direct
evidence suggesting the Grand Duke’s awareness of the priests’ involvement in
“Judaizing” at the time, nor having interest in their heterodox practices, what might have
captivated Ivan III was the Novgorod priests’ proficiency in the “sacred knowledge” of
mysticism and astronomy. This hypothesis is somewhat confirmed by Volotsky’s
narrative about the beginning of Aleksey’s and Denis’s tenure in Moscow: “In
Moscow…they are pretending, and show themselves to be righteous and humble...but
they are spreading their retched seed in secrecy… archpriest Aleksey and Feodor
Kuritsyn only dare to tell the Grand Duke of the laws of the stars, and many tales, and of
astrology, and of sorcery, and of black magic, as no one else knows”179.
The manifestation of astrology and the interest in mysticism at the court of the
Early Modern Russian monarchy is further confirmed by the appeals to astrologers and
soothsayers by Vasili III180, Ivan IV181 and Boris Godunov182. Further indirect evidence


175 Ibid., Pg. 4-5.

176 Ibid.

177 Vernadsky G. (1933): “The Heresy of the Judaizers and the Policies of Ivan III of Moscow”.

Speculum, Vol. 8, No. 4. Medieval Academy of America. Cambridge.

178 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 8.

179 Volotsky J. (1504-1505): “The Word on Cunning Treachery”. In Lurie Y., Kazakova N.

(1955): “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 471.

180 Grek M. (1551): “The Essays of Saint Maksim Grek”. Part 2. Spiritual Academy of Kazan.

1860. Pg. 225-239.

181 Skrinnikov R. (1992): “The Tsardom of Terror”. Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 439-440.

182 Skrinnikov R. (1988): “Russia in the Beginning of XVII century: The Times of Trouble”.

Thought publishing, Moscow. Pg. 182-183.

37

related to the practice of mysticism at the court of the Grand Duke is found in letters of
monk Maksim Grek to Feodor Karpov, a high-ranking diplomat of Vasilli III, in which
the monk accused Karpov of believing in “the laws of the stars”183. The high appreciation
of astronomical knowledge by the Russian rulers followed the pan-European tendency in
the Early Modern and Renaissance periods, when the comprehension of the stars was
considered an important part of political forecasting184.

The Historical Portrait of Zacharia Skhariya, the Proselytizing Jew

It is most likely that Skhariya and his Jewish companions fled the Russian state
together with Prince Mikhialo Olelkovich in 1471, after his failed attempt to seize power
in Novgorod. Although according to Tatishchev, Skhariya and his associates were
executed at some point in Novgorod by the orders of Ivan III185, this assertion is refuted
by the content of “The Epistle Against Jews and Heretics”, compiled by monk Savva
between 1488-1496186. In the preface to the epistle, which in it itself comprises a
compilation of various anti-Judaic polemics, Savva addressed the ambassador of the
Grand Duke in Crimea in 1487-1488, Dmitry Shein with the following message: “If a
person is kind and is decorated with everything virtuous but is contaminated with
something Jewish, then all of his existence is obscene before God and men, and God will
not endure him but rebuke him, like the Novgorod priests who accepted the Jewish
teachings… And you, Lord Dmitry, were the ambassador and conversed with the Jew
Zacharia Skhara. And I, Lord Dmitry, pray on to thee, that if you have heard from him
the words of clemency or depravity, then please lord, put them out of your head and your
lips, as it is an abomination, for they believe in the Father but not in the Son, and
therefore God is not with them”187.
As follows from the text, monk Savva was aware of one Zacharia Skhara, who
attempted to entice the Moscow ambassador to Judaism when he was in Crimea. This
narrative suggests that Shein could have written to Savva first, asking for spiritual
guidance. Savva’s reference to the apostasy of the Novgorod priests, furthermore, directly
connects the persona of Zacharia Skhariya the Jew, whom Shein reportedly met in

183 Grek M. (1551): “The Essays of Saint Maksim Grek”. Part 2. Spiritual Academy of Kazan.

1860. Pg. 206.

184 Campion N. (1999): “Political Cosmology in the Renaissance”. Paper delivered to the

Inspiration of Astronomical Phenomena (INSAP II) conference. Malta.

185 Tatishchev V. (1847): “Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times”. Imperial

Moscow University. Book 5, No.4. Pg. 109-111.

186 Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against Jews and Heretics.” Readings at

the Society of Russian History and Ancient Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3. Pg. 1-94.

187 Ibid., Pg. 4.

38

Crimea in 1488, with Zacharia the heresiarch, whom archpriest Gennady188 and abbot
Joseph Volotsky189 held responsible for the spread of the Judaizer heresy in the Russian
state.
Pertaining to Volotsky’s contention of Zacharia Skharia, who arrived from Kiev to
Novgorod with Prince Mikhailo, being “a prominent astrologist and master of black
magic”190, Bruckus191 and subsequently Taube192, identified the referenced individual to
have been Zacharia ben Aharon ha-Kohen of Kiev, a copyist and annotator who in the
second half of the 15th century translated and transcribed a number of astronomical,
philosophical and metaphysical works in Hebrew. Zacharia ben Aharon likely belonged
to the circle of a renowned scholar and Kabbalist Rabbi Moses ben Jacob ha-Gole of
Kiev, best known for his kabbalistic work “Lily of Secrets” and commentary to Immanuel
ben Jacob Bonfil’s astronomical user’s manual “Six Wings” 193 . A collection of
manuscripts contained at the Vienna Imperial library, with the ownership marked as
“belonging to Moshe ben-Jacob”194, includes a Hebrew translation of Al-Farghani’s
“Elements of Astronomy – an Arabic compendium of Ptolemy’s “Almagest”, the copy of
which, as the colophon on folio 40r testifies, was made in “Kiev on the 20th of Shvat
5228“ (January 16, 1468) and bears the mark of authorship of “Zacharia, the son of
Aharon the Kohen of blessed memory”195.
Other manuscripts that bear the mark of being copied and annotated by Zacharia
ben Aharon ha-Kohen include: Johannes De Sacrobosco’s “De Sphaera”, “Mesharet
Moshe” (Moses’ Servant) – the commentary on Moses Maimonides “Guide of the
Perplexed” attributed to Qalonymos of Provence, Zerahiah ha-Levi Anatoli’s “Spirit of
Grace” – the explanation of the philosophical terminology used in the “Guide to the
Perplexed” by Maimonides, and a fragment of Solomon Ben Joseph Ibn Ayyub’s

188 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Metropolitan Zosima”

In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 377.

189 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University, Kazan. 1903. Pg. 4.

190 Ibid., Pg. 2.

191 Bruckus J. (1930): “Judaisierende”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 9. cols., Berlin. Pg. 520–522.

192 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs Vol. 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 168-175.

193 Taube M. (2010): “Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph:

Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issue 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 325-
326.

194 Ibid., Vienna, Imperial Library. Codex 183 in Schwarz’s 1925 Catalogue. Table IX, item m.

195 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs Vol. 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 172.

39

Hebrew translation of Averroes’ “De Substantia Orbis”196. Further evidence linking
Zacharia to the translation of Maimonides’ “Logika” into Slavic comes from a preface to
a 16th century Ruthenian Psalter contained at the library of the Kiev Theological
Academy. The folium of the manuscript contains a list of authors and the terminology
that they used for different sciences, with one of the mentioned authors being “Skhariya”
(Cхарiа)197. The terms ascribed to Skhariya – arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy,
politics, physics, theology – are depicted as the “seven wisdoms” in the afterword of the
Slavic version of “Logika” in the same order and nearly identical spelling198.
Notably, the Slavonic spelling of the name “Skhariya” (Схарiя) in the manuscript at
Kiev’s Theological Academy not only coincides with “Skhariya” of “The Enlightener”,
but is also of close resemblance to “Zacharia Skhara” the proselyte of monk Savva’s
address to Dmitri Shein199.
The collection of Zacharia ben Aharon’s works can identify the range of the
annotator’s preferred literature and ideological dispositions: all of the texts are associated
with the Medieval Jewish Rabbi, Moses Maimonides from Cordoba, also known as the
Rambam, one of the most influential Torah sages and philosophers in Jewish scholarship.
Nearly all of the literary works annotated or copied by Zacharia, therefore, encompass
either transcriptions or translations of Rambam’s writings, or the works of authors which
the Spanish Rabbi–philosopher highly valued. Zacharia’s in-depth knowledge of the
Sephardic and Provencal scholarly traditions – the adherence to the rationalist philosophy
of Maimonides and the astronomical tables of Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfil of Provence -
suggest the scribe’s association with the Jewish community of Byzantium, where
Sephardic and Provencal Jews migrated in the 14th century. As follows, Zacharia’s
proselytization amongst the Russian Orthodox clergy and nobility in Novgorod and
elsewhere would have been based primarily on the rationalist and astronomical traditions
of the Sephardic and Provencal schools.
All of the texts transcribed by Zacharia are dated, often with an indication of the
place of writing. These inscriptions ascertain that Zacharia lived in Kiev at least from
1454 to 1468. An inscription on the Hebrew manuscript of Averroes’ “De Substantia
Orbis” contained in the Firkovich collection at the Russian National Library in Saint

196 Taube M. (2010): “Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph:

Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issue 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 326-
328.

197 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?”. In “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 197-198.

198 Ibid.

199 Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against Jews and Heretics.” Readings at

the Society of Russian History and Ancient Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3. Pg. 4.

40

Petersburg200, states that it was copied in “Damascus on the 13th of Sivan 5245 (May 28,
1485) by Zacharia, Man of Jerusalem, son of Aharon the Kohen of blessed memory201.
The title of the “Man of Jerusalem” signifies that Zacharia made a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land at some point before 1485202. According to Rabbi Moses ben-Jacob’s own detailed
testimony recorded in his work “Basis of Intercalation”203, when Kiev was sacked by the
Tatars in 1482, he was exiled from the city and headed south towards Crimea, along with
other Kievan Jews 204. It is therefore likely that Zacharia migrated to Crimea with Rabbi
Moses and subsequently journeyed to Palestine from there. After his pilgrimage to the
Holy Land, Zacharia would have returned to Crimea where the Kievan Jewish
community had settled. Thus, it is possible that his meeting with Moscow ambassador
Shein took place in Crimea in 1488.

On the Question of Ivan III’s Correspondence with Zacharia of Crimea

The Documents of the Crimean Horde205 reveal that precisely from the time of
Zacharia ben Aharon ha-Kohen’s likely migration to Crimea in 1483, and until 1500,
Grand Duke Ivan III conducted negotiations on joining his service in Moscow with a
resident of Crimea, named in the corresponded as “Zacharia Evreyanin” (“Захарие
Евреянину”) 206 – the root of the adjective ‘Evreyanin’ (Евреянин) being ‘Evrey’
(Еврей), which in Russian means ‘Hebrew’. Notably, in ambassadorial records, Ivan’s

200 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 173.; Evr. 436 of the Firkovich collection of manuscripts at
the Russian National Library in Saint Petersburg.

201 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 173.

202 Ibid., Bet-Arie M. (1979): “Hebrew Manuscripts Copied in Jerusalem before the Ottoman

Conquest” in Kedar B.: “Jerusalem in the Middle Ages”. Jerusalem. p. 277. Another 15th
century ‘Man of Jerusalem’, Samuel Bonfus of Marseille, signs the same title after his voyage
to Palestine in the 1430’s.

203 Ibid., MS Saint Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy. C 97, f.

214r.

204 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 173-174.

205 “The Monuments of Diplomatic Relations of Muscovy with Asian Peoples: Crimean Horde,

Kazan, Nogaics and Turkey” (1884). Collection of the Russian Imperial Historical Society Vol.
41. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 40-41, 71—73, 114, 309.

206 “The Letter of Ivan III to Zakhariah Skariya the Jew dated 1482” and “ Ivan III to Zakhariah

Skariya the Jew dated 1484”. In “The Collection of the Russian Imperial Historical Society”
(1884). Vol. 41: Monuments of Diplomatic Relations between Russia and Crimean Horde
and Turkey. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 40-41.

41

1484 letter to this individual was entitled as having been sent “to Zacharia, to Skariya, to
the Jew” (“к Захарье, к Скарье, к жидовину”). In this case, not only does the Slavic
spelling of the name “Skhariya” (к Скарье) correspond to “Skhariya” the Kievan-Jewish
heresiarch of Volotsky’s “The Enlightener”, and the proselytizing Jew “Zacharia
Skhara” vilified in monk Savva’s epistle, but also to “Skhariya” the scholar cited in the
aforementioned 16th century Kievan Psalter. The Russian adjective ‘жидовин’, in turn,
can be translated to English only as meaning Jewish.
The record of the correspondence indicates that Ivan III repeatedly gave his approval
for the said individual to come into the Russian service. In a 1487 response, written in
Latin, the author named himself as “Zacharia Guil Gursis, Prince of Taman”, and
informed the Grand Duke that he made an attempt to travel to Moscow but was robbed
during the journey207. Accordingly, the ‘Prince of Taman’ asked for a safe passage to be
arranged for him. Ivan III replied positively, and simultaneously requested for
ambassador Dmitry Shein, whom monk Savva fervently urged to discard the Judaic
teachings he apparently received from Zacharia Skhariya whilst in Crimea208, “to send his
best men” to accompany Zacharia on his journey to Moscow209.
According to Bruckus, the Prince of the Taman Peninsula in Crimea at that time
could only have been Zacharia De Ghisolfi, a Genoese noble whose family resided in the
region from the beginning of 13th century210. Zacharia’s ancestor Biscareli de Ghisolfi is
mentioned in the 1289-1290 letters of the Pope and King of England, as an envoy of
Georgia in Europe and is referred to as “civis Januensis”211. Bruckus also suggested that
the adjective “Evreyanin” (Евреянин), by which Ivan III addressed the recipient of his
letter, was a mistake in the spelling of “Iberian” (Иверианин) – Iberia being the name of
the kingdom centered in the present day Georgia. Evidently, the Kievan scholar Zacharia
ben Aharon ha-Kohen, aka Zacharia Skhariya, and the Catholic Genoese noble Zacharia
De Ghisolfi could not have been one and the same person, albeit having the same name.
Notwithstanding the identity of Ivan III’s Crimean correspondent, the fact that the
invitation to Moscow was initially offered to an individual whom the Grand Duke and his
ambassadorial clerks considered being Jewish attests to the rather tolerant attitude of the
Russian authorities towards Jews in the 15th century, in contrast to the fervent persecution

207 “The Letter of Zacharia Guil Gursis, the Prince of Taman, to Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow

dated 1487”. In “The Collection of the Russian Imperial Historical Society” (1884). Vol. 41:
Monuments of Diplomatic Relations between Russia and Crimean Horde and Turkey. Saint
Petersburg. Pg. 72.

208 Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against Jews and Heretics.” Readings at

the Society of Russian History and Ancient Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3. Pg. 4.

209 “In “The Collection of the Russian Imperial Historical Society” (1884). Vol. 41: Monuments

of Diplomatic Relations between Russia and Crimean Horde and Turkey. Saint Petersburg.
Pg. 73.

210 Bruckus J. (1918): “Zacharia, the Prince of Taman”. Jewish antiquity No 10, St. Petersburg.

Pg. 135.

211 Ibid. Pg. 135.

42

of the Early Modern period – which was triggered primarily by the scandalous
association of the high-ranking Orthodox clerics and state officials with the Judaizers.
The anxieties that monk Savva expressed in regard to the proselytization of Judaism
underline the influence of the Judaizer heresy on the Russian Orthodox clergy.

On the Dissemination of the Judaizer Heresy in Russia

As the heterodox priests Aleksey and Denis established themselves in Moscow, the
Judaizer heresy reportedly continued to spread within both the ecclesiastical and the
nobility circles of the capital. In the fall of 1485, Grand Clerk Feodor Kuritsyn returned
to Moscow from his embassy in Moldova and Hungary212. According to one of the most
instrumental opponents of the heresy archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, upon his return
to Moscow, Kuritsyn entered the circle of the Judaizers and became the movement’s
principal patron213. The figure of Kuritsyn is rather important, as his high influence on the
Grand Duke is described in Volotsky’s “The Enlightener”: “To him the Grand Duke
listens on all matters”214.
Although the Judaizing sect grew in numbers right in the heart of the state’s
administrative and spiritual capital, the authorities were either unaware, or turned a blind
eye to the activities of the group. It was archbishop Gennady of Novgorod who exposed
the heresy in 1487, but discovered the group’s existence, apparently, by a complete
accident. Gennady witnessed how in a drunken state, the heretics began to argue amongst
themselves about the date of the coming of the Messiah, blasphemed against Christ and
the Virgin Mary, and desecrated holy icons215. Details of the beliefs and rituals of the
Judaizers became known to Gennady by priest Naum, a repentant heretic, from whom
Gennady received “a notebook, according to which they prayed like Jews”, and a
translation of “Six Wings” 216.
Exposing the Judaizers was made difficult by their tactical behavior: before the
learned clergy they pretended to be Orthodox, while common people “they were ready to

212 Lurie Y. (1985): “Russian Contemporaries of the Renaissance”. Leningrad Academy of
Sciences of the USSR. Leningrad. Pg. 92.

213 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Metropolitan Zosima”

In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 377.

214 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 11.

215 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor

Sarsky”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 310.

216 Ibid., Pg. 310, 317.

43

catch like fish”217. According to Gennady, those who were accused of belonging to the
heresy willingly cursed their wrongful ways and “swore on everything divine without
fear”218. The Novgorod archbishop claimed that the influence the Judaizers had on the
appointment of the clergy greatly contributed to the spread of the heresy. The clergy,
being obliged to their patrons, easily forgave the sins of their parishioners and incited
them too into the heresy219. The canonical basis for the accusation of the heresy prompted
a number of rules of the holy apostles, including: “celebration of holidays with Jews”,
“blasphemy in sacred places”, as well as the 6th rule of the 4th Ecumenical Council:
“wrongful appointment and corruption of the clergy” 220.
Archbishop Gennady organized an investigation of the heresy, during the course of
which he obtained testimonies from several witnesses, thereby exposing a number of
leading Novgorod clergymen as Judaizers. The collected evidence was sent to Grand
Duke Ivan III and the Metropolitan of Moscow Gerontius in 1488221. In their responses,
the Duke and the Metropolitan accepted the validity of the accusations against most, but
not all of the persons indicted of the heresy: the allegation against priest Gridi Klutch, for
instance, was not accepted as valid222. Nonetheless, at the 1488 council in Moscow,
attended by the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan, the majority of the accused Judaizers
were officially found guilty of “blasphemy against Christ and the Virgin Mary”,
“desecration of holy icons”, and “proselytization of the Jewish faith and blasphemy
against the Orthodox Christian faith”223. For committing such heresies, the accused were
subjected to a “city execution”, whereby they were thrown into the river but rescued
before drowning. Afterwards, they were sent to Novgorod “for repentance”224. Gennady
was ordered to continue to search out the heresy along with the emissaries of the Grand

217 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor
Sarsky”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 317.

218 Ibid.

219 Tsvetkov M. (2003): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor Sarsky in the

Context of Novgorod Heresy at the End of XV – Beginning of XVI centuries”. Historical

Collection of Novgorod. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 189.

220 Pikhoya R. (1990): “Korchmaya of Perm” (Пермская кормчая) // “Public Consciousness,

Book Keeping and Literature in the Epoch of Feudalism”. Department of Sciences of Siberia.
Novosibirsk. Pg. 173-174.

221 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letters of the Grand Duke Ivan III and Metropolitan

Geronty to Gennady of Novgorod”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 314-315.

222 Ibid., Pg. 314-315.

223 Ibid., Pg. 315.

224 Ibid.

44

Duke in Novgorod, and at a Church council later that year the archbishop successfully
exposed another group of heretics, who were “beaten with a whip at the market
square”225.
Notwithstanding the repressions, the Judaizers continued their ministry. Evidently,
the ever-growing eschatological expectations of the upcoming end of the world in 1492
prompted the continued success of the heretical propaganda, as demonstrated by the
request of archbishop Gennady to Joseph, former archbishop of Rostov, to send Church
elders Paisey and Nil to Novgorod to advise on the possibility of the end of the world 226.
With a similar request Gennady wrote to the Greek scholars in service at the Moscow
court, brothers Dmitry and Yuri Trakhaniot227. In the appeal to archbishop Joseph,
Gennady quoted the conviction of the Judaizers, which he personally heard expressed by
the heterodox archpriest Aleksey: “Three summers will pass, and the end will come in the
seventh thousand…and we, the activists, will then be needed”228.
Around 1489, a Novgorod scribe Timofei Venyaminov made a marginal note in a
manuscript, in which he described the unsettling atmosphere of the time: a large number
of the priests and deacons were “enticing common people into the cursed Jewish faith”229.
In the aforementioned letter written to archbishop Joseph of Rostov, Gennady
complained about Moscow’s apathy on the matter: “it is unbearable to think, that this
case will lead to nothing, as Novgorod and Moscow are not one in Orthodoxy; they are
not worried about it at all”230. The impression was that both the spiritual and the secular
authorities were not interested in the persecution of Judaizers. Joseph Volotsky later
explained the passivity of the Moscow Metropolitan, by noting that Metropolitan
Gerontius “lacked harshness and determination” and was “afraid of the Grand Duke”231.

225 Kistereva S., Timoshina L. (2001): “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol. 6.

Second edition. “Sofia Chronicles”. Languages of Slavic Cultures. Moscow. Pg. 186.

226 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

227 Pliguzov A., Tikhonyuk I. (1988): “The Letter of Dmitry Trakhaniot to Novgorod

Archbishop Gennady on the Symmetry of the Count of Years”. Natural Scientific

Understanding of Ancient Ruthenia. Moscow. Pg. 57.

228 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

229 Fonkich B. (1977): “Greek-Russian Cultural Ties in XV-XVII Centuries”. Sciences. Moscow.

Pg. 31.

230 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 317.

231 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 9.

45

 Correspondingly, the heresy continued to be spread in the capital. According to
“The Enlightener”, between 1488-1490 the membership in the Judaizer circle was
extended to such highly influential individuals as the archimandrite of the Simonov
monastery Zosima, grand clerics Istoma and Sverchok, and an affluent merchant Simon
Klenov232. Meanwhile, archbishop Gennady reported that in 1489, during the course of
his investigation against the Judaizers in Novgorod, a number of high-ranking priests and
deacons escaped to Moscow 233. The Novgorod archbishop also maintained that the
meetings of the Moscow circle of the Judaizers were held in the homes of Feodor
Kuritsyn, archpriest Aleksey, as well as in the Simonov Monastery, when Zosima was its
rector (1485-1490)234. Furthermore, according to Volotsky, at those meetings, the heretics
“ate Jewish food, celebrated the Jewish Passover and other Jewish holidays”235.
Soon after the death of Metropolitan Gerontius in 1489, archimandrite Zosima,
whom Volotsky accused to be the protégé of the head Judaizer archpriest Aleksey236, was
appointed to become the new Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the
Grand Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn likely playing a role in the appointment237. Consequently
after Zosima’s rise to ecclesiastical power, archbishop Gennady found himself under a
hail of allegations for violating the canonical rules and the norms of legal proceedings:
not only was it demanded of him to confess his faith, which was especially offensive to
Gennady, but he was also accused of the unlawful use of torture towards the heretics238.
From Gennady’s letter to the Council of Bishops, written in 1490, it becomes known that
a number of repentant heretics fled from Novgorod to Moscow, including monk Zakhar,
who was sending out defamatory letters directed against Gennady239. Furthermore, the
Novgorod archbishop was charged with maintaining illegal ties with Lithuanian nobility


232 Ibid., Pg. 11.

233 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 317.

234 Ibid., Pg. 317.

235 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 32.

236 Ibid., Pg. 10.

237 Tikhonyuk I. (1992): “The Mystery of Archimandrite Evfimij: the Origins of the Conflict

Between Joseph Volotsky and Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Problems of National History and
Culture of the Period of Feudalism”. Readings in memory of V. Kobrin. Moscow. Pg. 176.

238 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to the

Council of Bishops”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 380.

239 Ibid., Pg. 378.

46

and having Catholic-Lithuanian priests serving in his diocese 240. Not only was the
accusation of an ecclesiastical nature, but also of a political character, as at the time,
Muscovy was in a state of war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
In October 1490, archbishop Gennady sent another letter to Moscow, addressed
directly to Zosima, in which he attested against the accusations put forward against him,
as well as demanded for the Church to allow him to come to Moscow, and to condemn
the Judaizers exposed by him. He denied any ecclesiastical or political associations with
Lithuania, but used the opportunity to state that with the Lithuanian Prince Mikhailo
Olelkovich “to the Novgorod land came the cursed Jewish heretic from whom the heresy
had spread”241, clearly referring to Zacharia Skhariya of Kiev. Furthermore, Gennady
directly accused Grand Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn of patronizing the heretics, and condemned
the actions of Ivan III, who moved “old sacred churches and monasteries” out of Moscow
– an act by which Gennady perceived a particular “impurity” of the Grand Duke.
According to a newly baptized Jew from Kiev named Danilo, whom Gennady had taken
under his patronage in Novgorod, Kievan Jews met the news of the “desecration” of the
Orthodox altars and the movement of the ancient relics out of Moscow with “delight”242.
The anti-Judaic tone of the letter is further accentuated by the citation of the example of
the Spanish king, who “cleansed his land of the Judaic heresy” 243. In that regard,
Gennady also noted that he sent a report of the inquisition to the Metropolitan, which was
recorded from the words of the imperial ambassador Georg von Thurn. The main subject
of the report was the establishment of a legislative committee, with the direct authority to
persecute all those suspected of the heresy, including high-ranking royal officials and
bishops244.
In the letter to the Metropolitan, Gennady also expressed his frustration over the
fact that priest Denis, one of Skhariya’s first students and founders of the Judaizing sect,
has been found not guilty of heretical practice, albeit being initially suspected245. He
demanded from Zosima the convocation of a Church council, at which the heretics, who
“don’t go to church but praise the Jewish faith”, were to be tried and “cursed”246.

240 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to
Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI
Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 374-375.

241 Ibid., Pg. 373.

242 Ibid., Pg. 377.

243 Ibid., Pg. 379.

244 Sedelnikov D. (1932): “A 1490 Report of the Inquisition” // “The Proceedings of the

Commission on Ancient Russian Literature”. Vol. 1. Pg. 49-50.

245 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to

Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 376.

246 Ibid., Pg. 376.

47

However, as Gennady simultaneously sent a letter with identical demands to the Council
of Bishops, the members of which elected Zosima to the realm of the Church, it is evident
that the Novgorod archbishop was not too reliant on the Metropolitan to actually address
his concerns of the Judaizing presence in Moscow.
While Gennady’s principal accusation against the Judaizers was iconoclasm, the
emphasis was made on the fact that according to the canonical rules, any clergyman
associating with heretics is subject to be stripped of his title and defrocked. He urged the
bishops to decisively eliminate the heresy: “There should not be any discussions with
them about faith; the council is to be called up with the sole purpose of executing them –
by burning and hanging!”247. Correspondingly, the archbishop’s position on the danger of
discourse with those professing the Judaic faith was generally accepted amongst Catholic
theologians. For instance, Pier Damien’s letter “Against the Jews” of 1040-1041248, as
well as Peter of Blois’s 1211 polemic “Against the Unbelief of the Jews”249, both warned
against conducting any kind of discussions with Jews and heretics.
The Council against the Judaizers was conveyed nonetheless. It took place on
October 17, 1490, and as follows from the “Teachings to all of Orthodox
Christianity”250, written by Metropolitan Zosima on the basis of the council’s verdict, the
initiator of the trial was archbishop Gennady. The documentary base for the charges was
formed on the evidence presented by Gennady and the testimonies of the witnesses
gathered in Moscow. According to the text of the “Conciliar Verdict”, the heretics were
charged with iconoclasm, slander of Christ, the Virgin Mary and saints, the denial of the
authority of the seven Ecumenical councils, the violation of fasts, honoring of the
Sabbath instead of Sunday, and the disbelief in the ascension of Christ251. Each of the
charges, however, was explicitly characterized as following “Jewish customs”.

247 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to the
Council of Bishops”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI
Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 381.

248 Damian P. (1040-1041): “Against the Jews”. In “The Fathers of the Church: Mediaeval

Continuation”(2005). Letters 141-180. CUA Press. Washington. Pg. 37-83.

249 Peter of Blois (1211): “Against the Unbelief of the Jews”. In Williams L. (1935): “Adversus

Judaeos: A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologies Until the Renaissance”. Cambridge

University Press. Cambridge. Pg. 400-407.

250 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Teachings to All of Orthodox Christianity”. In “Anti-feudal

Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-

Leningrad. Pg. 384-386.

251 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Conciliar Verdict of 1490”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical

Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg.

383.

48

Furthermore, the Judaizers were accused of possessing “renounced books”, of religious
practice “in accordance with the Old Testament”, and of “praising the Judaic faith”252.
The intervention of Grand Duke Ivan III most certainly had an impact on the verdict.
While Monk Zakhar, whom Gennady accused of spreading false accusations against him,
was pronounced to be the head of all Judaizers, the text of the “Conciliar Verdict”
peculiarly does not make any reference to archpriest Aleksey, one of Skhariya’s original
disciples, nor to Grand Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn. Although Gennady placed both Aleksey
and Kuritsyn at the head of the Judaizing movement in his letters, it is likely that their
close relations with the Grand Duke allowed them to escape persecution. Moreover, as
the date of Aleksey’s death was stated in “The Enlightener” to be September 26, 1491253,
which is almost a year after the anti-heretical council, it can be concluded that the head
Judaizer was in fact able to avoid persecution.
Nine people in total were convicted for heresy at the Council, all of whom were
high-ranking members of the clergy: archpriest Gabriel, priests Denis, Maksim and
Vasili, deacon Makar, clerks Gridya, Vasuk and Samukha254. An anathema was declared
on the Judaizers: they were defrocked, excommunicated and incarcerated. Two more
members of the sect, Ignat Zubov and Ivan Cherni, were convicted in absentia, as they
ran away “beyond the sea” and “entered into the Jewish faith”255.
Some of the condemned Judaizers were sent to Novgorod, into the realm of
archbishop Gennady. Ahead of their “marketplace execution” (public flogging), the
heretics were subjected to an embarrassing procedure: planted on horses face-to-tail with
their clothes inside out, hay helmets on their heads and signs “this is the Satan’s army”,
they were paraded through Novgorod. Once they reached the marketplace, the helmets
were burned right on their heads 256 . Confirming Gennady’s high regard of the
inquisitorial methods, the punishment of the Judaizers in part followed a tradition of the
inquisition, which included the burning of caps on the heads of the convicted heretics257.

252 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Teachings to All of Orthodox Christianity”. In “Anti-feudal

Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-

Leningrad. Pg. 386.

253 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 2.

254 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Conciliar Verdict of 1490”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical

Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg.

383, 385.

255 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to

Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 376.

256 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Message of Novgorod Archbishop Gennady to an

Unknown Recipient (excerpt)”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 472.

257 Belova O., Petrukhin Y. (2008): “The Jewish Myth in Slavic Culture”. Hesharim publishing.

Moscow-Jerusalem. Pg. 174-179.

49

 It is evident that Gennady aimed to publicly ridicule and mock the exposed
Judaizers. They were well known and respected people in Novgorod, and the clownish
images that they were subjected to were meant to do away with their authority and
dignity. Without a doubt, in the eyes of ordinary people, this act of a demonstrative
frivolity was a much more effective method of discrediting the Judaic teachings, which
these high-ranking clergy were accused of disseminating amongst their parishioners, than
the most successful public debate.
Since detailed records of the investigation and court proceedings have not survived,
it is rather hard to evaluate the validity of the allegations brought against the Judaizers.
The “Conciliar Verdict of 1490” and the “Teachings to All of Orthodox Christianity” are
typical examples of a Medieval inquisitional process: the heretical delinquencies of the
Judaizers are based solely upon the denunciations of their accuser Gennady, while the
heretics refused to admit any wrongdoing. The lone exception in this instance was the
“repentance” of priest Denis, as he reportedly confessed to the “intemperance of the
tongue”258. It can be said, therefore, that the sources portray not so much the ideology of
the Novgorod freethinkers, but rather depict the reprisals against them by the feudal
Church and State.
Having achieved provisional success in condemning the heresy physically,
archpriest Gennady directed his efforts towards confronting the Judaizers ideologically.
With the corrupting influence of the Judaizers on the parishioners, the problem of the
enlightenment of the Novgorod congregation acquired a particular importance for the
archbishop. In order to eradicate apostasy and reaffirm Orthodoxy, the Church was in a
dire need of enlightened pastors, and Gennady was one of the first amongst the Russian
clergy to talk about the need for the establishment of specialized clerical schools259.
Furthermore, Gennady inspired the creation of the first full Slavonic translation of the
Bible. The codex became known as “Gennady’s Bible”, and in 1499 the Moscow
Patriarchate made several copies of the manuscript260. While a complete set of the
Scripture did not exist in Ruthenia, in his letter to archbishop Joseph of Rostov, Gennady
pointed out that the Judaizers used distorted texts261. Without a doubt, the contention
against the Judaizing apostates played a providential role in creating a sanctioned,
‘uncorrupted’ full-length translation of the Holy Book.

258 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Teachings to All of Orthodox Christianity”. In “Anti-feudal

Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-

Leningrad. Pg. 388.

259 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

260 Alekseev A. (1999): “Gennady’s Bible // Textual Analysis of the Slavic Bible”. Dmitry

Bulanin publishing, St. Petersburg. Pg. 143.

261 Ibid., Pg. 318.

50

 Between 1502-1504, archbishop Gennady commissioned the translation of two
major Medieval European anti-Judaic treaties, namely Nicholas of Lyra’s “Against the
Treachery of the Jews” and Samuel Marocanus’ “Epistle Against Judaic Errors”262. The
referral to Catholic polemics demonstrates the magnitude of the heretical threat that the
Orthodox hierarchy was faced with. Correspondingly, a question arises on the degree of
the influence of the Judaizer circle at the Moscow court at the turn of the 16th century.

The Judaizer Circle of Moscow

Various researchers of Russia’s Judaizer phenomenon had noted differences

between the Judaizer circles of Novgorod and Moscow263. The most apparent difference
was the social class of the heretics: while the vast majority of Novgorod’s Judaizers were
members of the clergy, Muscovite heretics were for the most part patricians with close
ties to the Kremlin. Moscow’s Judaizer sect included Elena Stefanovna, the daughter-in-
law of the Grand Duke and the mother of the successor to the throne Dmitry, D’yaks
Fedor and Ivan-Volk Kuritsyn, boyar Konoplev, merchants Klenov and Zubov, a
Hungarian aristocrat Martin, and others.
Meanwhile, serving at the Kremlin’s cathedrals, arch-heresiarchs priests Aleksey
and Denis enjoyed a great degree of influence on Ivan III. The initial stage of their
brilliant careers is shrouded in mystery: according to Josef Volotsky, the Grand Duke was
so impressed with their knowledge of mysticism and astrology264, that he appointed the
men to key clerical positions in Moscow.
Archpriest Aleksey served at the Cathedral of the Assumption, a central Cathedral
of the Russian Orthodox Church. Perhaps this fact explains the peculiar passivity of
Metropolitan Gerontius towards the heresy uncovered by archbishop Gennady at the end
of the 1480’s. Furthermore, it was Aleksey who recommended the candidacy of Zosima
to the post of the next Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church. As follows from the
testimony of archbishop Gennady, it was at Aleskey’s home where secret meetings of
Moscow’s Judaizer circle were held.
Priest Denis, in turn, served at the Cathedral of the Archangel Michael, which was
the home church of the Moscow princes and the resting place of males from the ruling
dynasty. Hence, this post provided Denis with greater influence over both the nobility
and clergy of Moscow. Denis would have been the priest who took confessions from the
family members of the Grand Duke. Amongst Denis’s duties would have been
conducting memorial services for the deceased parents and ancestors of Ivan III.
Occupying a high rank within the Church, Denis, apparently, no longer considered it

262 Konopeeva N. (1982): “Western Sources in the Works of Novgorod Scribes at the End of XV

- Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Federov readings. Moscow. Pg. 140.

263 Lurie Y. (1960): “Russian Writing at the End of XV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 154-185.

264 Volotsky J. (1504-1505): “The Word on Cunning Treachery”. In Lurie Y., Kazakova N.

(1955): “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 471.

51

necessary to conceal his unorthodox way of thinking. He allowed himself to publicly
express blasphemy and demonstrate to the members of his congregation a conduct that
contradicted the Christian practice, as per the testimonies of archbishop Gennady and
Josef Volotsky. Until 1490, the patronage of the Grand Duke provided him with
immunity. However once it became obvious that it was impossible to protect him from
the amassing accusations coming from Novgorod, witnesses were found who claimed
that during the service at the Cathedral of the Archangel Michael, Denis “danced at the
throne and desecrated the cross”265.
Other influential members of the heretical circle were the so-called ‘cross clerics’
Istoma and Sverchok. Cross clerics were the deacons at churches located in the royal
manors and princely palaces. The ‘cross room’ of the Kremlin palace was the Grand
Duke’s place of daily prayers, and contained ancestral relics such as crosses, which were
passed down as inheritance. According to abbot Volotsky, Istoma and Sverchok, along
with Kuritsyn and Klenov, actively taught others how to “Judaize”266.
The predominantly affluent character of Moscow’s circle of the Judaizers,
incorporated by the close proximity to the court of the Grand Duke, generated a more
complex ideology and a different type of behavior in comparison with the heretics of
Novgorod. Just as in Novgorod, in Moscow the Judaizers held meetings where they
performed various Judaic rituals; however in contrast to Novgorod, the meetings in the
capital apparently were strictly confidential in nature. Markedly, neither abbot Volotsky
nor archbishop Gennady reported blatant vandalism or blasphemy towards sacred
Christian objects by the Moscow heretics – priest Denis, who “danced at the throne and
desecrated the cross” at the Kremlin was himself a Novgorodian. In their proselytizing
activity in the capital, the Judaizers apparently did not place an emphasis on promoting
anti-Christian views, but rather on the critique of the New Testament and on the spread of
scientific and rational ideas, through which it seems that they had found the support of
the Grand Duke, who highly valued astronomical knowledge. Josef Volotsky described
the actions of the heretics during the reign of Metropolitan Zosima and the widespread
consequences of their propaganda in the following manner: “And those who are
reasonable and knowledgeable of the Divine Scripture, they dare not bring into Judaizing
just yet, however by distorting the chapters of the Old and New Testament, they attract
followers to their heresy, and by teaching astrology and mythology, and analyzing birth
and human life by the stars, albeit whilst they despise the Divine Scripture267.

265 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Metropolitan Zosima”

In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 376.

266Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 27.

267 Volotsky J. (1504-1505): “The Word on Cunning Treachery”. In Lurie Y., Kazakova N.

(1955): “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 474.

52

Joseph Volotsky’s Polemical Battle Against the Judaizers

While the edicts of the Church council of 1490 to some extent disrupted the
Judaizer circle of Novgorod, the Moscow wing of the movement was virtually unaffected
by the suppression. Evidently, the bishops could not insist on the persecution of the
senior heretics, who were backed by a consolidated position of the Grand Duke and the
Metropolitan. This is further reinforced by the fact that Elena Stefanovna, the mother of
Prince Dmitry Ivanovich who was crowned in 1498 and became co-Regent along with his
grandfather, Ivan III268, was later accused of belonging to the Judaizers269. Although
Prince Dmitry was never indicted for heretical practice himself, his coronation as the
successor to the Russian throne nonetheless posed a perceptible danger for the zealots of
Orthodoxy, as it symbolized a particular degree of influence of the Judaizers on the
Grand Duke.
It is interesting to note that Elena Stefanovna (nicknamed Moldovanka and
Voloshanka) had family ties with three royal families: that of Muscovy, Moldavia and
Kiev. Her marriage to Ivan Ivanovich the Younger, eldest son of Ivan III, made her the
daughter-in-law of the Grand Duke and the mother to the successor to the Russian throne.
Princess Elena was the daughter of Stefan the Great of Moldavia – while Fedor Kuritsyn,
one of the leaders of the Judaizer movement, held embassy at the court of Stefan for
extended periods of time in the 1480’s. Stefan’s wife and Elena’s mother was Evdokiia,
the daughter of Prince Olelko Vladimirovich of Kiev270. Thus, Elena also happened to be
the direct cousin of the aforementioned Kievan Prince Mikhailo Olelkovich, with whom
Zacharia the heresiarch arrived to Novgorod. Consolidating both personal and family ties
with the individuals whose names are unreservedly entwined with the manifestation of
the Judaizer movement in Russia, it comes as no surprise that Princess Elena partook in
the heresy. Attracting members of the royal family into their ranks would have been a
strategic endeavor on behalf of the conspirators, for as it had been pointed out by Taube,
the Judaizers must have been aware of the accounts of the Christianization of Ruthenia
and the Judaization of Khazaria, where in both cases a religious conversion of the rulers
was followed by the conversion of their respective kingdoms 271 . Meanwhile, the
strengthening of the Judaizer party at the Moscow court forced their opponents to abstain
from a public polemic against them; it was around the same time that Joseph Volotsky
began his ideological crusade against the Judaizer heresy.

268 “The Sofia Chronicle” (1853) in “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles.” St.
Petersburg. Vol. 6. Pg. 353-355.

269 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Messages of Joseph Volotsky” Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Pg. 176.

270 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 186.

271 Ibid.

53

 In 1544, bishop Savva Krutitski remembered the abbot of Volokolamsk, Joseph,
with the following words: “And may our father and teacher Joseph be blessed for not
letting the harmful heresy to multiply and enter the minds of unreasonable men. For
through suffering and sacrifice, father Joseph gave himself fully to the unity of the
Orthodox faith, so to prevent the evil heretical teachings from entering the royal
chambers, so that the evil men not knowing the divine rules and scripture could not
disseminate their blasphemy amongst the nobles and the Princes and lead them to
apostasy from the Orthodox Christian faith, and all became known from his writings of
the Novgorod heresy”272.
Although the chronology of the majority of Joseph Volotsky’ writings, including
the dating of his principal work “The Enlightener” cannot be stated with exact precision,
the contents of the essays suggest that the abbot of Volokolamsk responded to the call of
archbishop Gennady and became the striking force of the anti-heretical faction in the
early 1490s273. It is known that around 1489, Joseph’s monastery, which he founded in
Volokolamsk, received books which were to give the abbot literary material for the
discourse against the heretics. On January 26 1489, Gerasim Popovka, the underling of
archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, sent to Volotsky a book entitled “Silevester the
Pope” 274 . Furthermore, Pavel Vasilyev of Novgorod transcribed the Pentateuch for
Volotsky, to which two polemical treatises were attached: “Faith and Resistance of the
Baptized Jews in Africa and Carthage and of the Requests, Responses and Consolidation
of Jacob the Jew”, and “The Epistle of Presbyter Kozma Against Heretics”.
Consequently, abbot Joseph used these texts as references in “The Enlightener”.
Volotsky’s letter to bishop Nifont of Suzdal marks the starting point of the abbot’s
ascension to the vanguard position in the struggle against the Judaizers, as in the text, he
spearheaded his contentions against Metropolitan Zosima himself, who remained at the
realm of the Russian Orthodox Church until 1494. In a letter to Bishop Nifont, Volotsky
wrote that on the throne of the holy hierarchs Peter and Aleksey “now sits a demonic
wolf dressed in ministerial clothing, claiming the rank of a hierarch, but underneath he is
Judah the traitor and an accomplice of the devil”275. In the same letter, the Metropolitan is
named a “destructive snake”, “the forerunner of the Antichrist”, “the Satan’s vessel”, and
is accused of “propagating Judaization”, “isonomic defilement”, “apostasy from Christ”,

272 Nevostruev K. (1865): “The Life of Venerable Joseph, Abbot of Volokolamsk, Composed by

Bishop Savva Krutitski”. Readings of the Moscow Society of Devotees to Spiritual

Enlightenment. Moscow. Book 2. Pg 34.

273 Zimin A. (1982): “Russia at the Turn of XV-XVI Centuries: Traces of Socio-Political History”.

Thought publishing. Moscow. Pg. 223.

274 This book is now part of the collection of the Russian State Library. Volok. 505. Pg. 1-166.

A note about the sending of the book is on pg. 167. Description in Joseph, the Hieromonk. The
inventory of manuscripts transferred from the library of Joseph’s monastery to the library
of the Moscow Theological Academy. Moscow 1882. Pg. 131-133.

275 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Letter of Joseph Volotsky to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal” in “The

Messages of Joseph Volotsky” Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 160.

54

“blasphemy of the Virgin Mary and Christ”, “iconoclasm and rejection of the Gospels,
apostolic and patristic writings”, and “the disbelief in the second coming of Christ and
the resurrection of the dead”276. Volotsky’s letters to archimandrite Evfimij277 and to his
brother, monk Vassian Sanin278, evidently written simultaneously with his message to
bishop Nifont, feature very similar, severe accusations of the Metropolitan being a satanic
“Judaizing heretic”. Moreover, in his “Narrative of the Newly-Appeared Heresy”, the
introduction of “The Enlightener” presenting the historical account of the Judaizers,
Volotsky once again labeled the heretical Metropolitan with all of the epithets used in his
epistles, as well as with a few new ones, such as “a multi-headed snake”, “the epitome of
evil”, and so on279.
The gravest accusations and heinous insults that Joseph Volotsky used to address
Metropolitan Zosima with his inherent polemicist talent do not have precedent up until
the epoch of the Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church in the mid-seventeenth century,
when fierce debates about faith often ended with the opponents of the Church authorities
being burnt at the stake. It is therefore a mystery as to how the abbot of Volokolamsk,
having entered into a public polemic with the principal Church authority backed by the
Grand Duke, was able to avoid persecution, especially considering his own testimony,
according to which the Orthodox faithful were subjected to severe oppressions during
those years. Conversely, during his reign, Ivan III removed members of the clergy from
their posts with ease for much lesser ‘crimes’ than apostasy – for example in 1497, the
Grand Duke ordered for the archimandrite of Kremlin’s Chudov monastery to be publicly
whipped for being involved in will forgery280.
Evidently free from censorship and external pressure, Volotsky began to work on
“The Enlightener”, also known as “The Book on Heretics”, in the early 1490s, albeit
most likely not distributing the essays widely until the Judaizers were entirely exposed
and condemned in the early 1500s. Reminiscent of the classic Christian counter-
arguments to the Jewish rejection of Christ, the work is written with a clear objective to
defend the truth and validity of the Christian dogmas against the heresy. Each of the
book’s chapters, or “words” as they are titled, address a specific subject matter, where the
author first states a certain alleged teaching or conviction of the Judaizers, formulated in
the form of a contention against Christianity, and then refutes the stated by sighting the

276 Ibid., Pg. 161.

277 Kobrin V. (1966): “The Letter of Joseph Volotsky to Archimandrite Evfimij” in “Manuscript

Volumes of V. I. Lenin State Library of the USSR”. Vol. 28. Moscow. Pg. 227-235.

278Kobrin V. (1966): “The Letter of Joseph Volotsky to Monk Vassian Sanin” in “Manuscript

Volumes of V. I. Lenin State Library of the USSR”. Vol. 28. Moscow. Pg. 236-239.

279 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 18.

280 Skrytnikov R. (1991): “The Church and State in XIV-XVI Ruthenia”. Sciences. Novosibirsk.

Pg. 95-110.

55

scripture. “The Enlightener” features 16 principal chapters and an introduction,
thematically divided as follows281:

• The introduction discusses the solemnity of the crimes committed by the Judaizers,
namely by Metropolitan Zosima, archpriest Aleksey, priest Dennis and the Grand
Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn.
• In the first chapter, the evidence is presented in favor of the existence of the Holy
Trinity based on the prophecies of the Old Testament, questioned by the Novgorod
heretics.
• In the second ‘word’, Volotsky argues against the Judaizer claims that the messiah
has not yet been born and is yet to come, and that the one whom the Christians call
Christ is an ordinary man and not God.
• Using Saint Paul’s line of argumentation, the third chapter contends against the
Judaizers appeal to adhere to the Law of Moses, the practice of circumcision and the
practice of animal sacrifice.
• In the fourth part, the abbot rejects the argument of the Novgorod heretics that the act
of suffering and self-sacrifice of Jesus did not save humanity from sin and defeat the
devil.
• The fifth chapter contends against the Judaizers’ assertion that under the Oak of
Mamre, Abraham saw God with two angels and not the Holy Trinity, and hence
argues that the Trinity must be portrayed on icons.
• The sixth chapter refutes the opinion that it is not befitting to worship man-made
objects, as propagated by the Novgorod Judaizers.
• The seventh chapter is dedicated to the justification of the Christian teachings of
worshiping the Living Cross, holy icons, and relics of venerable saints, for they heal
and perform miracles. Here, Volotsky quotes the Judaizers as saying; “let us desecrate
icons like Jews desecrated Christ”.
• In the eighth chapter, Volotsky addresses the Judaizer’s question on how is it that the
second coming of Christ has not yet happened. Does that not prove apostolic writings
false? According to Volotsky, the apostolic writings are true, for they were inspired
by the Holy Spirit.
• The ninth chapter further deals with addressing the questions on the second coming.
• The tenth chapter condemns the heretical disbelief in the miracles performed by Saint
Ephraim the Syrian.
• In the eleventh chapter, Volotsky defends monastic life against the Judaic assertion
that those who will not reproduce will be damned.
• The twelfth chapter denies allegations that if a heretical bishop curses or doesn’t bless
an Orthodox parishioner, God’s judgment will follow that of the bishop.
• In the thirteenth chapter, Volotsky rejects claims of the Judaizers that it is wrong to
condemn heretics and apostates. Here, the author stresses that not only should heretics
and apostates be condemned and cursed, but that it is befitting for kings and princes
to imprison and subject them to brutal executions.

281 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 18.

56

• In the fourteenth chapter Volotsky maintains that Orthodox faithful should search out
and expose heretics and apostates. In that regard, using evidence from the scripture,
Volotsky emphasizes that all those who love Christ must find in themselves the
diligence and the determination to seek out heretics through the means of “prudent
trickery”, while anyone trying to hide a heretic becomes an accomplice to the heresy.
• In the fifteenth chapter, Volotsky denounces the allegation of the Novgorod heretics,
who claimed that if a heretic or an apostate repents, then he should enter the Church
and indulge in Divine Mysteries. Here the author differentiates between the degrees
of heresy and apostasy, stating that the Novgorod Judaizers are “the worst
abomination of all heretics and apostates living under the heavens”.
• In the final sixteenth chapter, the abbot further discusses the question of repentance,
arguing that if a heretic or apostate repents only after being convicted, mercy cannot
be granted, as this kind repentance is not sincere. An allegory is made with thieves,
murderers and grave robbers, whose repentance upon conviction is not accepted.

While there is no solid evidence to suggest that the doctrines assigned to the
Judaizers by Volotsky actually matched the ideologies embraced by the heterodox
movement, the great majority of the abbot’s allegations do in fact match certain
principles of traditional Judaism. Notably, in his essays, Volotsky used the terms
“heretics” and “Jews” interchangeably. In the strict sense of the term, for abbot Joseph
the manifestation of Judaization was not a “heresy”, or an arbitrary distortion of the
Christian Orthodox dogmas, but rather a distinctive act of apostasy – the complete
negation of the Christian faith in favor of its ideological binary opposition - Judaism.
Furthermore, the fact that this negation was not declared openly only intensified its
danger.
Correspondingly, troubled by other heresies and schisms, such as the “Strigolniki”
movement, which in the mid 14th-early 15th centuries renounced the ecclesiastic
hierarchy282, the Late Medieval and Early Modern Russian Orthodox Church was in a
dire need of a clearly defined manual for combating nonconformists. In that context,
Joseph Volotsky’s “The Enlightener” constitutes precisely this kind of a manual, in
which the author not only exposed and refuted the Judaizer heresy, but also set a
precedent on how to approach the manifestation of any unorthodox teachings – whether
religious, agnostic or sectarian. To quote Volotsky: “He who reads this text attentively
will feel its pleasant essence and absorb its goodness, inasmuch it arises from the true
Divine Scripture and prophetic writings, through the use of which all Judaic splendor and
godless heretical idle talk will be eradicated”283.

282 Goldfrank D. (1998): “Burn, Baby, Burn: Popular Culture and Heresy in Late Medieval
Russia”. The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 31. No. 4. Michigan State University. Pg. 17-32.

283 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 5.

57

The Debacle of the Judaizers

On the 17th of May 1494, Metropolitan Zosima descended from the hierarchy of the
Russian Orthodox Church and retired to Moscow’s Simonov monastery, moving to the
Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius a few years later. The chronicles provide opposing accounts
of this event: according to the Vologda-Perm chronicle, “the Grand Duke exiled
Metropolitan Zosima from Moscow”284, while a chronicler from Vladimir, indicated that
“Zosima left his post by his own wish”285. Furthermore, in “The Book of the Degrees of
the Royal Genealogy” it is stated that Zosima was deprived of the archdiocese due to “a
certain impediment”286. Although there is no evidence suggesting that Zosima’s removal
from the helm of the Church hierarchy was related to the heretical practices of which
Joseph Volotsky fervently accused the Metropolitan in his writings, Zosima’s resignation
could be linked with the absence of the highly influential Grand Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn in
Moscow in May 1494287. Kuritsyn, to whom both archbishop Gennady and abbot Joseph
assigned the leading role amongst the Judaizers, was a close associate of Zosima and
likely played a role in his appointment as Metropolitan in 1490288. In 1498, Kuritsyn was
named third amongst D’yaks in the list of the governmental hierarchy at the Moscow
court289.
There is evidence to suggest that even after his departure from Moscow, Zosima
continued to assign to himself the role of the archdiocese. In October 1495, he led a
communion service at the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius “dressed in priestly attire and
standing on the Eagle rug”290 – a position reserved solely for the Metropolitan291. Despite

284 “The Chronicle of Vologda-Perm” (1959) in “The Complete Collection of Russian
Chronicles”. Vol. 26. Sciences. Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 289.

285 “The Chronicle of Vladimir” (1965) in “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” Vol.

30. Sciences. Moscow Pg. 213.

286 Vasenko P. (1913): “The Book of Degrees of the Royal Genealogy”. The Archaeographical

Expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Typography of Alexandrov A., Saint

Petersburg. Vol. 21. Part 2, Pg. 368.

287 Zimin A. (1982): “Russia at the Turn of XV-XVI Centuries: Traces of Socio-Political History”.

Thought publishing. Moscow. Pg. 224-225.

288 Tikhonyuk I. (1992): “The Mystery of Archimandrite Evfimij: Origins of the Conflict

Between Joseph Volotsky and Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Problems of National History and
Culture of the Period of Feudalism”. Readings in memory of V. Kobrin. Moscow. Pg. 176.

289 Kashtanov S. (1967): “The Socio-Political History of Russia at the End of XV – First half of

XVI Centuries”. Sciences. Moscow. Pg. 29.

290 Typography of Demis L. (1863): “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol. 15.

Part 1. The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 368.

58

breaking the canonical rules by this act, Zosima evidently retained a revered position
amongst the clergy and correspondingly could not have been considered a heretic at this
time. Moreover, it is known that at the monastery of the Virgin Mary in Pskov, Zosima
remained to be revered as the Metropolitan as late as 1497292.
The continued influence of the Judaizers on the Russian Church and clergy, even
after Zosima’s demise from the ecclesiastical cathedra, is evidenced by the appointment
of a member of the Judaizer circle and Zosima’s blood relative Kassian in 1499 as the
archimandrite of the Yuriev monastery and as the head of the black clergy in
Novgorod293. It was Grand Clerk Kuritsyn who recommended Kassian to Ivan III for the
position294. Being a state administered institution, the Yuriev monastery and Kassian’s
administration did not fall under the authority of archbishop Gennady. According to the
testimony of Joseph Volotsky, the Yuriev monastery under Kassian’s guidance became
the city’s principal meeting place of the heretics295.
Evidently, a political dilemma in the Grand-ducal family in 1502 was amongst the
primary causes for the eventual debacle of the influential Judaizers circle. The
Ioasafovskaya Chronicle states that on April 11 of that year, “Grand Duke Ivan III
denounced his grandson Prince Dmitry and his mother Elena, and from that day forbade
for their names to be mentioned during church service, nor to entitle Dmitry as Prince,
and placed them under custody”296. Prince Dmitry was therefore stripped of the right of
inheritance to the throne in favor of his uncle Vasili, and subsequently was imprisoned
along with his mother Elena, whom Joseph Volotsky charged with belonging to the
Judaizers297.
From the 1504 letter of abbot Joseph to Ivan III’s spiritual adviser Mitrofan,
archimandrite of the Andronnikov Monastery, it becomes known that between 1502 and

291 Sokolof D. (1899): “The Manual of the Orthodox Church’s Divine Services”. Holy Trinity

Monastery (published in 2001). New York. P. 32.

292 “The Judiazers” (2013). In “The Orthodox Encyclopedia”. Edited by the Patriarch of

Moscow and All Russia Kirill. The Research Center of the Russian Orthodox Church,
Moscow. Vol. 19, Pg. 189.; Main collection of manuscripts. Q.I. 1380. Russian National
Library. St. Petersburg. Pg. 98

293 Yanin V. (2004): “The Monasteries of Medieval Novgorod in the Structure of Governmental

Institutions” in “Medieval Novgorod: Traces of Archeology and History”. High school, Moscow.
Pg. 238-240.

294 Ibid.

295 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 323.

296 “Ioasafovskaya chronicle” (1967) in “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol. 6,

2nd Ed. Sciences. Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 144.

297 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Messages of Joseph Volotsky” Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Pg. 176.

59

1504, Volotsky met with the Grand Duke a number of times, in private, at the Kremlin298.
According to Volotsky, the series of confidential meetings, initiated by Ivan, marked the
rejection of the sovereign’s patronage of the Judaizers and his aspiration to reconcile with
the Orthodox party. During their initial meeting, the Grand Duke “spoke of Church
matters”, asked abbot Joseph for “forgiveness”, and took upon himself “certain
obligations” based on “certain conditions” set by Volotsky as the preconditions for the
reconciliation299. It is rather striking that the Grand Duke, having already “received
forgiveness from the Metropolitan and the Bishops” as is indicated in the letter, was
seeking the forgiveness of an abbot of a monastery, which occupied a modest place in the
hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox sanctuaries. Evidently, it was important for the Grand
Duke to be forgiven for patronizing the Judaizers not just from the Church hierarchs, but
also from the chief anti-heretical ideologist, Joseph Volotsky.
During the course of their second meeting, the Grand Duke “spoke of the Novgorod
heretics”, and admitted to Volotsky of “knowing of their heresy… the heresy that was
kept by archpriest Aleksey, and the heresy that was kept by Fedor Kuritsyn”300. Of the
meeting’s outcome, Volotsky writes that he was ordered by the Grand Duke to “search
out heretics in all towns and extirpate them”301. Accordingly, a record in “The Patericon
of Volokolamsk” testifies to Volotsky’s presence at the Simonov Monastery in Moscow
in 1502 on the orders of the Grand Duke: “And so told us father Joseph, having arrived at
the holy sanctuary of the Virgin Mary in Simonov, that the sovereign of the Russian lands
was searching for the godless heretics”302. Notably, between 1485-1490, Zosima was the
archimandrite of the Simonov monastery, before his appointment as the Metropolitan303.
Being a stronghold for Zosima’s supporters, therefore, the Simonov monastery was a
prime target for a heretical audit, and Volotsky clearly intended to indict the former
Metropolitan for spreading Judaic teachings amongst his followers. The appointment of
Volostky’s brother Vassian as the archimandrite of the monastery in 1502304 was likely
due to the change in Ivan III’s policy of patronizing the Judaizer movement.
In light of the concurrent change in the choice of the heir to the Russian throne, the
key purpose for conducting the investigation on heretical practices was to find evidence

298 Ibid., Pg. 175-178.

299 Ibid., Pg. 176.

300 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Messages of Joseph Volotsky” Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Pg. 176.

301 Ibid.

302 “The Patericon of Volokolamsk” in “Ancient Russian Patericons” (1999). Edited by

Olishevskaya L. and Travnikov S. Published by the Joseph Volotsky Monastery. Moscow. Pg.
105.

303 Kuchkin V. (1995): “The Beginning of the Simenov Monastery” in “Culture of Medieval

Moscow XIV-XVII”. Sciences. Moscow Pg. 115.

304 Ibid. Pg. 120.

60

discrediting the faction of the denounced Prince Dmitry within both the official and
clerical ranks. In December 1504, the exposed Judaizers were tried for heresy at a Church
council in Moscow. The event is briefly described in a 1508 chronicle: “That winter the
Grand Duke Ivan III and his son Prince Vasili, with Metropolitan Simon and the bishops,
having searched out the heretics, condemned the sinners to death; and on December 27
deacon Volk Kuritsyn, Mitya Konoplev and Ivashka Maksimov were burned in a cage,
while Nekras Rukov had his tongue cut out and then sent to Novgorod where he was
burnt. And that same winter in Novgorod, archimandrite Kassian was burnt along with
his brother, and many other heretics were burnt, while others were imprisoned, and others
sent to monasteries”305.
The majority of the executed Judaizers were high-ranking officials, members of the
clergy and prominent merchants. Deacon Volk Kuritsyn, one of the heretics who was
“burnt in a cage”, was the brother of Grand Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn. Mitya Konoplev, son
of a boyar, was one of Russia’s envoys to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in September
1503306. Of Ivashka Maksimov it is known that he “brought into the heresy” Ivan III’s
daughter-in-law Elena Stefanova, who was imprisoned and died in 1515307.
Notably, there is no record of Fedor Kuritsyn being tried at the council, or being
executed. Furthermore, his son Afanasi Federovich made a successful career as a clerk at
the court of Vasili III308. Correspondingly, former Metropolitan Zosima also avoided
persecution, as records indicate that during the time of the council in 1504, he was
residing at the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in Vologda, and in 1510 at the Spaso-
Kamenny Monastery in the same region309. Nonetheless, in the anathema issued against
the Judaizers by the Kremlin’s Uspensky Cathedral in 1504, containing 43 names of all
convicted heretics at the 1490 and 1504 councils, both Fedor Kuritsyn and Zosima are
named, with the former Metropolitan opening the list: “New heretics, the unbelievers in
our Lord Jesus Christ the son of God, and in the Pure Mother of God, blasphemers
against our Holy Fathers and icons: Metropolitan Zosima of Moscow, the archimandrite
of the Yuriev Monastery Kassian, Fedor and Volk Kuritsyn, archbishop Aleksey of
Moscow, Mitya Konoplev…and those who spread and governed the heresy in the

305 “Sofiskaya Chronicle” (2000) in “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol. 6, 1st

Ed. Language of Russian Literature, Moscow. Pg. 49.

306 Veselovski S. (1975): “Deacons and Clerks of VV-XVII centuries”. Sciences, Moscow. Pg.

280.

307 “The Collection of the Russian Imperial Historic Society”(1882). Vol. 35. St. Petersburg. Pg.

413.

308 Agoshton M. (2006): “The Problem of the Genealogy of Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn // Royal Court

in the History of Russia XV-XVII centuries”. Materials of the International Scientific

Conference. Vladimir. Pg. 140.

309 Knyazevskaya O. (1987): “Monuments of Literature in Museums of the Volgograd Region:

Directory and Guide”. Vologda regional museum. Part 1, Vol 2. Vologda. Pg. 56

61

Russian land, and all of the accomplices to the debauchery of the Orthodox Christian
faith, may they be cursed”310.
The clergy and the general masses met the news of the execution of the Judaizers by
the means of burning - an unprecedented phenomenon in Russian practice - with
indignation. Soon after the 1504 church council, Joseph Volotsky was evidently forced to
write an epistle entitled “The Word on the Condemnation of the Heretics”, in which he
argued of the brutal execution being a just and necessary punishment for “apostates”311.
Rebuttal to the abbot’s arguments is contained in “The Answer of Kirillov Elders to the
Epistle of Joseph Volotsky on the Condemnation of the Heretics”, the authors of which
accused Volotsky of “cruelty characteristic of the Old Testament”, and of “neglecting
New Testament teachings of grace and forgiveness”312. The presence of Zosima at the
Kirillo-Belozersky monastery at the time, attests to his involvement in writing the epistle,
as arguing in favor of merciful treatment of the repentant heretics was of a vital
importance for the former Metropolitan, whose name appeared in the aforementioned
anathema against the Judaizers. Volotsky, in turn, expressed his objections to the Kirillov
elders in “The Epistle on the Observance of the Council Verdict”. Writing on behalf of
the new Metropolitan in Moscow, the abbot contended that the Judaizers were not just
heretics but “apostates who rejected Christ”, and that “none of them repented truly and
purely, but only under the threat of death” 313. Consequently, this argument developed
into a polemic between “Josephites” and “Non-possessors”, as the two camps became
known henceforth314. In the middle of the 16th century, the former archimandrite of the
Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius Artemi was charged with upbraiding Volotsky’s “The
Enlightener” and “not cursing the Judaizers”315. Likewise, in 1584, bishop Leonid of
Ryazan complained that the archbishop of Rostov Evfimi charged him and his followers
with adherence to the Old Testament: “he calls us not Josephites, but Judaizers”.

310 Begunov Y. (1957): “Book of the Holy Trinity of the Uspenski Cathedral” // “Council
Verdicts as Sources of History of the Novgorod-Moscow heresy”. Works of the Department of
Ancient Russian literature, Vol. XIII. Pg. 219.

311 “Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Word on the Condemnation of the Heretics”. In “Anti-

feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-
Leningrad. Pg. 495-497.

312 “Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Answer of Kirillov Elders to the Epistle of Joseph

Volotsky on the Condemnation of the Heretics”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in

Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 511-513.

313 “Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Epistle on the Observance of the Council Verdict”. In

“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 506-510.

314 Kazakova N. (1978): “When Did the Polemic Between Josephites and Non-possessors

Begin?”. In “History of Feudal Russia”. Sciences, Leningrad. Pg.

315 “Acts Collected in Libraries and Archives of the Russian Archeological Expedition of the

Imperial Academy of Sciences” (1836). Vol. 1. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 251.

62

 The news of the execution of the Judaizers spread beyond Russia’s borders. In
February 1505, the Vogt of Narva reported: “Volk Kuritsyn, the Clerk of the old Grand
Duke, was burned along with many other Russians due to some kind of heresy that spread
amongst them. And Prince Vasili orders for the heretics to be detained at all times,
everywhere where it is possible to locate them, and orders to burn them”316.

The Teachings of the Judaizers

Although the precise mechanism employed by the Judaizers to attract Christians to

their practice is not described in the primary sources, there is no doubt that the utilization
of the Old Testament texts, that were known within the Church, was instrumental to this
process. Moreover, while the allure of Moscow’s nobility towards the heretical
movement, according to Seebohm317, may have been due to their veneration of the
scientific literature circulated by the group, rather than spiritual convictions or matters of
faith, the fundamental ontological concepts of the said translated literature reflect a strict
prophetic Monotheism incompatible with the central concepts of the Christian dogma,
such as the Trinity, Incarnation and Resurrection318. Thus, the heresy of the Judaizers can
be analyzed within the framework of a “textual community” phenomenon, understood by
Brian Stock to consist of a group of believers that formed around a sage, who explained
and interpreted religious texts319. Moreover, archbishop Gennady’s discovery of the
translation of Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfil’s astronomical manual “Six Wings” to be in
possession of the Judaizers320 underlines the group’s veneration of Jewish scientific
literature. The central point of reference for another faith is the sudden conviction in the
truth of the latter - in his analysis of the mechanism of the formation of Sabbatarian sects,
Lvov noted: “the justification is reduced to the binding elements of the text (words or
lines of scripture), with elements of extra-textual reality (rituals, beliefs, etc.), bypassing

316 Kazakova N. (1976): “Livonian and Hanseatic Sources on the Domestic Political History of

Russia at the End of XV-Beginning of XVI”. Auxiliary of Historical Disciplines, Leningrad. Pg.
159.

317 Seebohm T. (1977): “Ratio und Charisma: Ansätze und Ausbildung Eines Philosophischen

und Wissenschaftlichen Weltverständnisses im Moskauer Russland”. Mainzer philosophische

Forschungen, Bd. 17. Bouvier publishing, Bonn.

318 Taube M. (2005): “The Fifteenth Century Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the

Heresy of the Judaizers: Is There a Connection?”// “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy,

Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. Ed. by V. Ivanov. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 187.

319 Stock B. (1986): “History, Literature, and Medieval Textuality // Yale French Studies” in

“Images of Power Medieval History/Discourse/Literature”. Yale University Press, New Haven.

No. 70, P. 7-17.

320 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor

Sarsky”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 310, 317.

63

the mediation of ideas through the direct and paradoxical identification of textual
fragments, with fragments of reality”321.
The success of the Judaizer ‘propaganda’ in Novgorod and Moscow was largely
due to the efficacious refutation of the belief in the end of the world in the year 7000 of
the Byzantine calendar, which corresponded to the year 1492 of the Gregorian
calendar 322 . While the majority of the Russian clergy remained committed to this
conviction up to this date, the stimulation of doubt amongst the Orthodox faithful on the
validity of such claims by the Judaizers certainly attracted followers to join their ranks.
Abbot Volotsky conveyed the Judaizer’s assertions on the matter as such: “Seven
thousand years shall pass, and Easter shall come, and the second coming of Christ will
remain unfulfilled, and the essence of the paternal scripture is false and so it is befitting
to have it burned”323. Archbishop Gennady quoted archpriest-heresiarch Aleksey exulting
that “the years of the Christian chronicler are ending, while ours are amassing”324 –
“ours” evidently being a reference to the Judaic calendar, according to which 1492
corresponded to the year 5252 from the creation of the world 325. As follows from
testimony of the Novgorod archbishop, he himself had herd Aleksey’s reasoning on the
expected timing of Armageddon326.
The doctrine of the Judaizers is described in detail in “The Enlightener”. The
heretical group rejected the dogma of the Holy Trinity, and believed that “Christ had not
yet been born, while the one whom the Christians worship as God, he was just a regular
man, not God”327. Furthermore, they appealed the following, according to Volotsky: “It is

321 Lvov A. (2003): “Between ‘Ours’ and ‘Foreigners’ (on the Treatment of Sabbatarian
Sectarians) // Ours or Foreign? Jews and Slavs in the Eyes of Each Other”. House of Jewish
Book, Moscow. Pg. 248-265.

323 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Word on the Newest Heresy”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical

Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg.

480.

324 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

325 The reason for the discrepancy in the chronology between Christians and Jews, as

pointed out by Archbishop Gennady, is because Christians based their calculations on the
versio septuaginta interpretum of Old Testament (LXX, ‘the translation of the seventy
interpreters’), while Jews - on the editions of the Old Testament of Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion. According to the Septuagint, the number of years from Adam to the flood was
2242, while according to the Masoretic text - 1656. The incarnation of Christ, therefore,
occurred at 5500 and 3760 years from the creation of the world, respectively.

326 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

Former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

327 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 50.

64

appropriate to keep the Law of Moses, conduct animal sacrifice, and circumcise”328. The
Judaizers denied Christian sacraments, prayers, almsgiving, the veneration of the cross,
icons and the relics of saints. According to archbishop Gennady, the Judaizers “prayed
like the Jews”, “altered the psalms”, conducted the liturgy unworthily, and abused the
cross 329 . At their meetings, the heretics practiced blasphemy: desecrated icons,
communion bread for the sacrament of the Eucharist, and poured “foul water into
wine”330. The clergy-Judaizers did not observe the fasts and mocked church services:
“They eat well and drink to drunkenness, and in that state come into the Holy Church and
conduct the Divine service”331.
During the course of the investigation on the Judaizers conducted by Gennady in
1487-1490, it was discovered that the doctrine of the heretics was “not only Judaism”332.
The archbishop found traces of Marcionism and Messalianism, which he vindicated in
the following way: upon being exposed, the heretics immediately renounced their beliefs
and declared themselves to be faithful members of the Orthodox Church333. Moreover,
their conduct of the Eucharist was unworthy. Although these charges pertain to the
behavior of the Judaizers and not their teachings, Gennady employed a formal method to
describe the encountered phenomena. Attempting to classify the newfangled heresy in
accordance with an established practice, the archbishop drew on chapters 12 and 19 of
the rules of Timothy I of Constantinople, which were referenced in Novgorod’s
authoritative “Kormchaya Book”. Once exposed, the Judaizers immediately cursed their
heretical beliefs and hypocritically repented, while the exact same behavior was
prescribed to Marcionites and Messalians in the Korchmaya 334 . Accordingly, the
Novgorod heretics were not just Judaizers, but also Marcionites and Messalians! Such
characterization of the heretics must have comforted Gennady, as it allowed for a
description of a new phenomenon using old terminology.


328 Ibid., Pg. 68.

329 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor
Sarsky”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 310-313.

330 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to the

Council of Bishops”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 378.

331 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Epistle on Respecting the Council Verdict of 1504”. In

“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 507.

332 Ibid., Pg. 316.

333 Ibid., 310-311.

334 Library of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergious. “Sinodal Kormchaya of Novgorod” (1653). No.

132, Pg. 418. http://old.stsl.ru/manuscripts/staropechatnye-knigi/9-1

65

 In addition to the charges of Marcionism and Messalianism, other ‘non-Judaic’
elements are found in archbishop Gennady’s polemics on the teachings and practices of
the heretical movement. In his epistle to bishop Nifont of Suzdal, describing the various
practices of cross abuse by the group, Gennady depicted how the heretics tied crucifixes
to the paws of birds, and applied to the crucifixes images of genitalia335. While the first
charge indicated a conscious insult of a sacred Christian relic (characteristic of the
Judaizers), the second charge, with all its countenance, pointed to a different Medieval
tradition – the widespread use of magic amulets, which were considered to have
protective powers336.
A number of sources indicate that the Judaizers opposed monasticism. Their
criticism of this institution was based on an Old Testament notion of procreation,
according to which the absence of an offspring infers sinfulness and hence is displeasing
to God. This position was reflected in the marginal notes made by Ivan Cherni in “The
Hellenic and Roman Chronicler”, a text which he copied by the order of Grand Duke
Ivan III, as well as in glosses likely made by Cherni using cryptography (Permian letters
of the alphabet) in a list of Old Testament prophecies337. In the 11th ‘word’ of “The
Enlightener”, Joseph Volotsky quoted the Judaizers, proclaiming: “cursed is anyone that
has not vested a seed in Israel”338, which was likely a quotation of Deuteronomy 25:9,
distorted for polemically strengthening the condemnation of the heretics. They also did
not shy away from appealing to the New Testament, arguing that if monasticism was
pleasing to God, then Christ would have been a monk. Distorting the words of St. Paul,
the Judaizers argued that in the First Epistle to Timothy, when writing of the apostates
who will emerge at the end of times, St. Paul referred to monks339. The fact that in anti-
monastic polemics, the Judaizers made references to the New Testament does not give
grounds to doubt their Judaic convictions, for this technique had been widely used in the
Jewish-Christian polemics in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. For the purpose of
debate, each party tried to use a full set of arguments that were relevant in the eyes of the
opponent. Accordingly, “The Enlightener” is predominantly based on texts of the Old
Testament.

335 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Nifont of
Suzdal”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 309-310.

336 Barabanov N. (2004): “The Byzantine Church and the Phenomenon of Phylacteries” //

“Slavs and Their Neighbors”. Indric publishing, Moscow. Vol. 11, Pg. 79.

337 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Essay Against Monasticism”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical

Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg.

303.

338 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 283.

339 Ibid., Pg. 253-254.

66

 The doctrine of the Judaizers, expressed in Gennady’s and Volotsky’s epistles,
denied the basic tenets of Christianity, and had no parallels in any other Christian
heresies known to have occurred in Ruthenian lands. Hence, abbot Volotsky maintained
that the conventional rules for the treatment of the repentant heretics could not have been
applied in relation to the Judaizers, as the involvement with the group constituted not just
heresy, but also apostasy from the Christian faith. While the heresy of the Judaizers had
been interpreted as a pre-reformation movement in various studies, the great majority of
Volotsky’s refutations of the Judaizer assertions correspond to the themes found in
Medieval polemics between Christians and Jews in Byzantium and Western Europe
during the Middle Ages340. On this subject, Ryan noted: “All the ‘Judaizer’ texts would
undoubtedly have been scorned as Medieval by West European humanists”341.

The Literature of the Judaizers

The Judaizers did not leave any writings that would indicate the essence of their
doctrine. In that regard, Speranski commented: “As unofficial literature, pursued by the
ecclesiastical and secular authorities, it was forced to be hidden and was available to a
small minority, and being limited in scope, it is therefore not so visible to the
researcher”342. Nevertheless, several works that are related to the Judaizers have survived
to this day – namely “The Laodicean Epistle” and “The Story of Dracula”, both
associated with the leading figure of Moscow’s circle of the Judaizers, D’yak Fedor
Kuritsyn.
In the great majority of the manuscripts of “The Laodicean Epistle”, the earliest
dating to the end of the 15th century, the name and the profession of the person who
authored the text (literarily ‘translated’ or ‘delivered’ the text, as indicated by the Russian
verb “приведшего”, which can mean either one or the other) was inscribed by numerical
cryptography, evidently in order to conceal the identity of the author from the general
readership. Lurie and Kazakova, who are amongst the most authoritative scholars on the
sources pertaining to the subject, deciphered the cryptographic inscription to read: “Fedor
Kuritsyn D’yak”343. The Epistle consists of a theological-philosophic poem, written in the
form of a florilegium with rhyming lines, with every sentence beginning with the word
that ended the previous one; a “table in squares”, a cryptographic encryption consisting of
two rows of letters in an alphabetical order with related commentary; and the encrypted

340 Vereshchagin V. (2001): “The Church Slavonic Book Culture in Russia. Lingual-Textual
Investigations”. Indric publishing, Moscow, Pg. 174-193.

341 Ryan W. F. (1999): “The Bathhouse at Midnight/ An Historical Survey of Magic and

Divination in Russia”. Penn State University Press, PA. Pg. 17.

342 Speranski M. (2004): “History of Ancient Russian Literature”. Lan publishing, Saint

Petersburg. 4th ed., Pg. 367.

343 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Laodicean Epistle of Fedor Kuritsyn”. In “Anti-feudal

Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-

Leningrad. Pg. 265-276.

67

signature of Fedor Kuritsyn. The first part, referred to as the “Poem on the Soul”, had
been translated into English by Moshe Taube as follows:

The soul is an autonomous substance, its constraint is faith

Faith is established on the commandment of the prophets
The commandment of the prophet is confirmed by (their capacity to) work miracles
The gift of working miracles is strengthened by wisdom
The force of wisdom is a life of a pharisee
Its goal is learning
Learning is most blessed
By it we arrive at the fear of God - the incipiency of virtue
By this the soul is defined344.

While a large number of versions of the Epistle had survived to this day, indicating
that the Russian Church did not perceive it as a heretical work during the Early Modern
period and beyond, the ideas conveyed in the “Poem on the Soul” are likely to have been
originated from Jewish sources. A strong Maimonidean influence on the text had been
demonstrated by Taube: for instance, the manner in which the notion of ‘learning’ is
expressed in the poem directly resembles Maimonides’s treatment of this concept in his
“Logical Vocabulary”, which states: “We say, e.g. of Man that…his agent is the Giver of
life, and his purpose is the attainment of truth by means of intellect” 345. This link is
attested by archbishop Gennady’s mention of the Judaizers being in the possession of
“Logika”346, a Slavic translation of Maimonides’ “Logical Vocabulary”, with sections on
Metaphysics from Algazel’s “Intentions of the Philosophers”347. Moreover, the use of the
terminology in the Poem – for example, of the soul being “an autonomous substance”
(“самовластна” in Russian), the choice of wording for “barrier” (заграда), the allusion to
a “pharisee” (фарисей) - all closely correspond to the use of these terms in “Secretum
Secretorum”, a 10th century pseudo-Aristotelian text, which as had been demonstrated

344 Taube M. (1995): “The "Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of

the Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19, Cambridge. Pg. 675.

345 Ibid., Pg. 680-681.

346 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Archbishop Josef”. In

“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 320.

347 Taube M. (1995): “The "Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of

the Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19, Cambridge. Pg. 683.

68

by Ryan348, was translated into Ruthenian from its Hebrew version, and as attested by
Taube, this translation could have been done only by a Jewish translator349.
Taube went further to suggest that the “Poem on the Soul” in the “Laodicean
Epistle” was in fact excised from the original Slavic version of “Secretum
Secretorum”350. This deduction is based on a passage in the text where Aristotle, the
purported author, promises to Alexander the Great, the purported audience, to draw for
him two circles, one worldly and one spiritual, which would summarize all the good
advice given in the “Mirror of Princes”: “And I will start for thee the worldly by ‘world’
and the spiritual by ‘soul.’ And each one of them contains eight parts”351. However, the
promised circles are missing in all of the known versions of the Slavic “Secretum
Secretorum” (meanwhile, in both Hebrew and Arabic versions, Aristotle promises one
circle, which is then provided in a form of a poem with eight double lines). Hence, Taube
suggested that while the fate of the missing “Worldly Circle” remains a mystery, the
‘Spiritual Circle’ beginning with “soul” is the “Poem on the Soul” in the “Laodicean
Epistle”.
Another anonymous literary work that had been suggested to be affiliated with
D’yak Fedor Kuritsyn is “The Tale of Dracula”352, which is composed of legends about
the 15th century Prince of Wallachia, Vlad Tepes. Just as in Hungarian and German
narratives, the key characteristics prescribed to the Prince in the Russian version of the
tale are Dracula’s cruelty and impartiality, unbound by the norms of Christian morality.
The concluding part of the text reveals a detail pertaining to the author’s identity: it
becomes known that the author “witnessed” the death of Dracula’s second son, which
occurred in Hungary, whilst “currently” the throne of Dracula “is occupied by Vlad the
Monk”, who in 1481 became the Prince of Wallachia. The author, apparently, was a
Russian national (the tale opens with a reference to “our” Russian language), who visited
Hungry in the early 1480’s with certain companions (the text features “in front of us”,
“we have seen”). A likely candidate for the authorship, corresponding to the given
indicators, is the persona of Fedor Kuritsyn, who during 1482-1485 headed the embassy
of Muscovy to Hungary and Moldavia. Although the oldest known Russian manuscript of
“The Tale of Dracula” dates to 1486, there is little doubt that the text is not an original

348 Ryan W. (1978): “The Old Russian Version of the Pseudo-Aristotelian “Secreta
Secretorum"”. The Slavonic and East European Review Vol. 56, No. 2, London. Pg. 257-258.

349 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 190.

350 Ibid., Pg. 198-200.

351 Ibid., Pg. 199.

352 Comp. by Likhachev D., Dmitriev A. (1982): “The Tale of Dracula” in “The Monuments of

Literature of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XV Century ”. Sciences, Moscow. P. 554-565.

69

Russian literary work353, and it is likely that Kuritsyn brought the story to Russia from
Hungary.
If the manifestation of “The Tale of Dracula” in Russia was in fact the work of
Fedor Kuritsyn, then this act was largely in line with the Dyak’s enterprise as a publicist
and ideologue. After the defeat of the Judaizer movement in 1504, “The Tale of Dracula”
practically disappeared from the Russian literary tradition, just as other texts deemed
unfavorable by the Church and State. As one can imagine, the reason for this was the
author’s candid expression of the inevitable cruelty of autocracy, coupled with the
motives hostile to Christian morality.
It is known that Fedor Kuritsyn’s brother Ivan-Volk, who in 1504 was condemned
to death by burning for Judaizing, copied the “Book of the Pilot”, or the ‘Korchmaia
Book’, which constituted a guide for the management of the Church based on the existing
ecclesial laws354. According to Belyakova, Kuritsyn’s version is made up of various
previous versions of the “Korchmaia” and does not contain any original traits.
Kazakova and Lurie argued in favor of the cryptographic glosses made by Ivan
Cherni in the marginal fields of the books of the Bible and in “The Hellenic and Roman
Chronicler” (1485), both copied by him, to be directly related to the Judaizer
literateness355. For “The Hellenic and Roman Chronicler”, Cherni wrote a postscript.
According to archbishop Gennady, Ivan Cherni ran away “beyond the sea” and “entered
into the Jewish faith” 356, thereby escaping the condemnation of the Judaizers at the
Council in Moscow in 1490.
In a letter to ex-archbishop of Rostov, Josef, archbishop Gennady listed the
literature that he found to be in possession of the Judaizers in Novgorod. Gennady wrote
to Josef, asking: “Do you have in Kirillov, or in Farafontov, or in Kammeni, the
following books: “Selivester the Pope, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and the Word of
Cosmas the Priest against the newly-appeared heresy of the Bogomilis, and the Epistle of
Patriarch Photios to Prince Boris of Bulgaria, and Prophets, and Genesis, and Kings, and
Proverbs, and Menander, and Joshua Sirach, and Logika, and Dionysius the Areopagite?
As the heretics have all of these books in their possession”357. While there is little doubt

353 Bulaev F. (1863): “On Determining the Foreign Sources of the Story About Muntenian
Governor Dracula”. Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity, Moscow. Vol. 5, Part 3,
Pg. 84-86.

354 Belyakova E. (1984): “The Sources of the Korchmaia of Ivan Volk Kuritsyn // Ancient

Russian Literature”. Chronology, Leningrad. Pg. 75-83.

355 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Postscript of Ivan Cherni to the Greek Chronicler ”. In

“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Source No. 8, Pg. 277-299.

356 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to

Metropolitan Zosima”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 376.

357 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Archbishop Josef”. In

“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences,

Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 320.

70

that the books of the Old Testament and “Logika” formed some of the core beliefs of the
Judaizers, the rest of the texts mentioned by Gennady embodied the literature used by the
Christians for polemical discourses against Judaism and heresies. It can only be assumed
that the Judaizers would have studied these texts in order to be informed of the arguments
of their opponents.
Lurie identified the text to which Gennady referred to as “Selivester, the Pope” as
the “Deeds of Silvester” (Actus Silvestri, Vita Silvestri, Gesta Silvestri, amongst other
titles), a 4th century polemical text of pseudo-authorship of Eusebius of Caesarea, the
second part of which depicts a dispute between Pope Silvester I and Jews, in which the
Pope triumphs358. “Athanasius of Alexandria” was likely a reference to St. Athanasius’s
“Orations Against the Arians”, another 4th century polemical work directed against the
disbelief in the divinity of Christ359. Cosmas the Priest’s 10th century polemic “Against
the Newly-Appeared Heresy of the Bogomilis”, which condemned the Bogomil heresy
founded in Bulgaria, was known in the ancient Russian book-learning from the 11th
century360. The Epistle of Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople to the newly converted
Prince Boris I of Bulgaria contains theological advice with the elucidation on the
foundations of the Christian doctrine, with an emphasis made on the responsibility of
Princes to organize the religious life of their subjects361. “Dionysius the Areopagite”
referred to the 5th-6th century work of Pseudo-Dionysius, known for its distinctive
Christian Neo-Platonism and a mystical consideration of the Holy Trinity. In Medieval
Ruthenia, the Old Testament cannon included “The Wisdom of Sirach”, and at times
“The Sentences of the Syraic Menander”362.
Grigorenko presented a number of arguments in favor of the opinion that “Logika”
mentioned by archbishop Gennady should be understood as “Dialectic” of John of
Damascus, which was well known in Ruthenia in the 15th century363. He pointed to the
manuscript tradition of naming “Dialectic” as “Logika”, and that “Dialectic” was
amongst the works commonly attributed to be circulating amongst heretics. The


358 Lurie Y. (1999): “Commentary to Epistle of Gennady to Josef”. Library of Literature of
Ancient Ruthenia, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7, Pg. 574.

359 Archangelski A. (1888): “The Creations of the Church Fathers in Ancient Russian

Literature: Examination of Manuscript Material”. Journal of the Ministry of National

Enlightenment, Saint Petersburg. July, Pg. 4-6.

360 Begunov Y. (1973): “Cosmas the Priest in Slavic Literature”. Bulgarian Academy of

Sciences, Sofia. Pg. 87-93.

361 White D. (1982): “The Patriarch and the Prince. The Letter of Patriarch Phoitos of

Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria”. Holy Cross Publishing, Brookline, Mass.

362 Alekseev A. (1999): “Textual Analysis of the Slavic Bible”. Bulanin Publishing, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 27-28.

363 Grigorenko A. (1999): “The Spiritual Quest in Ruthenia in the late XV century”. Eidos

Publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 40-41.

71

predominant opinion, however, remains that “Logika” should be understood as the 12th
century treatise of a Spanish Jewish philosopher and scribe Moses Maimonides 364 .
Furthermore, Taube had demonstrated an etymological connection between Maimonides’
“Logical Vocabulary” and “The Laodicean Epistle”, attributed to one of the leaders of
the Judaizer movement Fedor Kuritsyn365.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the Novgorod-Moscow Judaizer
heresy was directly related to the distribution of astronomical and scientific literature in
Russia, which was translated into Ruthenian predominantly from Hebrew and Arabic in
the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In addition to Moses Maimonides’ “Logical
Vocabulary”(Logika) and Immanuel ben Jacob Bonfil’s “Six Wings”, both claimed to
have been in possession of the Judaizers by archbishop Gennady366, as well as “The
Laodicean Epistle” attributed to Fedor Kuritsyn, the following texts, known to have been
translated into Ruthenian in the second half of the 15th century, have been branded as the
“literature of the Judaizers”, following Sobolevskii’s 1903 appellation367:

- Al-Ghazali’s “Intentions of the Philosophers” (the first two sections, Logic and
Theology)
- Johannes De Sacrobosco’s “Book of the Sphere” (Sobolevskii’s “Cosmography”)
- The collection of nine Old Testament Hagiographa in the single sixteenth century
Vilnius Codex
- Pseudo-Aristotle’s “Secret of Secrets” (the Slavic version includes the interpolations of
Maimonides’ Treatise on Sexual Intercourse, On Poisons and their Antidotes, Book of
Asthma, and Rhazes’ chapter on Pshysiognomy from the second part of his book Al-
Mansuri368.

In his research on the relation of the Judaizer heresy to the mystical works translated
and distributed in Ruthenia at that time, Turilov had suggested that the following

364 Sobolevskii (1903): “The Translated Literature of Muscovy Ruthenia”. Typography of the

Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 401-409.

365 Taube M. (1995): “The "Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of

the Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19, Cambridge. Pg. 683.

366 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor

Sarsky”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI Centuries”.

Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 310.

367 Sobolevskii (1903): “The Translated Literature of Muscovy Ruthenia”. Typography of the

Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 401-423.

368 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. pg. 189.

72

additional texts likely circulated within heretical circles at the turn of the 15th century369:
“Aristotle’s Gates”, “Rafli” (Rafli of King David), “Vorongrai” and “Zodei”. At the
Stoglavy Synod in 1551, the Church banned all of these texts, along with the
aforementioned “Six Wings”.
The connection of the literature in question to the Judaizer movement is further
corroborated by the fact that Zacharia ben Aharon ha-Kohen of Kiev, asserted by certain
scholars (Bruckus, Taube) to be one and the same person with Zacharia Skariya the
heresiarch of “The Enlightener”, had copied a Hebrew translation of Johannes De
Sacrobosco’s “Book of the Sphere” in Kiev in 1454370. Furthermore, evidence linking
Zacharia to the translation of Maimonides’ “Logika” into Slavic comes from the preface
to a 16th century Ruthenian Psalter contained at the library of the Kiev Theological
Academy. The folium of the manuscript contains a list of authors and the terminology
they used for different sciences, with one of the mentioned authors being “Skhariya”
(Cхарiа)371. The terms ascribed to Skhariya – arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy,
politics, physics, theology – are depicted as the “seven wisdoms” in the afterword of the
Slavic version of “Logika” in the same order and are practically identical in their
spelling372.
Further linking the translations of the discussed literature to the Judaizers is the
1470 commentary of the renowned Kiev scholar and Kabbalist Rabbi Moses ben Jacob
ha-Gole on the “Six Wings”373, a copy of which was found to be in the possession of the
heretics by archbishop Gennady. A manuscript collection contained at the Vienna
Imperial library, with the ownership marked as “belonging to Moshe ben-Jacob”374,
includes a Hebrew translation of Al-Farghani’s “Elements of Astronomy - Arabic
compendium of Ptolemy’s “Almagest”, the copy of which, as the colophon on folio 40r
testifies, was made in “Kiev on the 20th of Shvat 5228“ (January 16, 1468) and bears the

369 Turilov A. (1989): “To the Cultural-Historical Characteristic of the “Judaizer” Heresy //
Hermeneutics Ancient Russian Literature”. Institute of World Literature named after I. M.
Gorkiy, Moscow. Vol. 1, Pg. 410-411.

370 Taube M. (2010): “Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph:

Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issue 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 325-
326.

371 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. pg. 197-198.

372 Ibid.

373 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 326-327.

374 Taube M. (2010): “Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph:

Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issue 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 322.;
Vienna, Imperial Library. Codex 183 in Schwarz’s 1925 Catalogue. Table IX, item m.

73

mark of authorship of “Zacharia, the son of Aharon the Kohen of blessed memory”375.
Thus, the connection of Zacharia Skariya, the pronounced initiator of the Judaizer heresy
in Novgorod, to Rabbi Moses of Kiev, the author of the contemporaneous commentary to
“Six Wings”, is more than amply conceivable.
There is evidence to suggest that Hebrew texts began to be translated into Slavic in
Ruthenian lands even prior to the outbreak of the Judaizer heresy. Various Russian
compilations and chronicles, dating to the first half of the 15th century, contain integrated
Hebrew works, most of which are historical accounts376. These include the “The Life of
Moses”, integrated in the “The Explanatory Paleia”, excerpts from “Josippon” in “The
Academy Chronograph”, and a complete reworking of the last part of “Josippon” dealing
with the destruction of the Temple, integrated into the second reduction of “The Hellenic
and Roman Chronicler”. These Slavic texts show traces of Ruthenian, as well as of the
Novgorodian dialect. While the circumstances behind the creation of these texts are
unclear, it is known that the Judaizers of Moscow showed interest in them – the heretic
Ivan Cherni extensively glossed a 1489 copy of “The Hellenic and Roman
Chronicler”377.
According to certain researchers of Medieval Russian literature, such as
Florovskii378 and Alekseev379, the translations of biblical accounts from Hebrew into
Slavic were carried out for the internal use of the Jewish communities, or “Synagogal”
purposes. Taube, on the other hand, had refuted such conjectures, asserting that while
Jews normally adopted the local tongue of the land they lived in, there is a great
difference between speaking and writing – the literature in question, relating to
Astronomy, Logic, Theology, etc. would have been read by highly cultivated Jewish
scholars, who were without a doubt fluent in Hebrew, and therefore did not need a
translation380. Hence, according to this view, the translations were intended for a non-
Jewish audience interested in Jewish writings. While sources reveal that the Judaizers in
Novgorod, ascribed to be the followers of the teachings of a Jew named Skariya of Kiev,
had “Six Wings” and “Logika” in their possession, it follows that the heresiarch likely
spread the Slavic translations of these texts amongst the learned Orthodox clergy for the

375 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 172.

376 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. pg. 188-189.

377 Ibid., 189.

378 Florovskii G. (1981): “The Ways of Russian Theology”. YMCA Press, Paris.

379 Alekseev A. (1999): “Textual Analysis of the Slavic Bible”. Bulanin Publishing, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 184-185.

380 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. pg. 194.

74

purposes of proselytization. Moreover, the aforementioned evidence linking Skhariya to
the translation of “Logika” further testifies to the validity of this deduction. Taube had
also demonstrated that the translator of “Logika”, comprised of Maimonides’ “Logical
Vocabulary” and Al Ghazali’s “The Intentions of the Philosophers”, deliberately
dissimulated the Muslim origin of the second part of the text by erasing any traces of
Arabic – the names of places and persons were changed from Arabic to Jewish (i.e.,
“Zayd” and “Umar” of the Hebrew version were changed to “Abraham” and “Isaac” in
the Slavic)381. By presenting the Muslim heritage as Jewish, the author evidently intended
to exalt the Judaic heritage in the eyes of the intended Slavic audience. Moreover, the
deliberate elimination of all traces of another faith from the text implies that the
translation might have been undertaken for the purposes of proselytizing Judaism
amongst the Slavic Orthodox readership.

Judaic Proselytism and the Judaizer Heresy

In the twentieth century Russian historiography, a firm opinion was promulgated on

that the testimonies on the Judaizers contained in the epistles of archbishop Gennady and
texts of Josef Volotsky are unreliable, as their authors did not aspire to objectively
present the truth of the matter, but rather intended to portray the group as apostates
deserving death - possibly out of a personal grudge or career ambitions382. Accordingly,
this line of argumentation rejects the possibility of Judaic practice by the men convicted
for heresy during the time period in question. Yet, it cannot be disregarded that the basis
of their accusations were the materials of investigations and trials on the Judaizers of
1488, 1490 and 1504. Moreover, authors of these polemics understood that if they were
to falsely depict the beliefs and practices of the Judaizers, not only would their
argumentation be ignored by the governmental and ecclesiastical authorities, but that they
also risked a slander charge. This is reinforced by the fact that despite a solid set of
accusations presented against Metropolitan Zosima and deacon Fedor Kuritsyn, neither
man was convicted, for they were under the patronage of the Grand Duke. Moreover, if
the Jewish factor behind Gennady’s numerous epistles, voluminous treatise of abbot
Volotsky, monk Savva’s “The Epistle Against Jews and Heretics” and the translations of
anti-Judaic polemics are to be disregarded, then what effect on society did the accusers
hope to achieve by waging a polemic against not a real, but a mythical danger?383
The principal argument against the veracity of the “Judaizing” allegations is based
on the denial of the very possibility of Jewish proselytism. Nonetheless, in light of the
current anthropological studies, Jewish proselytism appears as a perceptible phenomenon

381 Ibid., pg. 195.

382 Lurie Y. (1973): “On Certain Principles of Source Critique”. Chronology of National History,

Moscow. Pg. 94-96; “On Methods of Proof in the Analysis of Sources (Based on the Materials of
Ancient Russian Monuments”. Questions of History, Moscow. No. 5, Pg. 63, 68.

383 Howlett Y. (1993): “The Testimony of Archbishop Gennady on the Heresy of “Novgorod

Heretics Judaizer Philosophizers””. Words of the Division of Ancient Russian Literature.

Pushkin House, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 46. Pg. 58-73.

75

in various locations in Medieval Europe: based on their research of the Jewish diaspora in
the Bosphorus, Kashaev and Kashkovskaya concluded that a form of proselytism was
practiced by the local Jewish communities up to the modern period, thereby “setting the
stage for changes in the ethnic composition of communities for the future” 384 .
Furthermore, Prohorov hypothesized that proselytism, uncharacteristic for representatives
of Talmudic Judaism, could have radiated from the members of the Karaite communities:
the religious life of the Jewish communities in the Crimea and the North Caucasus is
characterized as a "pre-rabbinic Judaism", in which the practice of proselytism was seen
as a necessary condition for survival385.
According to this view, the directive to proselytize came from the advocates of
Jewish rationalism, who upon the dominance of Rabbinical Judaism in the Middle Ages
were deprived of the channels of influence on the majority of the Jewish populace.
Without a doubt, through the active mobilization of anti-Christian polemical texts, non-
Ashkenazi Jewish communities of Eastern and Southern Europe, in which Jewish
rationalist philosophy largely based on Maimonides and contemporary French Jewish
thinkers was prevalent, attempted to prevent the conversion of their coreligionists to
Christianity. The dispersion of texts such as “Toledot Yeshu” – “The Book of the History
of Jesus”386, which denounced the gospel story as false and employed the Talmudic
reference to Jesus387 to claim that he practiced black magic, naturally questioned the
validity of the Christian doctrine. Accordingly, from the 14th century Jewish-Christian
syncretic groups sprung up in various corners of the Byzantine Empire388. The polemics
of the archbishop of Thessaloniki, Gregory Palamas, raised awareness of such groups, as
he waged an ideological battle against a religious group that he called “Chiones”, whose
dogma combined Jewish, Christian and Muslim elements389. Occasionally, the conflicts

384 Kashaev S., Kashkovskaya N. (2009): “The Archeological Data on the Jewish Diaspora in

the Bosphorus//Archeologia Abrahamica: Research in the Area of Archeology and Traditions

of Judaism, Christianity and Islam”. Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archeology,
Moscow. Pg. 61-62.

385 Prohorov G. (1972): “The Debate of Gregory Palamas with “Chione and Turks” and the

Problem of “Jewish Subtilize”. Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature,

Leningrad. Pg. 339; Achkinazi I. (2000): “Krymchaks. Historical and Ethnographic Essays”.
Dar publishing, Simferopol. Pg. 55.

386 Dan J. (2006): “Toledot Yeshu”. In Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Encyclopaedia

Judaica 20 (2nd ed.). Gale Virtual Reference Library, Detroit. Pg. 28.

387 Talmud (Sanhedrin 107a).

388 Melioranskiy B. (1895): “On the History of Anti-Feudal Movements in Macedonia in

XIV//Stephanos”. Collection of essays in honor of F. Sokolov, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 65-72.

389 Prohorov G. (1972): “The Debate of Gregory Palamas with “Chiones and Turks” and the

Problem of “Jewish Philosophizers”. Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature,

Leningrad. Pg. 339.

76

between the converts to Judaism and Orthodox Christians had to be resolved at the level
of the highest authorities in Constantinople390.
In the European Far East, the foundation for the emergence of the Jewish-Christian
dialogue were Jewish settlements that existed in the region from the time of the Medieval
Kievan state391. In the 15th century, one of the most appropriate places for such contacts
was Novgorod, which was a major center for trade and hence a place of convocation of
the representatives of different faiths. In the Russian chronicles, reports of contacts with
Jews are rare, as the chroniclers reported of such instances only when such cross-
confessional interaction occurred in exceptional circumstances. Thus, writing of a famine
that occurred in 1445, a Novgorod chronicler recounted that while many of the city’s
residents fled to Lithuania and German lands, others “sold themselves into slavery to
foreign and Jewish merchants in exchange for bread”392. Additional evidence pointing to
the rather intensive Jewish-Christian relations in Novgorod is found in the “Life of Saint
Zosima of Solovki”, which features an episode about a feast where monk Zosima saw six
Novgorod boyars without a head, which signified their subsequent execution in 1471393.
The closest parallel to Zosima’s vision is a Talmudic principle, which states that if
someone will not see the shadow of his head on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, the final
day of divine judgment of the High Holidays, that person is destined to die before the end
of the year394. A Jewish trace in the use of this motive in the story of monk Zosima is
therefore most probable.
The year 1471 concurrently marks the foundation of the Judaizer movement in
Novgorod. Clearly, by the time of the arrival of Zacharia Skhariya to the northern
Republic from Kiev, Jews already had well-established trade outlets and channels of
communication in the region. Although there are no indubitable sources to suggest that
Jews were engaged in proselytization of their faith in Novgorod prior to the arrival of
Zacharia, the lack of such information also does not eliminate said possibility. What is
certain, however, is that a dialogue between the representatives of the two faiths on the
veracity of each other’s beliefs was commonplace: the records of the Novgorod Church
dating to the beginning of the 15th century, the so called ‘Kormchaya Books’, registered

390 Zanemonec A. (2004): “The Case of Hionios: to the History of the Byzantine Judaic Sect”.

Byzantine Vremennik, Moscow. Vol. 63 (88), pg. 317-323.

391 Toporov V. (1995): “The Jewish Element of Kievan Rus // Slavs and Their Neighbors. The

Jewish Population in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe: From the Middle Ages to the
Beginning of the Modern Times”. Collection of Theses of the XII reading in the memory of V.
D. Korolyuk, Moscow. Pg. 28-43.

392 “Novgorodian Codex” (2000) in “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Russian

Literature, Moscow. Vol. 3, Pg. 425.

393 Dubnov S. (2003): “History of Jews in Europe // Middle Ages Until the End of the Crusades”.

Gershaim/Bridges of Culture, Moscow. Vol. 1, Pg. 244.

394 Ibid.

77

the names of Jews who baptized into Orthodoxy395. It is interesting to note that during
this time, an essential condition for baptism was that it was undertaken voluntarily, for
the record states: “And these Jews come to the Christian faith not for the sake of need,
nor due to trouble. Not out of fear, temptation, or out of poverty or debt. For if it is done
out of envy or material benefit, it is meaningless, nor can the virtue of baptism be forced
upon”396. However, the extent to which this ideological point was actually followed is
questionable.
Various factors indicate that in contrast to 15th century Spain, to the experience of
which archbishop Gennady unsuccessfully tried to appeal, contemporaneous Russia did
not feature an anti-Jewish sentiment. For instance, the main agent of Ivan III in Crimea
was an influential Jewish merchant Chosa Kokos, with some of his letters to Moscow
having been written in Hebrew397. Simultaneously, between 1481 and 1500, Ivan III
persistently invited the Prince of Taman, Zacharia Gvizolfi, to serve in Moscow, while
addressing him as “Zacharia Skhariya the Jew” in his initial letter398. In 1490, Ivan III
invited a Venetian Jewish doctor named Master Leon to be the court physician, and
although the death of the heir to the throne, Ivan the Younger, resulted in the doctor’s
execution, there is no indication that his faith or ethnicity had an effect on the verdict399.
According to Josef Volotsky, Ivan III admitted to him to have been aware of the
heresy of archpriest Aleksey and Fedor Kuritsyn 400 . Over a decade earlier, when
archbishop Gennady publicly accused both of these men of Judaizing, Aleksey continued
to retain an exceptional trust of the Grand Duke to the extent that his recommendation of
appointing Zosima to the post of Metropolitan of the Church was ratified. Meanwhile, the
peak of Kuritsyn’s career at the Kremlin came in 1490’s. In Novgorod, followers of the
Judaizing teachings did not include supporters of the independent republic who were
disadvantaged by Moscow’s conquest, but rather members of the high clergy and nobility
who demonstrated to the Moscow autocrat the willingness to serve him in the forefront.
Meanwhile, their spiritual convictions did not prevent the Judaizers from being appointed

395 The Archive of the Russian National Library. “Records of Jews coming to the Christian

faith”. Fond II. 119, beginning of XV century. Pg. 161.

396 Ibid., Q II. 49. First Half of the XV century Pg. 265.

397 “The Letter of Ivan III to Chosa Kokos Dated 1472”. In Collection of the Russian Historic

Society (1884). Vol. 41, Part 2: Monuments of Diplomatic Relations between Russia and
Crimean Horde and Turkey. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 8

398 “The Letter of Ivan III to Zakharia Skariya the Jew Dated 1482”. In “Collection of the

Russian Imperial Historical Society” (1884). Vol. 41: Monuments of Diplomatic Relations
between Russia and Crimean Horde and Turkey. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 40-41.

399 Typography of Edward Prats (1841): “The Sofia Chronicle”. In “The Complete Collection of

Russian Chronicles”. Vol. 6., 2ed. The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Section 237.

400 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Messages of Joseph Volotsky” Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Pg. 176.

78

to the leading positions at the Kremlin, both religious and secular, as the Grand Duke, for
instance, listened to Fedor Kuritsyn “on all matters”401.

Jewish Mission to the Slavs

In this work, the Judaizer heresy is analyzed in the context of a successful

proselytization of certain elements of Judaism amongst a small, but influential group
comprising of the clergy and nobility in Novgorod and Moscow, including high-ranking
officials at the court of Grand Duke Ivan III and within the Russian Church. If Jews from
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Kiev) were responsible for the emergence of the Judaizers
movement in Russia, as had been stated by the group’s aforementioned adversaries, and
scientific works translated by these Jews from Hebrew into Ruthenian served as the
textual basis for the transmission of the Judaic teachings, a question arises on the motives
that drove the Kievan Jewish scholars to translate the texts intended for inter-Jewish
readership and to circulate them amongst Christians.
As had been proposed by Schneider402, the connecting link might be found in the
works of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob ha-Goleh (the Exile) from Kiev, the only Jewish author
working in the region during the period in question whose writings survive to this day.
Having studied with the Jewish community of Constantinople in his youth, Rabbi Moses
was a rationalist and a Maimonidiean, and is best known for his Kabbalistic work “Lily of
Secrets”, completed in 1511 and circulated from the 16th century403. His collection of
Hebrew manuscripts, currently contained at the Vienna Imperial Library, indicates that he
had a number of followers who copied texts for him: one of the documents in the
collection, a geographical-astronomical work “The Form of the Earth” (“Sefer Tzurat
Ha-aretz”) was copied by Joseph b. Moshe on the 27th of Sivan 5232 (1472) “for our
master and teacher Rabbi Moses ben Jacob the Russian”404. Other manuscripts in the
collection suggest a link between Rabbi Moses and the Judaizer movement of Russia: one
of the texts is “The Commentary to Six Wings”, completed by Rabbi Moses himself in
1470; the other - a Hebrew version of Al-Fergani’s abridgement of the “Almagest”,
copied in 1468 by “Zacharia, the son of Aharon the Kohen of blessed memory” in Kiev.
While “Six Wings” was found to be in possession of the Judaizers, as discussed above,
Zacharia ben Aharon of Kiev had been identified as the most likely candidate for

401 Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener”. In “The Enlightener, or the Condemnation of

the Judaizers Heresy”. Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903. Pg. 11.

402 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology” in

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 222-258.

403 Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.

Jews and Slavs 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 326.

404 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology” in

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 229.

79

Zacharia Skariya the proselytizer of the “Enlightener”, who arrived in Novgorod in 1471
and instigated the heresy. Such a perfect overlap of place (Kiev) and time (1460s-1470s)
suggests that Rabbi Moses’ connection to both the “Six Wings” and Zacharia cannot be
sheer coincidence.
In his primary work, “Lily of Secrets” (Shoshan Sodot), Rabbi Moses voices a
positive attitude towards proselytes to Judaism. He writes: “And also King David said,
“the Lord keeps the proselytes.” Rashi comments that God sees the proselytes as if they
had fulfilled the entire Torah from alef to tav”405. Schneider had analyzed this passage in
the following manner: “This apocryphal midrash, which has no analogues in ancient or
Medieval sources, goes much further than merely voice a positive attitude toward
converts. It states that the very act of conversion is seen by God as the equivalent of
fulfilling all the commandments. The idea suggests the possibility of proselytism without
requiring practical observance”.406
As had been first noted by Zinberg407, Rabbi Moses quoted extensively from two
anonymous Kabbalistic works written by a single author in Constantinople in the 14th
century, “The Book of Marvel” (“Sefer ha Pelia”) and “The Book of the Staff” (“Sefer
ha Qana”). Based on a fragment from “The Book of the Staff”, Rabbi Moses contends
that the spiritual status of proselytes to Judaism is higher than of naturally-born Jews,
because at the moment of their conversion the proselytes “shed the shell of wickedness
and assume the shell of purity”408. This conviction is explained by the worship of the
Golden Calf at Mount Sinai by the Israelites - a sin that stays with the Jewish people
throughout generations. By worshiping the Golden Calf, the Israelites “cut down the
saplings” that caused a rift in the divine union with the Torah, while by the very act of the
conversion to Judaism, according to Rabbi Moses, the proselyte achieves this union
during a time of separation, meaning in Exile409.
The redemption of Israel and the advent of the Messianic age is a central theme in
“Lily of Secrets”. For the possible date of the coming of the Messiah, Rabbi Moses
quoted from the “Book of Marvel”, stating the year 5250 of the Jewish calendar, which

405 Moshe ben Jacob of Kiev (1509): “Lily of Secrets (Shoshan Sodot)”. Partial ed., Koretz,
1784. (Reprint Jerusalem, 1995). Section 4a.

406 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology” in

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 237.

407 Ibid. Pg. 229; Zinberg I. (1929): “The History of Jewish Literature”. Tomor, Vilno. Vol. 3,

344fn.1.

408 Taube M. (2010): “Judaizer Heresy and the Translations from Hebrew in Medieval Russia”

in “History of the Jewish People in Russia: From Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period”. Vol. 1.
Bridges of Culture/Gershaim publishing, Moscow. Pg. 390.

409 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology” in

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 238.

80

translates to 1490 AD410. The date is arrived at by calculating the middle of the 11th 500-
year cycle, and is reinforced by the Kabbalistic exegesis of Job 38:7 - “While the
morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God cheered”, by which the
numerical value of “singing” (‫ )רן‬is equal to 250 (i.e. 5250 from creation) and if counting
the preposition (‫“ – )ב‬while”, it comes to 252, or 1492 AD411. The same paragraph in
“The Book of Marvel” discussing the arrival date of the Messiah, quoted by Rabbi
Moses, states that “that man” (a standard circumlocution for Jesus in Jewish literature),
“called the subjugation of the Nations by Israel the Destruction of the World for he was
afraid to pronounce their demise, lest they persecute him” 412 . Being aware of the
Christian tradition that projected the end of the world for the year 7000 of the Byzantine
calendar (1492AD = 5252 of Jewish calendar), the author of the text therefore fused the
two eschatological traditions together, explicating the “Destruction of the World” to be
understood as the coming of the Jewish Messiah and the subjugation of the Nations by
Israel, of which Jesus himself was apparently aware but distorted the prophesy so to
avoid persecution. Markedly, this notion was echoed in archbishop Gennady’s quotation
of archpriest Aleksey, a senior Judaizer, exulting that “the years of the Christian
chronicler are ending, while ours are amassing”413 – “ours” evidently being a reference to
the Judaic calendar.
The disparagement of Jesus and Christianity is rampant throughout “The Book of
Marvel”. In connection with the transgression of “the cutting down of samplings”, the
author once again referred to “that man”, who “has also caused the destruction by setting
a brick upright and worshipping it, while this was the Diadem (Malkhut), which is called
a brick, and he took it for himself, and made it a sovereign of other gods in order to
accomplish his desire through witchcraft”414. This passage is an explanation of the

410 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 251.; Moshe ben Jacob of Kiev (1509): “Lily of Secrets (Shoshan
Sodot)”. Partial ed., Koretz, 1784. (Reprint Jerusalem, 1995). 73a.

411 Taube, M. (2005): “The 15th c. Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the

Judaizers: Is there a Connection?” in “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and

Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. OGI, Moscow. pg. 202.

412 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 251.; Qana/Pelia, Korets, 1784, 102a.

413 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to Joseph,

former Archbishop of Rostov”. In “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV –

Beginning of XVI Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 318.

414 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 251; Qana/Pelia, Korets, 1784,102a.

81

reference to Jesus in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 107a)415, where Jesus is said to have been a
disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perahya, who excommunicated him for a minor wrong
doing. When Jesus tried to repent, the Rabbi refused to receive him. Then, as the story
goes, Jesus “set up a brick and worshipped it”. And when Rabbi Yehoshua saw this, he
ordered for Jesus to repent, to which Jesus answered: “Thus have I learned from you:
whoever sins and causes others to sin, is deprived of the power of doing penitence”.
From a Kabbalistic point of view, the brick that Jesus worshiped and “took for
himself” was the 10th emanation, or the “Sephira”, of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, called
the “Malkhut”416. It follows that as Jesus’s successors, Christians possess a certain power
over the immanent aspect of divinity. And until the Sefirot alignment is not repaired, the
redemption of the Jews, that is the return to the land of Israel and the restoration of the
Temple, cannot occur. This means that until the wrongs committed by Jesus and
Christianity are not repaired, the Messiah will not come. According to Schneider, the
repairing of Jesus’s transgression, and of his excommunication, can then be understood as
purifying Christianity of idolatry by reinvigorating the Jewish-Biblical heritage, which
Christianity implicitly bears within itself417. In that context, Rabbi Moses stressed the
importance of proselytes for the redemption of Israel during the “end of days”, as by the
very fact of their conversion, the proselytes bring the world into a state of “repair”
(tikkun – ‫)תיקון‬, which is essential for the advent of the Messianic Age.
The practice and the beliefs of the Judaizers, who were said to reject the divinity
of Jesus, denounce the Trinity, deny the sanctity of the cross and icons, and mock the
association of doomsday with the year 1492, noticeably correspond with the eschatology
of the 14th century Constantinopolitan Kabbalistic works, so heavily exploited by Rabbi
Moses in his writings. The connection between the theological convictions of the Kiev
Rabbi and the course of events leading to the proliferation of the Judaizer heresy in
Russia is established primarily through the persona of Zacharia Skariya, a learned Jew
from Kiev who was said to have attracted a number of senior members of the clergy by
his ‘mysterious’ knowledge. The association of the Kievan Jews to the inculcation of the
“heresy” is further indicated by archbishop Gennady’s testimony that a newly baptized
Jew from Kiev, upon his arrival to Novgorod, told him that having learned of Ivan III’s
removal of churches from the Kremlin, the Jews of Kiev “rejoiced”418.
The significance of Judaic proselytism discussed in the essay of Rabbi Moses,
therefore, is likely the connecting link between the Judaizer movement of the late 15th -

415 Schäfer P. (2007): “Jesus in the Talmud”. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Pg. 34-

35.

416 Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of Culture
publishing, Moscow. Pg. 244.

417 Ibid., Pg. 246.

418 Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to

Metropolitan Zosima”. In“Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of XVI

Centuries”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad. Pg. 374-375.

82

early 16th century Russian State and the Ruthenian translations of the Kabbalistic Hebrew
texts. Accordingly, the theological argument of the fundamental importance of proselytes
for Judaism and the advent of the Messianic age could have been the driving force behind
the missionary enterprise of the Kievan Kabbalists, the aim of which was to shed the light
of the Jewish faith onto gentiles.
If the formation of the Judaizer movement in Novgorod and Moscow was a result
of a conscious ‘mission’ impelled by Jews of Kiev, then initially it was rather successful,
with highly influential personas such as the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church
Zosima, D’yak Fedor Kuritsyn and the mother of the successor to the throne Elena all
said to have been part of the Judaizer circle. Moreover, according to Josef Volotsky, Ivan
III admitted to him of “knowing of their heresy... and asked for forgiveness” 419 .
Captivatingly, the debacle of the Judaizers was not a result of a polemical triumph of its
opponents, based on theological argumentation, but rather caused by the cessation of the
Grand Duke’s patronage of the movement, likely due to political predicament in the royal
family.
Although the Judaizer movement was violently suppressed in 1504, thereby
preventing a deeper infiltration of the Judaic doctrine into the Russian spiritual realm, the
legacy of ‘Judaizing’ remained a recurring theme in polemical literature. ‘Judaizing’
remained a serious offence throughout the Early Modern period, and was often imputed
upon rivals across political, clerical and commercial spheres. At times, the targets for
such accusations became christened Jews, as suspicions of their relapse into their former
faith and its proselytization amongst the Orthodox faithful was rampant – such instances
will be described in the consequent chapters. As evidenced by a statement made by Ivan
IV the Terrible, who during his reign explicitly forbade Jews to reside in the Russian
lands lest they baptized into Orthodoxy, the anxieties of Judaic proselytism remained at
large with the Russian authorities and within the public consciousness: “Jewish infidels
led the Russian people away from Christianity, and poisoned our lands, and caused
mischief to many of our people”420. Underscoring the significant mark that the Judaizer
heresy left on the Russian society, in 2004 a number of Russian and Ukrainian Christian
Orthodox outlets published articles marking 500 years since the victory of the Church
over the Judaizing Heresy421.

419 Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): ”The Epistles of Joseph Volotsky”. Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Pg. 176.

420 The Monuments of Diplomatic Relations of Muscovy with Polish-Lithuanian State. Part II

(1987). The Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, Saint Petersburg. Vol.
LIX.,Ch 21. Pg. 341-342.

421 “The 500th anniversary of the defeat of the Judaizing Heresy” (2004). “The Word of

Savvinsk”, the newspaper of the Savvino-Storozhesk Stauropegial Monastery.

(http://archiv.kiev1.org/page-969.html)

83

 Chapter 2: From the Shtetl to the Cross: Baptized Jews in the Early Modern
Russian State

In the aftermath of the Russian-Polish wars of 1632-1634 and 1654-1667, scores

of inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s eastern territories were taken
prisoner by the Russian forces and transferred to the Moscow state. The captive civilians
included Jews, whose settlements were scattered across the Ruthenian territories of the
Commonwealth. These events marked a turning point in the history of Muscovite-Jewish
relations, as never before had the two cultures come into such a close contact with one
another. While these communities enjoyed the freedom of worship, royal protection and a
certain level of autonomy under the Polish rule, the wars drastically disturbed this long-
established political, judicial and economic framework. Finding themselves in the midst
of the rigorously Christian Orthodox society, inherently intolerant of other faiths, for the
Jews in captivity the situation was particularly complicated. Although the same rules of
conduct applied to the Jews as to the other civilian captives initially, their increasing
numbers forced the authorities to enact clear-cut regulations for dealing with the
heathens. Preserved is a mandative correspondence, issued soon after the end of military
operations in Lithuania in 1634, specifically addressing the different nationalities that
were present on Muscovy territory after the war: Poles, Lithuanians, “Germanic
peoples”422, Cossacks and finally, the Jews. As follows from these documents, Tsar
Mikhail Federovich Romanov ordered to “identify and release” the Jews back home to
Lithuania, except for those who expressed the desire to baptize into Orthodoxy and
remain in Muscovy423. Captivatingly, the sources indicate that a larger number of Jewish
captives chose to accept baptism and settle in Russia than those who remained devoted to
the faith of their forefathers and returned home to the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth424.
While there is evidence of Polish-Lithuanian Jews having spent extended periods
of time in Muscovy in the 16th century, frequently on assignment of the Polish Royal
court and treasury425, the presence of the Jewish faithful amongst the population was
worrisome for the Orthodox clergy, which sought to guard their flock from contact with
other religions. Since the outbreak of the controversial ‘Judaizer heresy’ at the end of the
15th century, which infiltrated the highest echelons of the ecclesiastical and governmental
circles, the adherents of the Jewish faith were strictly forbidden from residing in Moscow

422 In Russia at the time, all Western Europeans were referred to as “Germans”, or ‘Nemtsi’

(‘Немцы’), with the root of the word being “немой”, meaning “mute”.

423 Feldman D., Minkina O. (2007): “The Fair Jewess” in Russia XVII-XIX Centuries: Images and

Realities”. Ancient Archive, Moscow. Pg. 17; The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Fund
210. Office of the Ranks, Column 102. Section 1, line 1.

424 Gessen Y. (1925): “History of the Jewish People in Russia”. Typography of the Cooperative

Society, Vol. 1. Leningrad. Pg. 10.

425 Gessen Y. (1913): “Three Hundred Years Ago: Jews in the Moscow State Before and After

the Times of Trouble”. Voshod journal, № 9. St. Petersburg. Pg. 34-38.

84

controlled territories. The unprecedented mass conversion of Jewish captives to
Christianity in mid-1630’s, however, motivated the Church and State authorities to
supersede the policy of exclusion, based on ethnic belonging, by a policy of integration,
based on religious allegiance, henceforth decreeing the act of baptism to signify the
authorization for the admission of Jews into the fold of the Russian society, both
spiritually and legally.
It must be noted that in Muscovy, the conversion to Christianity by a Jew translated
into receiving extensive benefits, coupled with obtaining complete freedom and equal
rights on par with the local Slavic-Orthodox population426. Therefore, for the question of
whether the conversion process was voluntary or forced upon, the answer tilts more
towards the former. On the other hand, not only did the refusal to baptize mean certain
expulsion from the Russian territory, but it could have also been perceived as dangerous
by the captive Jews, who had no reason to trust their subjugators with their lives.
Furthermore, while the practice of Judaic rituals in secret by baptized Jews was deemed
to signify apostasy from Christianity, the inducement of Christians to Judaism was
regarded as one of the most heinous crimes – according to the Council Code of 1649, the
proselytization of a foreign faith was an offence punishable by burning at the stake427.
Various types of documents (petitions, military reports, governmental decrees,
clerical notes, etc.) contained across the funds of the Russian State Archive of Early Acts
in Moscow reveal that Jewish migration to the Russian state during the 17th century
occurred not only by forceful relocation, but also voluntarily. What is more, the
authorities did not in anyway impede such initiatives, but on the contrary welcomed
Jewish immigrants into the country, based on the condition of their conversion into the
Christian Orthodox faith. This policy caught the attention of the Austrian Ambassador to
Russia (1698-1699) Johann Georg Korb, who commented on the matter in his memoirs:
“Jews are not tolerated in Muscovy lest they are baptized. The Muscovites explain this by
stating that to them, it appears incongruous that living amongst them could be those,
whose religious morals are marked by cunning treachery and skillful deception”428. In a
similar vein, in his 1858 monograph on the history of Russia’s Ministry of Internal
Affairs, the senior governmental official Nikolai Varadinov explicated “the imprint of
distrust towards the followers of the Mosaic Law” in the 17th century Russia in the
following manner: “Through their false teachings, the Jews lured into their religion
persons of other faiths, even Christians; that is why their civil rights were always more or
less hampered, and their relocation to Russia from other countries forbidden”429. As
follows, whilst Jews were nominally attributed with the intention of proselytizing their

426 Ibid., Pg. 37.

427 Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”.
Institute of History of the USSR, Leningrad. Pg. 15.

428 Georg J. (1906): “A Diary of a Journey to Muscovy”. Publishing house of A. S. Suvorin, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 239.

429 Varadinov N. (1858): “History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”. Typography of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2, part 1, pg. 129.

85

faith amongst Christians, the optimal solution to this problem the authorities considered
to be their conversion to Orthodoxy. The reasons for endorsing such a policy, rather than
restricting Jewish presence in the country all together, were first and foremost
ideological: in light of the threat of Judaization, a voluntary baptism of a Jew symbolized
the theological supremacy and triumph of Christianity over Judaism.
In this chapter, the application of these policies in practice will be examined
through a variety of case studies of Jewish conversions to Orthodox Christianity in the
17th century Russian state. The objectives of this examination are multifold: to identify
and analyze the factors that influenced the Jews of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
to migrate to Russia and change their faith; scrutinize the mechanisms of socio-cultural
adaptation of baptized Jews and their interaction with the environment; construct models
of perception of Jews in Russia in relation to the concerns of burgeoning proselytism of
Judaism and ‘Judaizing’; uncover the features of self-representation of baptized Jews
before the Church and State authorities; and study the phenomenon of the Jewish
conversion to Christianity as bureaucratic and ideological processes.

Jewish Settlement in Russia in the mid-17th Century: Forced or Voluntary?

A range of sources in the collection belonging to the voluminous Office of the

Ranks (“Разрядный Приказ”) fund, stored at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts,
contain information on the fate of Jews who were transferred to Muscovy in the 17th
century not only as captives, but also migrated on their own initiative. Of a primary
interest to this study is a section of the fund entitled “Desyatni Cases” (“Дела Десятен”)
which were produced throughout the course of the operations of the Office of the Ranks,
a central governmental military-administrative institution, and contains records dealing
with the remunerations and entitlements to land ownership (including serfs) bestowed
upon noblemen for their service in the military. Amongst these records are also
documents concerning other matters that the institution was charged to oversee, such as
the status and fate of the captives taken to Russia during the course of the 1654-1667
Russian-Polish war, the resettlement of groups from one locality of the country to
another, and the reception of migrants from neighboring countries in Russia. As indicated
by the documentation, Jews were present across all three of these sectors. Notably, while
the practice of Judaism was strictly outlawed by governmental regulations, for a Jew,
residence in the 17th century Russian State, whether voluntary or forceful, connoted
baptism into Orthodox Christianity – an act emphatically welcomed and rewarded by
both royal and ecclesiastical authorities.
One of the handwritten books belonging to the “Desyatni Cases”, entitled “On the
transfer of Polish and Lithuanian captives from Moscow to lower towns” 430, dated 1659,
lists 190 people “of various ranks” taken captive by the Russian forces during a military
operation against the Polish-Lithuanian army in Belarus. In the lengthy list, just one of
the captives is distinguished to be Jewish – “A Jew of Myavilovka Marchko Samoilov”.
Upon being taken to Moscow, by the decree of the Tsar, the group of captives was sent to
Kazan, where some of them were allocated as serfs at boyar courts, while others were

430 Feldman D. (2010): “The List of Jews, sent from Novgorod to Kazan in the Middle of XVII

Century”. Ancient Ruthenia, Moscow. No. 2 (40). Pg. 119; The Russian State Archive of Early
Acts. Fund 210. Office of the Ranks, Desyatni Cases. Case 278, Pg. 132.

86

sent to the “lower towns” for appointment. Samoilov was amongst those sent to Kazan,
and although it doesn’t state so explicitly in the documents, there can be little doubt that
he was promptly baptized.
The same book of the “Desyatni Cases” contains a register entitled “The List of
Jews and their wives, children and craftsmen, that were sent to Kazan from Yaroslavl”431.
The list consists of 30 families with different compositions: a husband and wife with
children/siblings/parents, some of whom are said to have been widows/widowers with
children, while others are listed as siblings. The place of origin of the group is not
indicated; what’s stated is that they first appeared in Russia in Novgorod, from where
they were transferred to Yaroslavl and finally to Kazan, which in the middle of the 17th
century was the most common final destination for Jewish groups. Although the
document is not dated, it is likely that the event took place in the 1650s, as the subsequent
document in the book is entitled as “The record of Lithuanian migrants to Moscow in
1653”432. While the Jewish group might have also come from Lithuania, in that case they
could have found a significantly closer route to Russia than through Novgorod, which is
in the north of the country. Since Novgorod was the nearest point into Russia from
Livonia - Livonia could have been the previous place of residence of the Jewish migrants.
Notably, there is no indication as to the forceful nature of the Jewish group’s
appearance in the Moscow state. The migrants were rather wealthy, as indicated by the
title of “craftsmen” ascribed to a number of names on the list. In the concluding part of
the document it becomes known that one of the craftsmen remained in Novgorod in order
“to be baptized”. Although nothing is stated regarding the conversion of the rest of the
group, chances are they were willingly baptized either in Yaroslavl or in Kazan. While it
is stated that 3 of the Jews died en route from Novgorod to Yaroslavl, the total number of
individuals said to have migrated to Russia is 176 people – a rather significant number.
The supplied case of a voluntary migration of Jews to Russia was not an isolated
incident during said time period. Another fund of the Russian State Archive of Early Acts
contains a record consisting of four petitions of Jewish residents of Breslau (today’s
Wroclaw, then belonging to Austria) addressed to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovitch, and three
records of their subsequent baptism into the “Orthodox Christian faith”, dated 1659433.
According to the documents, in the midst of the Russian-Polish war, five Jewish men,
with their wives and children, and a widow, petitioned to the Russian monarch with a
request to be permitted to baptize and migrate to Russia. These Jews, referring to

431 Feldman D. (2009): “And in Kazan the Jews are to be Ordered to Baptize…” The Documents

Relating to the Transfer of Captive Jews to the Volga Region in 1655”. Bulletin of the Hebrew
University, Moscow. Pg. 216-217; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 210. Office
of the Ranks, Desyatni Cases. Case 278, Pg. 112-114.

432 The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 210. Office of the Ranks, Desyatni Cases.

Case 278.

433 Feldman D. (2005): “”Pleading for Mercy are Old-Law Orphans…” The Case of the Petitions

of Jews of Breslau for the Baptism into Orthodoxy” // Historic Archive, Moscow. No. 1. Pg.
198-202; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 141. Orders of Previous Years. Case
135, Pg. 1-7.

87

themselves as the “Old law orphans”, expressed the desire to serve the Tsar and
underscored the willingness to convert into the “true Christian faith”434. The letters,
written “by their own hand”, were presented by the Jews to the Russian envoy in Silesia
Pisarev, who passed them on to Moscow, and in a timely manner was ordered by the Tsar
to organize a safe passage for the Jewish group to the Russian capital. The recipients of
the migrants were the priests of the Cathedral of the Archangel at the Kremlin, who were
to oversee the subsequent conversion of the group. The number of persons in the group
“with wives and children” added up to 17 people in total435.
Accordingly, the given cases demonstrate that the flow of Jews to Muscovy during
the Russian-Polish wars of mid 17th century occurred not only from Belarus and other
territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also from Silesia and quite
possibly Livonia. The distinctive feature of this migration was its voluntary nature, in
contrast to the scores of Jews from the Polish Kingdom, who were brought to Muscovy
by force as prisoners of war. As attested by the documentation, these Jewish groups
purposefully moved to the neighboring Russian State and in the process changed their
faith to Orthodox Christianity by their own free will. While the practice of Judaism was
categorically outlawed on the territory of the 17th century Muscovy, primarily due to the
anxieties and suspicions related to the proselytization of the Jewish faith amongst the
Russian population, the authorities fervently welcomed Jewish converts in their country.
The application of such policy implies that the contention of the Russian State and
Church against Jewish people was not based on racial prejudice, but rather on religious
chauvinism, where the act of a Jewish baptism was considered as an ideological victory
of Christianity over Judaism.
Isolated instances of Jewish migration to Russia also occurred before the outbreak
of the Russo-Polish wars, despite the fact that in the first half of the 17th century, the
presence of Jews in the country, including temporary, was strictly outlawed. Yet, these
circumstances did not prevent Jews of the neighboring Polish Kingdom from infiltrating
the border to the east, even if that connoted application of deceitful means. Such was the
case of one Alexander Grigorev son of Isaac, who in 1618 successfully settled in
Moscow by presenting himself as a Polish nobleman (szlachcic), and entered into the
service of the Tsar436. While a migrant’s aspiration to inflate his social standing and thus
legitimize his nobleman status in the new environment is not startling, by doing so
Grigorev also tried to hide his Jewish origins. However, it was eventually found out that
the “Polish szlachcic” was really a disguised Jew. Unmasked, Grigorev hastened to
submit a petition in which he expressed the desire to enter the fold of the Russian
Orthodox Church and his request was granted. Not only was the exposed Jewish impostor
able to avoid persecution, but also having been consequently baptized by Patriarch
Philaret himself, the neophyte was honored “to see the eyes of the sovereign”, meaning

434 Ibid., Pg 199.; Ibid., Pg. 2.

435 Ibid., Pg 201.; Ibid., Pg. 6.

436 Oparina T. (2009): “Audience of the Tsar as a Reward for Conversion to Orthodoxy //
Spatial and Temporal Crossroads of Cultures”. Altai State University publishing, Barnaul, Pg.
19-21.

88

that he received the privilege of Royal audience437. Hence, through the act of baptism into
Orthodoxy, a representative of an outlawed ethno-confessional community, who entered
the country by deception, was granted citizenship and various other privileges. This
event, therefore, underlines the significance that the Orthodox Church placed on the
conversion of Jews to Christianity.

The Case of a Baptized Jew Trained in Firearms

In 1658, in the midst of the Russian-Polish war, a Jew by the name of Isachko (a
sobriquet for Isaac) from the Belarusian town of Mogilev (belonging to the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania) appealed to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovitch Romanov to “have mercy on him”
and asked for the permission to be baptized into the Christian faith438. A royal edict
issued to Russia’s central military institution, the “Office of the Military” (“Пушкарский
Приказ”) apropos the Jewish convert, contained at the “Orders of Previous Years”
(“Приказные Дела Старых Лет”) fund of the Russian State Archive of Early Acts, sheds
light on Isaac’s fate and enunciates the demeanor of the country’s authorities towards the
‘new Christians’, or baptized Jews. While Isachko is said to have been a “migrant from
Mogilev” at the time of submitting his appeal to be baptized, indicating that at that
moment he was already on the territory of Muscovy, it is not stated whether he migrated
on his own or was brought over as a captive of war. Chances are it was the second
scenario, as Mogilev was directly affected by the course of the military proceedings.
However, it is rather captivating that a Jewish prisoner of war was neither forced nor
offered to change his faith to Orthodoxy by the authorities, and appealed to the Tsar with
a request to be baptized by his own initiative.
As one would expect, Isachko’s request was approved, and by the order of the
“great sovereign”, the head of Moscow musketeers, Colonel Artemon Matveev, notably a
non-ecclesiastical persona, baptized the Jewish migrant, changing his name to Yaakov.
“For the christening into the Orthodox Christian faith and for the loyal service” as stated
in the document, Yakushko (sobriquet for Yaakov) was trained in “firearm and grenade
skills, and secret techniques”439. For the instruction, he was given a printed book written
in German. In Moscow, not only did the new Christian obtain a military profession, but
also married. Upon completing the training, Yakushko was assigned to serve in the
regiment of Lieutenant-General Nikolai Bowman, a highly achieving commander of a
Danish origin. The mere act of entrusting a former Jew with the responsibility of cannon
fire is rather unique. At the same time, this act serves as an indication of a considerably
favorable treatment of christened Jews by the Russian authorities. Over a few years of
serving in Bowman’s regiment, Yakushko apparently achieved significant results, as in
the text it is stated that he had been “trained in his profession with excellence”.

437 Ibid., Pg. 20.

438 Feldman D. (2012): “A Note from the Musketeer Office on the Baptized Jew Yaakov 1667”.

Parallels, Moscow. Pg. 181-188.; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 141. Orders
of Previous Years. Office of the Military. Case 273, Pg. 1-2.

439 Ibid., Pg. 183; Ibid., Pg. 1.

89

 The reason for the issue of the given edict, according to the text, was Yakushko’s
unilateral withdrawal from the regiment to the service of “the great and plenipotentiary
envoys at the court of his majesty”, and his intention to leave “towards Lithuania”440. The
“Office of the Military” was involved in resolving the issue, under the jurisdiction of
which were musketeer related matters. The edict, issued by the order of the Tsar,
stipulated for Yakushko to be returned to Bowman’s regiment, and prohibited him from
travelling to Lithuania. The text of the document specifies that the edict was issued
repeatedly, as upon its original issue the order to return Yakushko to the army had not
been implemented. Evidently, having spent an ample amount of time and resources on
Yakushko’s training, it went against the interest of the State to allow a skilled gunman to
leave the country, more so to his native Lithuania. Furthermore, the possibility of the
relapse of the baptized Jew into his former faith if allowed to go home, even for a
temporary visit, was likely to have been taken into consideration. The implementation of
the Tsar’s order was entrusted to boyar Pronchichev and D’yak Mikhailov, underscoring
the importance consigned to the matter by the authorities.
The case of a christened Jew serving at the Russian military in the 17th century is
not an isolated incident. While traces of evidence testifying to the service of Jews in the
Russian army throughout that century are scattered across the materials of the Russian
State Archive, apparently not all of these Jews had gone through the process of
conversion to Christianity. A book belonging to the “Office of the Ranks” fund contains a
record, dated 1634, which notes a soldier in the Rylsk regiment of the Russian army
named Isaac Samoilov, “who was of the Jewish faith”441. Furthermore, a record in the
“Desyatni cases” contains an entry dated 1664 of the issue of a monthly food allowance
of 11 rubles to captain Danila Eremeev, who signed for the receipt of the money in
Hebrew, as apparently he was not yet able to write in Russian442. While there can be little
doubt that both of these men were baptized at some point of their military service, the
two cases further demonstrate the high degree of tolerance of the Russian authorities
towards Jewish converts to Christianity.

Baptized Lithuanian Jewess Melanya Klemenova in 17th Century Muscovy

Although the development of gender studies and the interest in personal life, as
well as the personalization and fragmentation of history in the second half of 20th century
had a definite effect on the study of Eastern European Jewish history, inquiry into female

440 Ibid., Pg. 185; Ibid., Pg. 2.

441 Feldman D. (2010): “The List of Jews, sent from Novgorod to Kazan in the Middle of XVII

Century”. Ancient Ruthenia, Moscow. No. 2 (40). Pg. 119.; The Russian State Archive of Early
Acts. Fund 210. Office of the Ranks. Records of the Moscow table. Book 36, chapter 1, pg.
856.

442 Feldman D. (2012): “A Note from the Musketeer Office on the Baptized Jew Yaakov 1667”.

Parallels, Moscow. Pg. 188.; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts., “Desyatni cases”. Case
276, pg. 46.

90

historiography remains a marginal stream in modern Judaica443. The primary challenge
for historians is the creation of historiography that would be valuable not just due to its
‘exotic’ character, but also due to the application of the appropriate research methods and
the contextualization within the respective area of research – in this case being the
conversion of Polish-Lithuanian Jews into Orthodox Christianity during the Early
Modern period.
This case study addresses the problem of the self-representation of a baptized
Jewish woman, whose behavior directly conflicted with the traditions of the Ashkenazi
communities in Early Modern Eastern Europe, and the perception of this extraordinary
individual by the Russian Christian Orthodox milieu. In the general context, the account
embodies an analysis into the cross-cultural interaction and conflict between Judaism and
Christianity through the prism of gender history.
Amongst the captives transferred to Muscovy at the end of the Smolensk
offensive in 1634, was a Lithuanian (Belarusian) Jewess by the name of Melanya (in the
archival sources also referred to as Malanya, Malanica, Molannica, Molanka). Despite
having been presented with repeated opportunities to return home, the woman chose to
baptize into the Orthodox faith and settle in the Russian State, subsequently creating a
family. A uniquely large number of sources documenting her fate have survived in
various parts of the voluminous “Records of the Belgorod Table” (“Столбцы
Белгородского Стола”), which is stored at the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts in
Moscow444.
The earliest source that mentions Melanya’s persona is her petition to Tsar
Mikhail Federovich Romanov, written in mid-1635445. As follows from the document,
Melanya resided within the Jewish community in a town called Borzna, which was then
part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. When the Russian army occupied the town in
1634, Melanya was taken captive and brought to Russia, where soon after she was
‘bought’ by Ivan Klemenov, a son of a boyar from Rylsk. At that point, “by her own will,
she left the cursed Jewish faith and was baptized into the Orthodox Christian faith at the
church of the venerable father Mikhail the miracle-worker of Rylsk” 446, changing her
name from the Jewish ‘Malka’ in favor of a more Slavic sounding ‘Melanya’. In her
letter, the baptized Jewess reminded the Tsar of his ruling, by which he allowed the Poles
who baptized into Orthodoxy to stay in Muscovy, and referred to herself as “the Tsar’s

443 Pushkareva N. (2002): “The Problem of the Institutionalization of the Gender Approach in

the System of Historic Sciences and Historic Education”. In “Women. History. Society: A
Collection of Articles”. Edited By Uspenskaya V. Tver Regional Literature Publishing house,
Tver. Vol. 2. Pp. 9-22.

444 The archival records pertaining to the case were published in Feldman D., Minkina O.

(2007): “The Fair Jewess” in Russia XVII-XIX Centuries: Images and Realities”. Ancient
Archive, Moscow.

445 Ibid., Pg. 22.; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 210. Office of the Ranks.

Records of the Belgorod Table. Section 61. Pg. 36.

446 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 37.

91

orphan”, who embraced Orthodox Christianity and stayed in Rylsk under his ”royal
patronage”.
Melanya went on to state that her father, a Jew from Borzna named Gron, having
learned of her whereabouts and her baptism, came to Rylsk a number of times and
appealed to the authorities to have her returned to him on the basis of the peace treaty
between Russia and Poland. “My father”, she wrote, “wants to forcefully take me away
from the Orthodox faith and return me back into the infidel Jewish faith, and hence
forever deprave my soul”447. To further strengthen her position, the former Jewess stated
that the venerable father Mikhail had also written to the authorities with a request for her
to be allowed to stay in Rylsk under his guidance. She concluded the petition by begging
Tsar Mikhail Federovich to have mercy on her “in the name of Christ” and to not permit
for her to be taken to Lithuania by her father, so that “he doesn’t defile the Orthodox faith
and eventually ruin me”448.
Another document reveals that in addition to the numerous requests of Melanya’s
father, pan Kozanowski, and “other constables from the Lithuanian side” wrote to the
Russian authorities with appeals to have Melanya returned home449. As a result of these
appeals, the governor of Rylsk Fedor Boyashev had launched an investigation into this
matter450. The case did not go unnoticed, and in September 1635 a ruling addressed to the
Rylsk governor was received from the Office of the Ranks in Moscow, declaring that
“due to the royal decree allowing for the Lithuanian captives who chose to baptize and
stay in our lands, the newly baptized Jewess Malanica of Rylsk is free to live in Rylsk or
wherever she wants in the Orthodox Christian faith”. The document further issued a ban
on her return into the “captivity of her father’s Jewish faith”451.
The given set of documents is concluded with a report to the Office of the Ranks,
written by the governor of Rylsk Boyashev in early 1636, which contains a summary of a
letter he received from the Tsar with a ruling on “Polack Melanya452. For her voluntary
baptism and “devotion to the true Orthodox Christian faith without any doubts”, Tsar
Mikhail Federovich Romanov granted the former Jewess a broad range of benefits: she
was free to move to Moscow, if she so wished, and was to be provided compensation
from the State; including a “lavish and warm fur coat”. The accompaniment of a Church
official on her journey to Moscow, as well as the fur coat, were to be paid out of Rylsk’s
treasury. Furthermore, when entering into a marital union, she was to receive a generous
dowry. However, from this same letter, it becomes known that Melanya was already
“married off by her spiritual father Mikhail” to her master, Igor Klemenov of Rylsk, and

447 Ibid.; Ibid.

448 Ibid.; Ibid.

449 Ibid., Pg. 23; Ibid., Pg. 373.

450 Ibid., Pg. 24; Ibid., Pg. 38.

451 Ibid., Ibid.

452 Ibid., Pg. 25; Ibid., Pg. 372-373.

92

even prior to the wedding, she had given birth to his child. Due to the fact of already
being married, Melanya therefore was unable to seize the favorable opportunity to move
to the capital and live in more civilized conditions, but had received a small government
subsidy of 50 kopecks.
Of even greater interest is the letter written by Melanya to Mikhail Federovich in
January 1645, requesting for the Tsar to grant her the subsidy that was promised earlier
for her “exit” to Muscovy and conversion to Orthodoxy, due to the dire financial situation
of her family453. Judging by the text, at the time of the composition of the letter in 1645,
Melanya and Ivan Klemenov already had three sons - Gregory, Osip and Ivan, and a
daughter – Vasilisa, all adolescents. The “poor and helpless foreigner newly baptized
Jewess Melanya” as she referred to herself, used the opportunity to emphasize once again
to the Tsar her devotion to Orthodoxy, writing that her husband Ivan Klemenov
“conveyed her into the Orthodox faith” and into the domain of the Tsar’s “Royal name”,
that she left her “cursed Jewish faith”, her father and mother, her “clan-tribe” and all her
possessions, and baptized into the “true Orthodox faith”. Nonetheless, from 1636 to the
present time, according to Melanya, she did not benefit from the subsidy because her
husband was “constantly on royal service and never at home”, and further lamented that
“due to his devoted military service” her husband Ivan was in “dire health”454. The Tsar
had granted Ivan Klemenov with an estate, but in recent times it had come into “a
complete decay, became desolate and overgrown: many of their surfs died and their
children left the land”. During the war with the Tatars, which affected Rylsk, all wheat
and corn crops were ruined, and thieves stole the grain”. Melanya also mentions that
throughout all this time, her husband was not exempted from the state taxes and other
state contributions, and they were paid from the remaining savings that they’ve had. Such
troublesome conditions forced the family of the baptized Jewess to “use her last chance”;
leave the estate in Rylsk and move together with her husband and children to Moscow,
where they arrived “hungry, naked and barefoot just after Christmas of 1645”, so that the
Tsar would fulfill his longstanding promise to “have mercy” on her “in the name of the
Orthodox faith” and for the sake of his own “health and longevity”. Time and time again
Melanya accentuated her “foreignness” and “conversion” in the letter, while as one of the
premises under which the convert pleads for the Tsar’s graciousness – it is so that her and
her family “would not be dependent on the voracious Jewish merchants in Rylsk”455.
A second group of archival sources that contain information on Melanya’s life in
Russia are official documents that primarily deal with tax exemption benefits of her
husband, Igor Klemenov. The ‘boyar’s son’ was granted these privileges due to the
baptism of his wife into Orthodoxy, yet did not benefit from them until 10 years after
Melanya’s conversion. This is stated in two royal decrees, dated March and April 1645
respectively: the first is addressed to the Musketeer Order, and exempted Klemenov from
payment of the otherwise mandatory military taxes for the next ten years456, while the

453 Ibid., Pg. 28; Ibid., Pg. 53-54.

454 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 53.

455 Ibid., Pg. 29; Ibid., Pg. 54.

456 Ibid.; Ibid.

93

second is addressed to the governor of Rylsk, freeing Klemenov from paying city taxes
for the same ten year duration 457 . Furthermore, the second decree also states that
Klemenov’s wife Melanya was to receive 10 rubles from the royal treasury for “leaving
her cursed Jewish faith and baptizing into our true Greek-Orthodox faith”458. Curiously,
even ten years after the woman’s conversion, Melanya was referred to as a “new
Christian”. Evidently, in the Christian-Orthodox societies, the mark of being a convert
accompanied the person long after the baptism, perhaps never fully thawing away.
Information about the subsequent course of events is contained in a third group of
archival materials at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts. A royal decree dated
February 6th, 1646 states that Melanya was to be sent to the Patriach’s court459, the
residence of the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Ruthenia (head of the Russian Orthodox
Church) within the Kremlin walls. By that time, Aleksey Mikhailovich Romanov
replaced his father Mikhail Fedorovich on the throne, and it is likely that the baptized
Jewess was hoping that the new monarch would show her as much favor as did his father.
The situation of her family did not improve, but on the contrary, became unbearable. In a
petition that Melanya submitted to the Office of the Ranks shortly after her arrival to the
Kremlin, she asked for the Tsar to “have mercy” and for her to be sent to a monastery
“for the correction and guidance in accordance with the Christian Orthodox faith”460.
From the Patriarch’s court, by the order and “blessing” of Patriarch Josef, Melanya was
sent to the Ivanovsky women’s convent in central Moscow461. According to a record
dated December 19, 1646462, Melanya spent six weeks at the convent (according to her
own count – seven weeks463), during the time of the Great Fast earlier that year. The
record further states that after her voluntary mission at the convent, Melanya was to be
sent back to the Patriach’s court. Approximately around the same time, the “foreigner
newly-baptized Jewess from Rylsk”, as Melanya referred to herself, sent two petitions to
the Office of the Ranks, in which she requested to be issued a compensation for first of
all, her baptism, and also for the “guidance” at the Ivanovsky convent, both of which,
according to her, she did not receive464. A record issued by the Office of the Ranks, dated
December 28, 1646, addressed Melanya’s request, stating that for the tenure at the
convent, normally “foreigner women receive a government remuneration of 3 rubles,


457 Ibid., Pg. 31; Ibid., Pg. 45.

458 Ibid., Pg. 36; Ibid., Pg. 53.

459 Ibid., Pg. 40; Ibid., Orders of the Office of the Ranks, column 562. Pg. 310.

460 Ibid., Pg. 45; Ibid., Pg. 314.

461 Ibid.. Pg. 46-47; Ibid., Pg. 315-316.

462 Ibid., Pg. 32; Ibid., Pg. 305.

463 Ibid., Pg. 33; Ibid., Pg. 306-307.

464 Ibid.; Ibid.

94

everyone else 4 rubles, and all are issued a woolen cloth”465. Hence, it was ordered for
Melanya to be issued “4 rubles and a woolen cloth, or 2 rubles in cash instead of the
cloth”, which was the maximum amount possible. Incidentally, in one of those petitions
submitted by Melanya, the new-Christian Jewess was either let down by her memory, or
purposefully distorted the account of her arrival to Russia and the subsequent baptism,
writing that: she came out from “the Lithuanian side to Rylsk in 1636”, whereas already
in 1635, in her first petition to the Tsar asking to stay in Russia, she stated 1634 as the
time when she was taken prisoner and brought to Rylsk466. Moreover, in 1636 Melanya
received a royal grant for the baptism, migration and marriage467.
Finally, in August 1647, the “newly baptized Jewess” Melanya submitted yet
another petition to the Tsar468. From the text, it becomes known that her husband’s
“degraded” estate was transferred over to four Rylsk Cossacks of high military ranks.
Moreover, Melanya herself, as a foreigner who settled in Russia, was issued land as a
grant from the Tsar, however it had already been three years since that estate was also
taken away from her, thereby depriving the Klemenov family of all “means of
livelihood”. It also becomes known that in the first half of 1647, Melanya already
petitioned to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich to get back her husband’s estate that was
transferred to “sly Cossacks”, and the Tsar indeed ordered for this question to be
addressed by the local authorities. The authorities did not rule in Melanya’s favor,
however, as the case was allegedly “outdated”. Nevertheless, a side note on the document
states that on July 17, 1647, the Tsar “had mercy” on the converted Jewess and ordered
for 2 rubles to be paid to her.
Noteworthy material, further broadening the information on Melanya’s family and
their fate, is contained in the fourth group of documents at the Russian State Archive of
Early Acts. First of all, the patronymic name of Melanya’s husband, Ivan Klemenov, is
revealed as “Karpov’s son”. Furthermore, these documents present a rather detailed
account of Klemenov’s military service. For instance, on December 26, 1646, the
Belgorod voevoda (military commander) Fedor Khilkov reported to the Office of the
Ranks in Moscow that in September 1644, a squadron was dispatched from Belgorod to
strike the Crimean Tatar forces stationed nearby, who at that time often raided southern
Russian borderlands469. The armies met in battle in the Belgorod region, in which the
Tatars were defeated. Ivan Klemenov took part in the battle – “fought distinctly” and
“killed three men”, while being wounded in his neck and left arm. Thereby, Khilkov’s
report confirms the account in Melanya’s appeal to the Tsar, in which she asked the

465 Ibid., Pg. 41; Ibid., Pg. 311.

466 Ibid., Pg. 22.; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 210. Office of the Ranks.

Records of the Belgorod Table. Section 61. Pg. 36.

467 Ibid., Pg. 24; Ibid., Pg. 39.

468 Ibid., Pg. 41; Ibid., Pg. 311.

469 Ibid., Pg. 49; Ibid., Pg. 319.

95

monarch to have mercy on her family, in light of her husband’s “dire health” due to his
“devoted military service”.
Somewhat prior to the report of the Belgorod military commander, “Ivashko of
Ryslk”, as Klemenov called himself, filed his own petition to the Tsar 470 . In the
document, based on the demonstrated military merit and wounds sustained – “for the
service and for the blood”, Klemenov requested to be granted “a monetary compensation
and land”. Curiously, Klemenov’s petition was submitted in the capital by his wife
Melanya, as evidenced on the back of one of the pages of the document471. The reason for
this could be the following: in another record at the Clerical table, related to Klemenov’s
case, it is stated that the requests of the “son of a boyar from Rylsk are not to be
considered in Moscow, as he is currently stationed on state service in Belgorod”472.
Nevertheless, it was ordered for the soldier to receive a standard compensation, to the
amount of seven rubles per wound, and another three rubles for the severity of the
injuries, therefore a totaling to a rather decent sum. In comparison, the yearly salaries of
musketeers in Muscovy in the mid 17th century ranged from three to twenty rubles473. In
addition, the documents reveal another notable fact regarding the Klemenov family
biography. In his petition, Ivan mentions his “service in Borzna”, for which he received
an additional two rubles. Accordingly, it is most likely that he himself brought his future
wife Melanya to Muscovy from her town of birth, suggesting a romantic element in the
relations of the boyar’s son and the young Jewess from the time of their first encounter.
The uniqueness of the analyzed set of archival sources, related to the Lithuanian
Jewess convert and her family is that first and foremost, the very possibility of tracing the
fate of a proselyte during a course of a rather lengthy period of time (1635-1647),
moreover of a woman, is rare, if not exceptional. Moreover, the documents reveal the
vicissitude of a conversion of a Jew into Orthodoxy at the very infancy of the Jewish
presence in Muscovy, even before the mass appearance of captive Jews during the
continuous Russian-Polish war in the middle of the 17th century. The facts around
Melanya’s life indicate that although the mark of a convert would never be fully
eradicated from the person’s identity in an Early Modern Christian Orthodox society,
positive relations and a favorable treatment with the highest of both monarchic and
religious authorities were nonetheless possible. Not least important is that the
manuscripts related to Melanya were deposited in the archives of one of the country’s
main institutions of the time – the Office of the Ranks, comprising four separate cases of
15 varieties of documents (petitions, military reports, monarchical orders, clerical notes,
etc.), and contain valuable information on the socio-economic, legal and religious
situation of baptized Jews (almost exclusively of Polish-Lithuanian/Ashkenazi origins) in
the 17th century Russian state.

470 Ibid., Pg. 50; Ibid., Pg. 320.

471 Ibid., Pg. 49; Ibid., Pg. 319.

472 Ibid., Pg. 52; Pg. 322.

473 Volkov V. (2004): “The Wars and Forces of the Moscow State (End of XV – First Half of

XVII)”. Young Guard publishing, Moscow. Pg. 238.

96

Baptized Jews versus Patriarch Nikon

The nearly complete absence of Jews in Russia until the mid-17th century did not
exclude the existence of various problems related to Jews and Judaism. Before the Russo-
Polish war of 1632-1634, the Russian encounter with the adherents of the Jewish faith
was primarily based not on real life situations, but rather on their ‘biblical’ imagery,
originating primarily from anti-Judaic polemical works composed by members of the
clergy. The situation began to change in the mid 17th century, when a significant number
of Jewish captives from Poland settled in the Russian State. While the settlement in
Muscovy inevitably entailed for the conversion to Christianity, the label of a “christened
Jew” accompanied these individuals, in most cases, for the rest of their lives. Moreover,
the suspicions of a convert’s relapse into the former faith remained rampant, causing the
‘new Christian’ to repeatedly prove their devotion to Orthodoxy, often at the expense of
their former co-religionists. All these aspects were demonstrated in the accusations made
by a christened Jew named Mikhail Afanasev against Patriarch Nikon, ‘the seventh
Patriarch of Moscow and all Ruthenia of the Russian Orthodox Church’, in 1666.
Nikon is unquestionably one of the most prolific figures in the Early Modern
Russian historiography. Having been elected as Patriarch in 1652, Nikon instigated a
number of significant reforms within the Church, aimed not only at establishing
uniformity between the Greek and Russian religious practices and rituals, but also at the
exaltation of the ecclesiastical authority on political matters and the jurisprudence of the
state. Having the full support of Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich, Nikon practically achieved
the equality of patriarchal and royal authority, procuring the right to use the sovereign
tittle in official documents474. When the power of the Patriarch began to eclipse that of
the Tsar, tensions between the two parties escalated to such an extent that in 1658 Nikon
retired from Moscow to the New Jerusalem monastery in a town called Istra, where for
the next 8 years he obstructed the election of a new Patriarch. In 1666-1667, Nikon stood
trial in front of the Holy Synod and was found guilty of the excessive use of power and
the abandonment of the Patriarchal throne, the employment of torturous practices against
the clergy, and the “anathematization” of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch,
amongst other wrongdoings475. As a result, Nikon was stripped of his sacerdotal titles and
exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery in the north of the country. Nonetheless, in 1667 the
Synodal council approved all of the reforms initiated by the disgraced Patriarch and
anathematized the supporters of the ‘old practices’, causing a major schism within the
Russian Church that became known as the “Raskol” (literally a “split” or a “break”).
In October 1666, when the Synod was preparing for Nikon’s trial, “a newly
christened Jew Mikhail Afanasev” arrived in Moscow and submitted an appeal to his
majesty the Tsar, in which he accused Patriarch Nikon of committing a number of
offences 476. Afanasev was a “boyar’s child” (a title of the lowest class of servants) at the

474 Kartashev A. (1991): “Essays on the History of the Russian Church”. Terra publishing,
Moscow. Vol. 21, Pg. 135, 141.

475 Ibid., Pg. 143.

476 Prokopenko M. (2001): “The ‘Jewish Motives’ of the Case Against Patriarch Nikon: The

Denunciation of a Baptized Jew M. Afanasev to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich in 1666”. Publication

97

New Jerusalem monastery, where Nikon resided at the time. First and foremost, Afanasev
claimed that a fellow christened Jew and “boyar’s child” at the New Jerusalem monastery
Demyamin Levitsky was tortured by the orders of Nikon, in order to get him to confess to
‘Judaizing’ – that is practicing Jewish rituals in secret, and not only by himself but
together with the personal physician of the Tsar named Danila whilst in Moscow. Having
been subjected to repeated beatings, an incarceration in a cellar and threats to be burned if
he did not admit to the charges, Levitsky maintained his innocence. He firmly denied
having been involved in Judaic practices, and while admitting to having met with Danila
the physician in Moscow, he was “unaware” of his involvement in Judaizing activities477.
Even when Nikon promised Levitsky his release if he were to admit to Judaizing, and a
reward for testifying against Danila, the christened Jew decisively denied all accusations.
According to Afanasev, the reason Nikon tried to obtain such testimony was so that
during the Synodal trial, he would be able to accuse the Tsar of having been treated by a
Judaizing physician.
Other accusations brought forward by Afanasev against the Patriarch included
claims of people from Nikon’s inner circle being involved in “shady” activities, cruel
treatment of his servants, breaking the rules of the Church by receiving foreigners from
Moscow’s German district at the monastery, and finally of bathing with “young women”
and trying to seduce Afanasev’s wife478. Hence, the document composed based on
Afanasev’s statements was titled “The Testimony of Mikhail Afanasev of the Relation of
Patriarch Nikon Towards Women”.
While Afanasev’s accusations were not included in the list of offences committed
by the Patriarch at the subsequent Synodal trial, an additional investigation was launched
immediately after the baptized Jew’s testimony was recorded. The investigation
concluded only in April 1667, which is three months after Nikon’s sentencing and
banishment. The details of the proceedings of this investigation survive in two documents
stored at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts, namely the letter of Patriarch Nikon to
Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich dated October 25, 1666479, and the record of the questioning
of the baptized Jew Demian Levitsky (whom the Patriarch accused of Judaizing) and of
other witnesses pertaining to the case, dated October 30, 1666480.
As follows from the documents, upon the receipt of Afanasev’s testimony, the
secretary of the Tsar Bashmakov and the archimandrite of Moscow’s Chudov monastery

of the Hebew University, Moscow. №6 (24), Pg. 349-366; The Russian State Archive of Early
Acts. Fund 27, Office of Secret Matters. Case 267, Pg. 215-237.

477 Ibid., Pg. 359; Ibid., Pg. 215-216.

478 Ibid., Pg. 359-365; Ibid., Pg. 215-237.

479 Prokopenko M. (2003): “Baptized Jews Versus Patriach Nikon: The Materials of the

Invsetigation on Pariach Nikon in 1666” // Jewish Moscow: Collection of Articles and

Materials”. MEKPO Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 330-338; The Russian State Archive of Early
Acts. Fund 27, Office of Secret Matters. Case 140, chapter 8, Pg. 238-243.

480 Ibid., Pg. 333-338; Ibid., Pg. 244-255.

98

Ioakim, accompanied by a squad of musketeers, were sent to the New Jerusalem
monastery to investigate the matter. In his letter to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich, Nikon
declared that he was “very distressed” by this act. In his defense, the Patriarch maintained
that Demian Levitsky was imprisoned rightfully, claiming that there were “a lot of
witnesses” who attested that Levitsky was “in the Jewish faith”, that he “disputed with
priests, praising the Jewish faith and blaspheming against the Christian faith, the Gospel
and the Holy apostles”481. Moreover, Nikon claimed that having left the Orthodox faith,
Levitsky “ate meat during the time of the holy fasts” and seduced young monks,
convincing them to eat meat and “to get married”. These “young monks”, according to
Nikon, “took part in the Judaizer heresy” and “stole money and clothes” from him482.
Furthermore, Nikon asserted that “he heard from a lot of people” that on his trips to
Moscow, Levitsky celebrated the Sabbath with the physician of His Majesty “Danila the
Jew”, while “never attending Church service and never confessing in front of a spiritual
father”. Nikon maintained that in Moscow Levitsky “spread lies” about the Patriarch. For
these reasons, Nikon ordered for him to be detained and questioned, and according to the
Patriarch, Levitsky confessed to all the aforementioned wrongdoings. Apparently,
Levitsky even wrote a note to Nikon, in which he expressed the will to appear in front of
the Patriarch in person in order to confess his sins, but Nikon refused to “desecrate his
ears with Jewish vileness”483. In order to conceal his crime, according to Nikon, Levitsky
instructed his wife to tell “Mikhail the Jew” that he will face the same punishment as her
husband, because the two baptized Jews were Judaizing together. Thus Nikon explained
Mikhail Afanasev fleeing to Moscow and submitting the appeal against him.
Accordingly, the Patriarch urged the Tsar not to believe “them, the Jews”, as that went
against “Godly rules”484. Intriguingly, throughout the letter the Patriarch speaks of “the
Jews” without any mention of their baptisms.
At the New Jerusalem monastery, the envoys of the Tsar questioned the witnesses
pertaining to the case. One of them was Nikon’s secretary, Ostafei Glumilov, who by the
orders of the Patriarch had interrogated Levitsky. According to Glumilov, when
questioned on his connection to the Tsar’s physician Danila the Jew, concerning how
Danila celebrated the Sabbath, as well as on the location of Moscow’s “congregation of
the Judaizers”, Levitsky stated that while Danila and he were well acquainted, as they
were born in the same town and went to the same school, he had not celebrated the
Sabbath with him in Moscow and was unaware of any Judaizing activity practiced by the
physician485. Moreover, according to Levitsky, Danila was of the Lutheran faith. After
Levitsky had been imprisoned, according to Glumilov, he had passed a note to Nikon in

481 Ibid., Pg. 331; Ibid., Pg. 238.

482 Ibid., Ibid.

483 Ibid., Ibid..

484 Ibid., Pg. 332; Ibid., Pg. 239.

485 Ibid., Pg. 333; Ibid., Pg. 244.

99

which he begged the Patriarch to receive him so that he could repent and tell him the
truth.
The other servants at the New Jerusalem monastery questioned by the Tsar’s envoys
generally confirmed that both Demian Levitsky and Mikhail Afanasev were Judaizing.
One of the servants named Ostashka stated that while he had also interrogated Levitsky
on the matter, the baptized Jew was not subjected to torture and in a letter to the Patriarch
admitted to his sins486. In turn, a monastery scribe Timoshka also attested that Levitsky
was indeed Judaizing, as the baptized Jew often visited a choir singer named Vasili in
Moscow, whom Timoshka had overheard saying that “the prophets spoke not of Christ
and the Virgin Mary”487. According to Timoshka, all of the christened Jews at the parish
of the Church of John the Apostle in Moscow “rarely attended Church service”. Another
choir singer Andrey confirmed that ‘Vasili the Jew’ was Judaizing, stating that Vasili had
in his possession many “Jewish and Latin books”, that he “resisted the Christian faith,
didn’t bow to the Living Cross and the Holy Icons”, that he “praised the Jewish faith”
and had “many Jews visiting him”488. Yet, Andrey could not confirm whether Levitsky
was involved in Judaizing, because he did not know him.
Without a doubt, the analysis of the given sources requires a critical approach,
since the charges manifested by the servants of the New Jerusalem monastery against
their master, just as Nikon’s counter-accusations of their involvement in ‘Judaizing’, are
certainly questionable. Notwithstanding the ethical aspects of the equation, at times
baptized Jews became the most zealous defenders of the Christian doctrines. Thus, the
actions of neophytes were often directed against their former coreligionists, expressed
through informing on their wrongdoings such as relapses into the former faith, as well as
against the representatives of the dominant religion, at times very influential ones, such
as Patriarch Nikon. The reasons for such phenomena are rather clear – the converts
desired to gain a foothold in their new environment, since through their baptism, all ties
with their former community were annulled. For the process of integration and
acceptance in the new community, it was certainly advantageous to perform an
imperative deed, particularly one that demonstrated their devotion to Christianity and
simultaneously safeguarded the religion’s integrity. This however does not exclude the
possibility of a neophyte acting out of fanatical devotion to the new faith.
Despite the weighty evidence indicating that the baptized Jews Demian Levitsky
and Mikhail Afanasev were involved in ‘Judaizing’, when the two men appeared in front
of the Synodal court in April 1667, in the presence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and
Antioch, the court ruled in their favor, and accepted their denunciation of their former
master as valid. This act is particularly significant, since according to the Council Code
of 1649, the apostasy from Christianity and proselytization of a foreign faith were
offences punishable by burning489. While the determination with which Patriarch Nikon

486 Ibid., Pg. 334; Ibid., Pg. 246.

487 Ibid., Pg. 335; Ibid., Pg. 249.

488 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 251.

489 Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”.
Institute of History of USSR, Leningrad. Pg. 15.

100

attempted to charge his former servants with practicing Judaic rituals in secret and
necessarily include the Tsar’s physician, Danila, in their ranks is evident, it is hard to say
whether there is any truth to his claims, even though it was backed by the testimonies of
various witnesses. Even if the said group was indeed ‘Judaizing’, which is plausible, the
fact that Nikon instigated an inquisitional inquiry into the matter at precisely the same
time when the royal authorities in Moscow promulgated his impeachment suggests that
the Patriarch was driven by supplementary motives: the inculpation of the Tsar’s
physician with one of the most heinous crimes – the proselytization of Judaism amongst
the Orthodox faithful – would have certainly tarnished the Tsar’s standing in front of the
Holy Synod and simultaneously lessened the validity of the charges brought against
Nikon. The case therefore demonstrates that in the Early Modern Russian state, members
of the clergy did not shy away from charging their adversaries with ‘Judaizing’ for
political or personal gains. Moreover, the very presence of Jewish motives in the
investigation and trial of the head of the Russian Church demonstrates the extent of the
perceptibility of Jewish migrants, albeit baptized, in the 17th century Russian society.

Doctor Danila von Gaden, a Baptized Jew at the Royal Court

Various additional sources shed light on the persona of the aforementioned baptized
Jew Danila, a physician of the Tsar whom Patriarch Nikon attempted to indict of
Judaizing – specifically of secretly celebrating the Sabbath along with other baptized
Jews in Moscow. Named in various documents as Danila Evlevich, Danila Ilin, Danila
Zhidovinov (Jewish pejorative), Daniil von Gaden and Stephan von Gaden, the doctor
was born into a Jewish family in Smolensk in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
from where he moved to Kiev and in 1657 was brought to Moscow by the initiative of a
boyar Vasili Buturlin490. In Moscow, Danila started his medical career as a feldsher,
gradually gaining popularity as a doctor in the capital, and in 1672 was issued a doctoral
diploma by the Tsar himself491. According to the Swedish envoy Johan Kilburger who
visited Moscow in 1674, at that time Danila was the most authoritative doctor at the
Royal court492. During his service, Danila received numerous privileges from the Tsar
rarely granted to foreigners, amongst which was the permission to travel to the Polish
Kingdom in order to visit his mother in Smolensk493. Furthermore, records indicate that

490 Berin I. (1888): “Two Jewish Doctors at the Moscow Court”. Voshod Journal, Num. 3, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 114.

491 Richter W. (1820): “History of Medicine in Russia”. Wsewolojsky typography, Saint

Petersburg. Vol. 2, Pg. 262.

492 Kurts B. (1916): “Kilburger’s Essay on Russian Commerce During the Reign of Aleksey

Mikhailovich”. Chokolov typography, Kiev. Pg. 88.

493 Berin I. (1888): “Two Jewish Doctors at the Moscow Court”. Voshod Journal, Num. 3, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 114.

101

the Tsar repeatedly permitted his mother and other Jewish relatives to visit Danila in
Moscow, and each time they were granted presents from the Royal treasury494.
Of the physician, Kilburger wrote that Danila was “Jewish by birth, then he
became Catholic, then Protestant, and now he’s Orthodox” 495 . Not only is this
information in line with the aforementioned 1666 testimony of Demian Levitsky, who
rejected accusations of Danila’s involvement in ‘Judaizing’ by claiming that the
physician was “of the Lutheran” faith496, but it also matches two other contemporary
testimonies, both of which attest that by the time of his death in 1682, Danila converted
to Orthodoxy and received the name Stephan with his baptism497. It is rather likely that
Danila baptized into Orthodoxy after being accused of Judaizing by Patriarch Nikon, in
order to eradicate all suspicions and accentuate his allegiance to the Orthodox monarch.
However, having undergone the conversion process three times into the three contending
branches of Christianity, it is doubtful that Danila acted out of spiritual convictions in
either of the cases. It is clear that without having performed these conversions, Danila
wouldn’t have been able to achieve such success in his medical career. Accordingly, if
his repeated profession of the Christian faith was in fact superficial, examples of which
are not uncommon in the Early Modern Jewish history, then such a disposition increases
the possibility of Danila’s commitment to the faith of his ancestors and the practice of
Judaism in secret, as was alleged by Nikon and other witnesses.
Although there is no direct evidence proving Danila’s adherence of Judaism, two
other contemporaneous sources attest not only that the physician retained ties to the
Jewish community, but also that he baptized into Lutheranism “pretendedly”. Thus, a
British physician Samuel Collins, who served at the Russian court between 1659 and
1666, wrote: “The Jews of late are strangely crept into the City and Court, by the means
of a Jewish Chyrurgion (pretendedly baptized Lutheran)” 498 . In a similar vein, an
unnamed German traveler to Russia at the time noted that “a large number of Jews were
present at the Russian court, thanks to the help of certain Jewish patrons, who converted

494 Milyukin A. (1909): “Visits of Foreigners to the Moscow State / From the History of Russian

Law XVI-XVII centuries”. Trud publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 221.

495 Kurts B. (1916): “Kilburger’s Essay on Russian Commerce During the Reign of Aleksey

Mikhailovich”. Chokolov typography, Kiev. Pg. 88.

496 The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 27, Order of Secret Matters. Case 267, Pg.

244.

497 Sakharov I. (1841): “Notes of Medvedev S. // Notes of Russian People. Events of the Epoch

of Peter the Great”. Sakharov typography, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 33; Sumarkov A. (1768):
“The First and Principal Musketeer Revolt in Moscow in May of 1682”. Imperial Academy of
Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 47.

498 Collins S. (1671): “The Present State of Russia: In a Letter to a Friend at London”. Printed

by “John Winter for Dorman Newman At the Kings Arms in the Poultry”, London. Chap. XXV,
Pg. 120. From the first edition at Houghton Library, Harvard University. Edited by Poe M.
(2008), Department of History Publications, University of Iowa.

102

to Lutheranism”499. There can be no doubt that in both cases, the referenced individual
was indeed the physician Danila.
As a consequence of the Musketeer revolt, triggered by the death of Tsar Fedor
Alekseevich in 1682, Danila and a German doctor at the Royal court named Gutnmensh
were accused of poisoning the monarch and were brutally executed at the Red Square500.
Executed along with Danila was his son Mikhail, who was also a convert to
Orthodoxy501. Information of the event is confirmed by a Jewish source. A response of a
Lublin Rabbi Morduch Ziskind Roternburg contains the testimony of a witness to the
murder of Danila’s son, a baptized Jew named Zevi Girsh502. A group of Jews, who
according to Zevi Girsh were also witnesses to the murder, were pronounced by the
Rabbi to have been ‘anusim’ – a term used to depict ‘forced converts’ to Christianity in
the Jewish law. The document also speaks of another baptized Jew named Jacob ben
Isaac, who participated in the funeral procession of Danila and his son in Moscow along
with other Jews, however at the time of his testimony, Jacob had “renounced the wicked
ways” and returned into the Jewish faith. According to Jacob, he was one of the few Jews
who fled Moscow during the musketeer revolt, while the majority remained in the
Russian capital as ‘anusim’. Not only do these testimonies further reaffirm Danila’s
strong connection to the Jewish community, but also indicate that for the Jews in Russia,
the conversion to Christianity was a conscious and often superficial choice, since
returning to their former faith by fleeing the country remained a possibility.

On the Conversion of Jews into the Christian Orthodox Faith

In the Early Modern societies, religion was the defining factor for the formation of
the set of values and symbolic forms, by the means of which an individual orientated in
the surrounding world. The change of one’s confession implied if not a radical
transformation, then certainly a substantial alteration of these tenets. Yet, the degree of
change in a neophyte’s outlook was emphatically based not only on his unique life
experiences, but also on the motivation for undergoing the conversion. Taking into
consideration the representatives of the Jewish faith who expressed the will to convert to
Orthodoxy in the 17th century Ruthenia, the sources provide little or no indication as to
how knowledgeable these individuals were of the tenets of Christianity. For the most
part, the degree of familiarity with the dogmas of the Orthodox faith held by these

499 Berin I. (1888): “Two Jewish Doctors at the Moscow Court”. Voshod Journal, Num. 3, Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 115. Citing “Reise nach Norden Lepzeig, 1706, chapter XLVII, pg. 234.

500 Sumarkov A. (1768): “The First and Principal Musketeer Revolt in Moscow in May of 1682”.

Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 47.

501 Kostromov N. (2007): “Russian History Through the Lives of its Principal Figures”. Eksmo

publishing, Moscow. Vol. 2, Pg. 485.

502 The Responsa of Morduch Ziskind Rotenburg (1746), Amsterdam. A fragment of

response Num. 22 was cited in Katz B. (1898): “On the History of Jews in Russia, Poland and
Lithuania XVI-XVII centuries”. Sion publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 47-48.

103

migrants depended on the reasons, upon which they decided to receive the baptism. Thus,
a Jew who converted to Orthodoxy for ideological reasons naturally had a greater
understanding of the new faith than one who baptized in order to be able to settle on the
territory of the Russian State and receive the privileges that came along with the act.
Accordingly, of primary interest are the considerations given to these aspects by the
Orthodox Church, specifically the processes developed for the instruction and the
integration of Jewish neophytes into the fold of the Christian religion, as well as the
measures implemented to ensure the detachment of the converts from their previous faith.
The evidence testifying to the rather scant knowledge of Orthodoxy held by future
proselytes is found in a private correspondence between a graduate of Kiev’s Theological
Academy (the oldest college of the Russian Orthodox Church) Jacob Markovich, and his
teacher, archbishop Feofan Prokopovich503. In a letter to his student dated 1716, Feofan
reported of an incident concerning a conversion of a Jew into Orthodoxy. The
circumstances of the archbishop’s meeting with the Jew were the following: Feofan
arrived to visit Markovich at his home, however did not find his student there. At that
point, “some Jew” came to Markovich’s house and expressed to Feofan his desire to
undergo baptism. Feofan writes: “… he wants to be a Christian, but doesn’t know
anything about Christianity. He had not heard anything about Christianity from anyone,
but told me that he had been ‘pronounced’; and when I asked what did he mean by
‘pronounced’, he answered that some priest changed his name. Here’s an example for
you of the great state of the Church! With whichever frame of spirit this Jew wished for
what he wished, in any case, God requires us to instruct him, otherwise blood will be
spilled by our hand”. The task of instructing the ‘pronounced’ Jew Feofan designated
upon Markovich: “Since I cannot fulfill this duty, it passes to you, my dear brother!
Please perform the righteous task, for you have the understanding of the heavenly
doctrine and posses all the necessary theological writings. Take advantage of this divine
gift”. In the conclusion of the letter, the archbishop outlined the core principles of
Orthodoxy, the understanding of which, in his opinion, were essential for converts
coming from Judaism: “This Jew must be taught particularly the following: 1. That the
Messiah had already come; 2. That the Messiah is God; 3. That the mission of the
Messiah was to be a mediator and to free the world from sin by his own blood; 4. The
sacrament of the Trinity; 5. That all external rituals and legal provisions are
destroyed”504. All of the listed provisions, according to Feofan, were to be fitted with the
appropriate quotations from the Old Testament.
While in his letter archpriest Feofan complained of the potential Jewish convert’s
complete ignorance of the foundations of Christianity and of the priest’s failure to carry
out his duties of instructing a future member of the Church, it becomes appropriate to ask
- to what extent is this example representative? To what degree does the described
incident reflect a typical situation, in which a priest was incapable or unwilling to instruct
a potential convert of the Orthodox dogmas?

503 “The Letters of F. Prokopovich, Written During the Reign of Peter the Great” (1865). Works

of Kiev Theological Academy, Kiev. No. 1, pg. 143.

504 Ibid.

104

 Since the Russian Orthodox Church did not conduct active missionary activity,
specialized institutions responsible for the instruction of converts did not exist.
Monasteries played a primary role in the guidance and adaptation of converts, and the
priest of the church where the baptismal ceremony took place was typically responsible
for assigning a spiritual mentor to the neophyte. In addition to the aforementioned letter
of archpriest Feofan to his student, there is further evidence indicating the active
involvement of Orthodox intellectuals in the guidance of christened Jews in the Early
Modern Russia. For instance, in his letter to the archbishop of Pskov Simon Todorski, a
baptized Jew named Afanasi (former Jewish name Wolf) wrote: “Last year, having been
in the holy city of Kiev, I had heard from your honor that the Messiah has already come,
and you had pointed out to me many prophecies about the time of his coming. Your holy
speeches opened my heart and enlightened my eyes. I realized that the Messiah, the son
of David, annunciated by you, is the truth, as true as God himself, whereupon I adopted
the true faith in the Son of God. May God reward you for this to the fullest, for under his
protection and cover I have now been sheltered”505. Markedly, Todorski was also a
graduate of the Theological Academy of Kiev, renowned for its focus on Hebraic studies,
where archpriest Feofan had taught. Considering Feofan’s aforementioned list of the
essential provisions that were to be taught to a Jewish neophyte, Todorski’s accentuation
on the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, therefore, is not surprising. According to
Nichik, Todorksi’s knowledge of Yiddish innately enhanced his ability to carry out
missionary activity amongst Jews, and during the course of his clerical career, the
archbishop successfully attracted a number of individuals to the Orthodox faith506.
The most detailed and authoritative instruction on the preparation and conduct of
the rite of baptism was traditionally contained in the so-called ‘Trebniks’, literarily “The
Book of Prayers”. Guidelines for the reception of the Jews into the fold of Orthodoxy
were an indispensable element of every “Great Book of Prayer”, which also nominally
included the behavioral guidelines for the christened individuals coming from other faiths
and repentant heretics, as well as the instructions for the conduct of rituals such as the
unction, the anointing of the sick, wedding ceremonies, repentance, amongst other507.
Two types of Trebniks emerged during the Early Modern Period - Russian and Ukrainian
(or of Moscow and Kiev). While both types were inherently based on the Byzantine
tradition, over time they were influenced by various other precepts. Both rites, however,
were reproduced and followed regardless of the region, with the Moscow rite being
published in the Trebniks of Kiev and Chernigov in the first half of the 18th century, and
many of the elements of the Kiev rite appearing in Trebniks published in Moscow508. The

505 “Materials of the Biography of the Reverend Simon Todorski, Archbishop of Pskov” (1872).

Saint Petersburg Theological Seminary, Saint Petersburg. Spiritual Conversations No. 24, Pg.
428.

506 Nichik. V. (2002): “Simon Todorski and Hebraic Studies at Kievan-Mogilyan Academy”. KM

Academy, Kiev. Pg. 38.

507 Aleksey II (2000): “Orthodox Encyclopedia: Russian Orthodox Church”. Church-Research

Center, Moscow. Pg. 390.

508 Ibid., Pg. 391.

105

Russian rite of the reception of the Jews into Orthodoxy heavily relied on the canonical
tradition and had not undergone major changes, being re-published in the ‘Great
Trebniks’ during the 17th century with insubstantial differences relating to wording.
According to the formula for the renunciation of Judaism outlined in the Trebniks of the
Moscow print yard, during the catechesis process a Jew had to renounce his faith twice,
on the first and the second day of the ceremony. The text of the anathema pronounced on
the first day was relatively brief: “I renounce all the Jewish practices, and their laws, and
the unleavened bread, and the sacrifices, and the rites of reverence, and all the other
Jewish holidays, and the prayers, and the sprinkling, and the cleansing, and the fasting,
and the propriety, and the new moon, and the Sabbath, and the enchantments, and the
gatherings, and the Jewish victuals and drinks. I straightforwardly renounce all the Jewish
things and laws, and customs. And above all, in the image of Christ, I renounce the
antichrist of the Jews”509. On the second day of the catechesis, the Jewish neophyte was
required to confirm the sincerity of his intentions: “On this day I detach from the Jews
and come to the Christian faith not because of a certain trouble or need, or due to fear, or
threat, or poverty, or debt, or guilt, or for honor, or for benefits, or for wealth, or for
profit, or due to betrayal, or for the sake of envy or strive, or in order to pretend to be a
Christian. Rather out of love for Christ and his faith with my heart and soul…”510. The
anathema continued with a long and rather complicated text, listing not only the
conventional Jewish daily practices and holidays, but also those of the archaic Jewish
sects, namely of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, indicating an ancient origin of the
formula. Thus, at least half of the text of the renunciation was completely detached from
the realities of the time of the baptism. Moreover, written and read in Church Slavonic,
the text was hardly understandable to Jews. In the Trebnik it is specified that if the
neophyte could not replicate the text dictated to him by the priest, a translator was to
assist during the ceremony. Since a comprehensive understanding of the text was not
required of the neophyte, for the Orthodox clergy the catechesis ceremony was a
symbolic act, where the verbalization of the formula renouncing the old faith by the
converting Jew was sufficient.
A different approach to the text pronounced by a Jew during the catechumenate
ritual was depicted in a Trebnik compiled by the Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Mogila in
1647. While the Russian Orthodox discourse was predominantly based on the Byzantine
heritage, the Ukrainian Orthodox intellectuals generally did not adhere to strict
confessional boundaries. Their inherent geographical mobility that easily crossed the
national and confessional boundaries of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the
unavoidable interaction with western Christian traditions certainly had an impact on the
dogmas of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church511. In addition, unlike their Russian neighbors,


509 “Trebnik” (1659): Moscow Print Yard, Moscow. Reprint 2008. Publishing house of the

Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow. Pg. 343-344.

510 Ibid., Pg. 344.

511 Panchenko A. (2000): “Russian Culture on the Eve of the Reforms of Peter the Great. //

Russian History and Culture: Works of Different Years”. Azbuka publishing, Saint Petersburg.
P. 196.

106

the Early Modern Ukrainians and Belorussians contacted with the Jews in everyday life,
as Jewish communities were numerous across the eastern territories of the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth. During Mogila’s tenure as the Metropolitan, the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church issued a number of rulings aimed at limiting the relations between
Christians and Jews. These included the prohibitions on the Orthodox residents of the
Commonwealth on working for the Jews, as well as on buying meat from Jewish
butchers, which was sold “poisoned and dirty”512.
While according to the Kievan tradition, the catechesis ceremony continued for four
days, rather then two as per the Moscow tradition, the text of the anathema compiled by
Mogila was more concise and succinct. It was marked by a rather aggressive rhetoric as
can be can be seen from the very first lines: “…and having learned and acknowledged the
wicked unbelief of the Jews, and all the superstitions and fables of the Jews, and from
their blasphemous ordeals of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the true son of God, and
his Most Pure mother and all his holiness, I renounce all the blasphemous cursing and
attacks on the Christians, for they are soul-wrecking and unpleasant to God, and I curse
them; as is wretched to God the teachings of the Talmud and the ungodly traditions, I
denounce and curse them”513. Very evident is that the emotional component of the
renunciation became more extreme. Judaism as a religion is denied the very right to exist:
“their laws” becomes “the wicked unbelief”. Written using a more modern language, this
text was certainly more understandable for the Polish-Lithuanian Jews. Whereas the text
of Moscow’s Trebniks prescribed to treat the Jews wishing to accept baptism as children:
“the same is the essence of the Christian children wishing to baptize”514, Kiev’s version is
deprived of this paternal tone. Furthermore, the renunciation of the archaic Jewish sects is
missing in Kiev’s version, with the focus made predominantly on the renunciation of the
Jewish rituals, practices and texts – the Talmud and the “ungodly traditions”515. Mogila’s
modernized version was subsequently adopted by Moscow and spread across the
churches of Russia. His rite of the reception of Jews into Orthodoxy was eventually
printed in “The Rite of Joining from the Infidels to the Orthodox Eastern Church” by the
Synodal Typography in Moscow in 1757.
Being a product of the Orthodox hierarchs of Kiev, the text was formulated for the
ritualistic renunciation of Judaism, and depicts their consideration of the Jewish dogma.
Judaism is named as a “wicked unbelief”, the fundamental principles of which are based
on “fables” and “superstitions” directed against the revered figures of Christianity – Jesus

512 The 1640 Church Council of Kiev as Depicted by Kasiyan Sakovich (1878) in “Russian
Historic Library”. Archeographic Commission, Saint Petersburg. Vol. IV, Book 1, Pg. 37.

513 “The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (1646), Kiev. Reprint, 1996. Liturgical

Literature, Kiev. Pg. 53.

514 “Trebnik” (1659): Moscow Print Yard, Moscow. Reprint 2008. Publishing house of the

Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow. Pg. 344.

515 “The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (1646), Kiev. Reprint, 1996. Liturgical

Literature, Kiev. Pg. 55.

107

Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints. While it is hard to say what the authors meant by
the “ungodly traditions”, the reference to the Talmud – a central text of Rabbinical
Judaism - is certainly not accidental. Thus, in a different version of the Trebnik, the
mention of the Talmud was modified in the following manner: “…and the rites and the
customs of the Old Testament are obsolete and are not useful, and the book of the
Talmud, a demonic inspiration of the Jewish Rabbis, who are unpleasant to God, is
fictitious and is not for the guidance of kind faith, but contains ungodly doctrine of
damned superstitions and funny fables of the Jews, blasphemies and attacks on the Lord
God Jesus Christ…”516. Yet another formula for the denunciation of Judaism that was in
circulation contained the following statement: “…having learned that the law of the Jews,
which awaits for the Messiah and does not accept Jesus as the son of God and as the true
Messiah, is false, vile and ungodly, I renounce and curse the current Jewish law”517. In
this case, the author stressed the importance of the recognition of Jesus Christ as the
Messiah for a Jewish convert.
According to the canon, baptism of a new member into the fold of Orthodoxy was
necessarily preceded by forty days of fasting, prayer and confessions518. On the day of the
catechesis ceremony, the future Christian received the right to stand by the door of the
Church, as entrance inside was prohibited for the non-Orthodox. At this time, the
candidate received a Christian name, which symbolically marked his entry onto the path
of the initiation. The actual baptism ceremony was conducted only after the individual’s
negation of Judaism and three days of confession and instruction on the fundamentals of
the Orthodox faith. Mogila’s stipulations required the priest to teach the neophyte “to
believe in one God”, and at the very least the following prayers: the Lord’s Prayer, the
Trisagion, the Symbol of Faith and Ave Maria519.
Traditionally, before the conversion process could take place, it was also required
of the Jew to write an appeal to the Tsar, requesting to be granted permission to be
accepted into the fold of Orthodoxy. In its essence, the submission of such an appeal
indicated the voluntary nature of the desired conversion. This tradition was codified in
1750 with an edict being issued that required members of the clergy to obtain from the
individuals wishing to baptize into Orthodoxy a formal “voluntary petition” 520 . In
practice, this bureaucratic procedure occurred between the catechesis ceremony and the
actual baptism. The text of the formal petition had a three-part structure: a preamble with

516 “Trebnik” (1736). Typography of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Kiev. Pg. 352.

517 “Trebnik” (1754). Typography of Troisk-Ilinsk monastery, Chernigov. Pg. 308.

518 “The Rite of Joining From the Infidels to the Orthodox Eastern Church” (1757). Synodal

Typography, Moscow. Pg. 7.

519 “The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (1646), Kiev. Reprint, 1996. Liturgical

Literature, Kiev. Pg. 56.

520 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1749 to 1753 (1830).

Typography of the Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty, Saint Petersburg. First edition. Vol.
13, No. 9825.

108

the person’s name and place of origin, the negation of Judaism and the profession of the
foundations of Christianity, most commonly based on the fragment of the text of the
Trebnik, and a request addressed to “His Imperial Majesty” for the permission to be
baptized521. Finally, the neophyte placed his signature under the following statement: “the
newly christened from the Jews is obliged until the end of his/her life to stay in the
Orthodox Greco-Russian faith unswervingly, under the threat of otherwise being
condemned not only to spiritual torment, but also being liable to answer according to the
law in the civil court, based on the signature placed here”522.
While the texts of the analyzed Trebniks and the bureaucratic documents represent
the framework prescribed for the conversion process of the Jews into the fold of
Orthodox Christianity by the Church and State authorities, there is no substantial
evidence to identify to what extent these guidelines were actually followed. The
aforementioned letter of archbishop Feofan Prokopovich, for instance, attests that there
were substantial discrepancies between the prescribed norms and actual practice. It is
evident that the objective of both the ritualistic and the bureaucratic aspects of the process
was not only to ensure that the neophyte’s separation from the Jewish domain and the
commitment to the Church would be guaranteed by the ecclesiastical and civil laws, but
also to impact the convert’s self-consciousness in such a way, so to persuade him of the
ideological supremacy and the dogmatic veracity of Christianity over Judaism. For
Orthodox intellectuals, it was of critical importance to extricate the neophyte not just
from the Jewish religion, but also from his Jewish ancestral identity, thereby requiring the
individual to sever all ties with his former community in order to prevent the possibility
of a relapse. Reaffirming that each successful conversion of a Jew was regarded as an
ideological victory of the Church over the Synagogue, a lush ceremonial feast was
traditionally held upon the baptism of an individual of a high social standing in the
Jewish community, as was the case during the christening of Aron Rabinovich, a former
Rabbi of Skvira, Ukraine in 1773523.

On the Motives of Jewish Migration to Russia and the Conversion to Orthodox

Christianity

For the analysis of the phenomenon of Jewish conversions to Christianity during the
Early Modern period, it is necessary to take into account a number of factors: the
processes occurring internally within the community, the peculiarities of the relations
with the surrounding population, and the attitude of the governmental and ecclesiastical
authorities towards the followers of the Jewish faith. While it cannot be asserted that a
certain historical event or a particular socio-cultural process provided the impetus for an
individual to leave his community and change his faith, just as it is impossible to

521 Zanomenec A. (2003): “Renunciation of Judaism in Byzantine Culture // Ours or Foreign?

Jews and Slavs in the Eyes of Each Other”. Sefer publishing, Moscow. Pg. 17.

522 Ibid., Pg. 20; The Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine. Fund 127, Inventory 167,

Case 95.

523 Ibid., Pg. 22.

109

reconstruct the unique life experience of every neophyte, the decision to undergo such a
radical change was based precisely on the person’s reasoning and individual
circumstances (notwithstanding the cases of forced conversion). Nevertheless, the
transition from the ‘macro-historic’ events to the life experience of a specific individual
can be carried out by the reconstruction of the contexts, which affected the individual
directly, or indirectly. Thus, an analysis of the factors stipulated above allows for the
formation of context(s), in which an individual made the decision to baptize and
accordingly break with his old way of life.
The Cossack uprising against the Polish crown led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky
interrupted the regular rhythm of everyday life of the Jewish communities of Ukraine and
Belarus. The events of 1648-1656 marked a new era in the existence of the Jewish
settlements in the Ruthenian lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Jewish
sources depicted the rebellion as a massacre, accompanied by martyrdom for the
‘sanctification of God’s name’ (“kiddush ha-shem”), the extermination of entire
communities and forced baptisms. Correspondingly, Poland’s wars against Russia (1654-
1667) and Sweden (1655-1660) had a further negative effect on the functioning of the
Jewish communities in the region. Furthermore, the breakout of the plague (1659-1663),
coupled with the military activities, led to a significant reduction of the population in the
eastern lands of the Commonwealth524. In light of these circumstances, since baptism into
Orthodoxy provided for the Jews the opportunity to migrate into the relative safety of the
neighboring Moscow state, and on top of it stipulated being granted various privileges for
the conversion, it is understandable why a Jewish individual might have decided to
convert to Christianity.
Having been a discriminated against ethno-confessional minority, certain Jewish
individuals could have experienced the temptation to leave the fold of Judaism in
exchange for socio-economic perspectives. This given group, most likely, included the
majority of the voluntary Jewish migrants to Russia in the 17th century. Yet, it is difficult
to determine how much detailed information these Jewish migrants could have possessed
regarding Russia. Plausibly, for these individuals Russia represented a land of
opportunity. Not of least importance was the nearly complete absence of a Jewish
population on the Russian territories, thereby allowing for the representatives of the
traditional Jewish professions (merchants, tax-farmers, doctors, etc.) a greater
opportunity to obtain their economic niche in the absence of additional competition in the
form of their former coreligionists.
It is not conceivable to limit the analysis of the environmental factors that
influenced Jewish conversions to Orthodoxy strictly to the field of Jewish-Christian
relations. The processes occurring within the Jewish community could not have remained
unnoticed by its individual members. In the second half of the 17th century, Jewish
communities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth experienced the outbreak of one of
the most large-scale messianic movements in Jewish history - Sabbatianism. The founder
of the movement Sabbatai Zevi, who in 1665 proclaimed himself to be the Messiah,
gained a considerable following amongst the contemporary Jewry worldwide, including

524 Weinryb B. (1973): “The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish
Community in Poland from 1100 to 1800”. The Jewish Publication Society of America,
Philadelphia. Pg. 110-111.

110

the support of the most erudite spiritual leaders. The period of the socio-economic crisis,
caused by the numerous military conflicts, stimulated a wave of a spiritual ferment
amongst the Jews of Ruthenia, who hoped for the imminent arrival of the Messiah. This
view was reflected by Leib ben Ozer, the notary of the Ashkenazi community in
Amsterdam, who wrote, “We, the Jews in this bitter exile, love to hear about the good
tidings of comfort and salvation…especially in Poland where evil and exile are
exceedingly great, and every day brings new persecution and harassment”525. Thus, in
light of the Sabbatian mysticism, the endured suffering was deemed to have been borne
not in vein, being justified as a necessary phase leading to redemption.
In light of the events, priest Johannes Galatowski of Kiev wrote a book defending
Jesus Christ as the true Messiah526. In preparation for the divine intervention and the
imminent transfer to the Holy Land, according to Galatowski, the Jews of Poland and
Ukraine sold their homes, liquidated their businesses and took to the streets with portraits
of Sabbatai Zevi in joyous celebrations, attracting both the interest and condemnation
from their Christian neighbors. The Jews threatened the Christians with such claims as:
“soon we will be your lords and you will be our servants”527. The celebrations of the
beginning of the anticipated Messianic age in such manner are confirmed in the 1665
“Chronicle” of Joachim Jerlicz, who also witnessed the Jews of Poland getting rid of
their possessions during the preparation for departing to Jerusalem 528 . Even after
Sabbatai’s arrest, and forced conversion to Islam by the Turkish authorities in 1666, the
messianic frenzy did not completely cease, with crypto-Sabbatian movements
anticipating Sabbatai’s ‘second coming’ remaining active within the Jewish communities
across the Commonwealth well into the 18th century529. Consequently, in 1670 The
Council of the Four Lands, the central body of Jewish authority in Polish controlled
territories, issued a ban of excommunication on the adherents of Sabbatianism and
ordered for the documents on Sabbatai Zevi and his followers to be destroyed 530 .

525 Leib ben Ozer (1711-1718): “The Story of Shabbetay Zevi”. Trans. Shazar Z. (1978),
Shazer Center, Jerusalem. Pg. 13-15.

526 Galatowski J. (1669): “The True Messiah Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Typography of Kiev-

Pechersk Lavra, Kiev. Text reproduced in Shpirt A. (2008): “The True Messiah of Johannes
Galatowski”. Institute of Slavic Studies, Moscow. Slavic studies No. 4, Pg. 37-45.

527 Ibid., Pg. 39.

528 Jerlicz J. (1853): “A Chronicle”. Ed. Wojciecki I., Wienhoeber ,Warsaw. Pg. 99-102.

529 The Rabbis of Lvov, Lublin, Krakow, Grodno, Zolkiew, Podhajce, and elsewhere in

Eastern Europe continued to practice and disseminate Sabbatian ideology. In Galas, M.

(2010) “Sabbatianism”. YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Sabbatianism

530 Galas, M. (2001): “Sabbatianism in the Seventeenth-Century Polish-Lithuanian

Commonwealth: A Review of the Sources”. In “The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath:
Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism”. Ed. Rachel Elior, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem Studies In Jewish Thought, vol. 2, Pg. 62.

111

Nonetheless, the unfulfillment of the Messianic prophecy, coupled with Zevi’s
conversion, engendered a major disappointment and bewilderment across the Jewish
masses. Perceptibly, driven by the feelings of doubt and frustration, numerous Jews
across Europe left the fold of Judaism in the first few decades after Sabbatai’s
conversion. Thus, an estimated 300 Jewish families (1000-1500 people) of Salonika
converted to Islam following Zevi’s example 531, while a group of former Sabbatai
supporters, numbering at least 20 people, converted to Lutheranism in Germany532. In a
similar vein, Rabbi Moses ben Aaron of Krakow, a devoted Sabbatian who expected
Sabbatai’s second coming in 1695, converted to Lutheranism a year after that date, and as
Dole puts it, “transferred from the Messiah Sabbatai to the Messiah Jesus”533. Although
the examined sources do not explicate the instances of Jews in Ruthenian lands having
converted to Orthodox Christianity due to their hopes of redemption being shattered,
Sabbatai’s failure as a Messiah was likely to have pushed certain Jewish individuals
towards the Orthodox Church. In Galatowski’s aforementioned tractate, for instance, in
light of Sabbatai’s demise, the priest urged the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine to “show
Christ, the true Messiah to the unbelieving Jews”534. This notion of leveraging the
argument of the Messianic status of Jesus for the attraction of Jews to Orthodoxy was
echoed in the ideology of the Theological Academy of Kiev535, and in the aftermath of
the Sabbatian momentum, such agitation was most appropriate.
According to Gershom Scholem, the emergence of movements like Sabbatianism
represented a new phase in the European Jewish history, and initiated the beginning of
the transition to ‘modernity’536. From the second half of the 17th century, the constantly
increasing number of observant Jews, infected by the belief in the imminent coming of
the Messiah, freed themselves from the traditional percepts of the Jewish society to
varying degrees. The subsequent unprecedented escalation in the number of Ruthenian
Jews choosing to baptize into Orthodoxy, as well as the upsurge of the mystical currents
within Judaism such as Frankism and Hassidism, can be rationalized by this covert
tendency – that is the spiritual quest of the Polish-Lithuanian Jewry, which constituted

531 Baer M. (2009): “The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks”.

Stanford University Press, CA. Pg. 4.

532 Doktor J. (2004): “Conversions within Sabbatianism”. Institute of Jewish History, Warsaw.

Jewish History Quarterly, No. 1 (209). P. 43.

533 Dole G. (1990): “Philosemitism in the Seventeenth Century”. Studia Swedenborgiana Press,

CA. Studia Swedenborgiana Vol. 7, No. 1. Pg. 17.

534 Galatowski J. (1669): “The True Messiah Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Typography of Kiev-

Pechersk Lavra, Kiev. Fol. 15.

535 As per the outline of the core principles of Orthodoxy, the understanding of which,

according to Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich, were essential for the converts coming from
Judaism.

536 Scholem G. (1971): “Redemption Through Sin” // The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other

Essays on Jewish Spirituality”. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 78-141.

112

the expansion of boundaries and means for understanding the world, as well as the
redefinition of the forms of interaction with the surrounding population.

113

 Chapter 3: Between Martyrdom and Conversion: The Baptism of Jews During the
Cossack Uprising (1648-1656)

The Jewish sources of the mid-17th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,

known as the “Khmelnitsky era chronicles”, focus on depicting the relations between the
region’s Orthodox Ruthenians, Jews and Poles during the 1648-1656 Cossack uprising
against the Polish crown. For the purpose of this study, the most important aspect
addressed in these chronicles is the manifestation of forced baptisms, practiced by the
Cossacks towards the region’s numerous Jewish communities, and the considerations
given to the act of conversion to Christianity by the Jews of the eastern Commonwealth.
While the analysis of the question of the forced conversion phenomenon explicates both
the social and the religious motives of the rebels in relation to their nemeses, and
concurrently highlights the conventional Jewish stance towards the conversion to
Christianity, the traditional contexts, or genres, employed by the authors of the
chronicles, as well as the motives behind creating and publishing these texts, must be
taken into consideration. The primary context synchronously featured in all of the
chronicles – martyrdom in the name of the faith (“kiddush ha-shem”) - is one of the most
common methods of memorialization and historiography, through the use of which the
Early Modern Jewish authors constructed the desired portrayal of the pogroms committed
against the Jewish communities. From the time of the First Crusade, when the Jewish
communities on the Rhine where devastated and many Jews chose to commit suicide
rather than accept baptism, “kiddush ha-shem” came to symbolize the righteousness and
martyrdom of those who expressed the will to die over forsaking the faith of their
forefathers537. Correspondingly, Jewish texts describing the pogroms implemented by the
followers of hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky label the uprising as one of the most traumatic
events in the Jewish history, thereby demonstrating the tendency to express contemporary
dramatic events through an established model of old and well know tragedies.
Yet, the exacerbation of the Jewish-Christian relations and the categorical
intolerance of the Cossacks towards the adherents of Judaism is not just a literary
allegory employed by the Jewish chroniclers to memorialize the pogroms. The depictions
of the events in the chronicles and the military correspondence of Cossack origin are
marked by a vivid anti-Jewish rhetoric, and by and large correspond to the Jewish
accounts of their systematic practice of forced conversions. In that context, the Jews were
characterized as the “irreconcilable enemies of Christianity”, who cursed the Orthodox
faith in their synagogues and enjoyed every opportunity to trample upon and oppress the
Ukrainians538. Perceiving themselves as the defenders of the Orthodox faith, the Cossack
leadership accordingly made it their mission to cleanse the Ruthenian lands of Judaism.
The practice of forced baptisms, however, indicates that the most optimal method for the
implementation of this mission was deemed not murder or expulsion, but rather the
eradication of the Jewish faith through the conversion of its adherents to Christianity.

537 Grosman A. (1991): “The Sources of Kiddush Hashem in Early Ashkenaz”, in “Sanctity of

Life and Martyrdom: Studies in Memory of Amyr Yekutiel”. Edited by Gagni I. and Ravitzky A.
Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Pg. 99-130.

538 Konisskij G. (1846): “History of Ruthenians”. University Typography, Moscow. Pg. 40.

114

 Whilst the Early Modern Orthodox Church did not conduct active missionary
activity, the ‘Khmelnitsky era chronicles’ indicate that for the Jewish communities of the
eastern parts of the Commonwealth, the Cossack uprising epitomized, first and foremost,
a campaign aimed at the systematic eradication of the Jewish faith and their conversion to
the belief in Christ. Concurrently, the practice of forced baptisms and the acceptance of
converted Jews into their fold by the Cossacks signify that for the Orthodox Ukrainians,
the Jews principally represented a religious, rather than an ethnic group. Through a
detailed examination of the Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish accounts of forced baptisms,
implemented by the Cossacks during the pogroms of 1648-1656, this chapter will
question the motives behind the employment of such practice by the rebels, inquire into
the perception and the symbolization of the act of conversion to Christianity by the Jews
of the 17th century Ruthenian lands, and assess their sentiment towards Orthodox
Christianity and the acceptance thereof by their fellow tribesmen.

The Chronicles, Author’s Sources and Jewish Contacts with the ‘Other’

The earliest Jewish chronicle of the Khmelnitsky era – “Tsok Haitim” (“The
Stress of the Times”) - was written by Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel from Shebreshin
(Szczebrzeszyn), Poland, and published in Krakow in 1649/50539. The original text
appeared in Hebrew, with parts of the chronicle presented in a poetic form. All that is
known of the author is that he served as a Rabbi in Shebreshin, a town on the Polish-
Ukrainian border, which was part of the Ruthenian voivodeship (province) in the
Kingdom of Poland. His only other known work is a Sabbath hymn written in the
Aramaic language and published in Venice in 1639. At the beginning of the uprising in
1649, Meir was most likely in Zamosc, a town that was unsuccessfully besieged by the
Cossacks. While the author did not himself experience the violence of the pogroms, his
sources, for the most part, were tales conveyed by the Jews from other towns to the east,
displaced by the Cossack attacks.
In 1651, a chronicle describing the Cossack uprising in Belarus entitled “Megillat
Eifah” (“The Scroll of Darkness”) was published in Amsterdam as an appendix to a
Selichot (prayers in the form of poetry) 540. The text’s author, Rabbi Shabbetai ha-Kohen
of Vilnius, was one of the major Halachic authorities of the time. In 1646, he published
“Siftei Kohen” (“The Lips of the Priest”) in Krakow, a commentary on the most widely
accepted code of Jewish law “Shulhan Aruch” (“Set Table”), which came to be regarded
by the majority of the Commonwealth’s Talmudists as of the highest authority. Like
Meir, Shabbetai did not witness the events of the uprising firsthand, yet found himself in
possession of, according to him, “absolutely reliable information”. Also written in a
poetic form and featuring an avid liturgical character, Shabbetai’s chronicle primarily

539 Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel of Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”. The first edition

(Krakow 1649/1650) was published by Hebrew University, Department of the History of

the Jewish people Jerusalem, 1968.

540 Rabbi Shebbetai ben Meir Katz ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”. Amsterdam,

A.M. 5411. Published in “The Jewish Community of Poland”. Youth Department of Zionist
Organization, Jerusalem. Vol. 2. 1953 Pg. 252.

115

depicts the unfolding of events in Belarus and the destruction of Gomel’s Jewish
community.
Finally, in 1652/53 a chronicle written by Rabbi Nathan Nata ben Moses Hanover
of Iziaslav entitled “Yaven Metsula” (“The Deep Mire”) was published in Venice541. The
title features a play on words, as the first word, Yaven (‫) ָיוָן‬, can also mean Greece in
Hebrew, thereby symbolizing Orthodox Christianity – a major identifier of
Khmelnitsky’s army542. “The Deep Mire” is the most detailed and widely referenced
chronicle depicting the Cossack uprising. Hanover was residing in Iziaslav in western
Ukraine when the pogroms erupted, however managed to flee before the Cossack army
reached the town. Having left the Polish kingdom, Hanover traveled across western
Europe collecting accounts from the Jews escaping the pogroms in the east, as well as
using information from already published chronicles, such as those of Meir and
Shabbetai. By publishing his work in Venice, Hanover addressed the Jewish readership in
Italy, hoping to attract attention and financial assistance for the Jewish refugees and the
devastated communities in the Ruthenian lands of the Commonwealth543.
All three chronicles concurrently portray the thin line between insularity and
openness of the Jewish life in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Along with the
traditional motives of Jewish liturgical literature, the contents of the chronicles suggest
that the authors were well informed of the events and the political history of the region,
articulating the impact of the uprising on the surrounding population and the Polish
crown. Interestingly, the chronicles also provide a rich array of commentary on the social
customs of the varied populations of the Polish-Lithuanian state. Even Shabbetai ha-
Kohen, the writer least informed with the course of events, gave not only a Jewish but
also a Christian dating of the uprising: “All of this happened not long before the holiday
of Shavuot (Jewish holiday), three days before the Christian holiday of the Trinity, on
Thursday…”544. Unlike Hanover and Meir, Shabbetai was aware of the place of death of
Wladislaw IV, the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who died in 1648 “far
from Ukraine, in Lithuania, close by the capital city of Vilnius”545. However just like
Meir, Shabbetai wrongly dated the beginning of the uprising to immediately after the
king’s death in May 1648546, a possible explanation for which could be that the Jews
associated their safety with royal protection.

541 Rabbi Nathan Nata ben Moses Hanover (1652/53): “The Deep Mire”. Venice, A.M. 5413.

Ed. and rev. Israel Halpern. The United Kibbutz, Tel-Aviv, 1966. Pg. 37-40, 44-45, 78.

542 Jewish Electronic Encyclopedia (2009): Hanover Nathan Nata. Vol. 9. Pg. 615-616.

http://www.eleven.co.il/article/11054.

543 Bacon G. (2003): “The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah in Modern Jewish Historical

Writing”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17. No 2. Pg. 179-206.

544 Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 186.

545 Ibid., Pg. 187.

546 Khmelnitsky’s army had already begun its operations in January of 1648 as described in

Chirovsky, N. (1984): "The Lithuanian-Rus' Commonwealth, the Polish Domination, and the
Cossack-Hetman State". Philosophical Library, New York. Pg. 176.

116

 The chronicles describe that not all Jews were passive observers of the Cossack
uprising, but at times rather active participants in the events. Both Meir and Hanover
noted close ties between the Jews and Poles, the participation of Jewish soldiers in
putting down the rebellion, as well as the various communication patterns between the
Jews and the local Orthodox population. In “The Deep Mire”, Hanover writes: “And so it
became known of Khmelnitsky’s intentions to the Jews from their Orthodox friends and
neighbors. In all of the Orthodox settlements, Jews had their own spies, and the Orthodox
informed their pans (landowners) and their lords, with the gathered information, sending
daily letters with horsed messengers. Therefore the pans became very close with the Jews
and they – the pans and the Jews – became almost like one union, one soul, for the
Almighty sends medicine before the illness”547. Hanover also notes that during their
flight from Iziaslav, Jews stayed in the homes of the welcoming Orthodox peasants.
The Christian sources are particularly evident in Hanover’s “The Deep Mire”. In
his work, Hanover combines a mystical predetermination with a narrative of the political
and socio-religious disagreements that existed between the Cossacks and the Poles on the
dawn of the uprising. He writes: “In the days of Sigmund III, the faith of the Pope
strengthened in Poland, meanwhile most of the magnates and the top gentry belonged to
the Greek faith, and both Churches had an equal status. That was before the reign of
Sigmund. The King began to elevate the magnates and the gentry of the Pope’s faith and
humiliate the magnates and the gentry of the Greek faith to such an extent, that nearly all
of the Orthodox magnates and the gentry abandoned their faith and switched over to that
of the Pope. Meanwhile, the Orthodox peasantry grew poorer and more despised, and
turned into the serfs of the magnates, and even of the Jews”548. While a Christian origin
of this statement is unquestionable, such a narrative expresses a vivid local character that
eventually became common across the Commonwealth. Hanover, a resident of a small
Volyn town, reflects the historic memory of the Orthodox residents of his province by
writing about the ‘good old times’ when almost all of the elite professed Orthodoxy and
both Churches enjoyed equal rights.
Meir’s “The Stress of the Times” and Hanover’s “The Deep Mire” tell not only of
the Jewish suffering at the hands of the Cossacks, but also of the calamities faced by the
Christian population. Accordingly, Hanover describes the Cossack attack on Zaslav:
“And the Księża (name for Roman Catholic priests in Poland) of the church of Zaslav
were skinned alive, while the graves of the Dukes were desecrated, their bodies dug up
and thrown out, and silver and gold was taken from their graves. The churches and
synagogues were destroyed and turned into stables”549. The letters written by Polish
negotiators to Moscow in 1653 confirm Hanover’s account: “And the same Cossacks
desecrated the altars in God’s churches, trampled the holy Eucharist and crosses, robbed
all that was valuable, while the monks and priests where beaten and tortured, not abiding
by the Greek law of theirs. Furthermore, to spread fear, the Cossacks dug up dead bodies


547 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 97.

548 Ibid., Pg. 85.

549 Ibid., Pg. 109.

117

and mocked them, ripped off holy icons of the Virgin Mary and looted their coffins”550. It
weren’t just the Catholic Poles that encountered persecution as a consequence of the
uprising, but according to Meir and Hanover, also certain Orthodox populations. Both
authors describe instances of the Cossack violence and robbery committed against the
Orthodox residents in Nemirov and Komarno, who fought alongside the Jews551.
Elsewhere in the text, Hanover associated the situation of the Orthodox
population in the Commonwealth with that of the Jewish slaves in Egypt: “the poverty of
the Orthodox people was enthralled by the magnates and pans, who burdened their life by
heavy work in the fields. And the pans imposed bigger taxes, while some pans subjected
their surfs to a severe torture, in an attempt to force the Pope’s faith onto them. And they
were so humiliated, that almost all the peoples reigned over them, even those peoples that
stand below them”552 (the last reference directed at the Jews). According to Plokhii,
Hanover’s description of the burdened situation of the peasantry has its origin in
“Christian propaganda”, or in other words in an Orthodox sermon553. In that context,
Hanover was able to relate to the moral traditions of the rabbinical literature. By stating
that the rental of the gentry-owned real estate by the Jews was one of the main causes for
the troubles fallen on to them, Hanover stood by the cautionary regulations of the Jewish
institutions, forbidding such activity554. The Council of the Four Lands issued the first of
such restrictions in 1581, prohibiting the collection of taxes, and the rental of monetary
yards and customs offices on the territories of Greater and Lesser Poland and Mazowia,
under the threat of excommunication and a fine of 200 zloty. This prohibition was issued
due to a concern that such activity caused “a great danger”555. Through an empirical
example, Hanover attested to the sagacity of the prohibition: “One Jew rented the entire
town from a pan in Ruthenia, and the Jews gained the control of the magistrate. And that
was the cause of the great catastrophe, as with their privileged position, the Jews
triggered jealousy from the rest of the population”556. Similarly, in a rabbinical statement,
a Krakow Rabbi Yoel Sirkes stated: “the communities are codifying various punishments,

550 Zaborowsky L. (1998): “Catholics, Orthodox, Uniates: Issues of Religion in Russian-Polish-

Ukrainian Relations in 1640s-1680s. Documents”. Institute of Slavonic Studies, Moscow. Pg.

307-308.

551 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 126; Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress

of the Times”…Pg. 174.

552 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 85.

553 Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University

press, Oxford. Pg. 205.

554 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 90.

555 Weinryb D. (1973). The Jews of Poland. A Social and Economic History of the Jewish

Community in Poland From 1100 to 1800”. Jewish Publication Society of America,

Philadelphia. Pg. 372. The Prohibition of the Council of the Four Lands did not include the
territory of Ukrainian lands.

556 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 90.

118

so that the Jews would not collect taxes, as there is a great danger from the Christian
complaints that the Jews rule over them as kings and dukes”557.
The Jewish historians of the 19th and 20th century (Weinreich558, Grayzel559,
Graetz , Dubnow561) differently analyzed the causes for the uprising, however the
560

analysis of its scope and results was similar562. Most of the historians of that time, be it
Jewish, Polish or Ukrainian, primarily focused their attention not on the causes of the
uprising, but on identifying its perpetrators. Two governing viewpoints developed in the
Jewish historiography, differently assessing the “responsibility” of the Jews for the
pogroms of 1648. According to Graetz’s radical viewpoint, for instance, all of the
Commonwealth’s Jews were guilty for causing the pogroms, being the victims of
justifiable anger that accumulated during the decades of deceit and extortion. On the
other hand, according to Grayzel and Weinreich, the Jews were not to be blamed for the
pogroms - they became victims of the circumstances, caught between the two warring
sides563. According to Dubnow - the entire Jewish population of Poland paid the price for
the mistakes made by the Jewish landlords-leaseholders564.

557 Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 – A New Analysis”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 61, No. 2. Pg. 164.

558 Weinreich M. (1927): “Shturemvint: Bilder fun der Yiddisher Geshikhte in 17tn Yorhun

dert”. Vilnius, Pg. 10; Cited in Bacon G. (2003): ‘The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah in
Modern Jewish Historical Writing”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17.
No 2. Pg. 179.

559 Grayzel S. (1968): “A History of the Jews”. Revised Ed. Signet, New York. Pg. 40-41; Cited

in Bacon G. (2003): ‘The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah in Modern Jewish Historical Writing”.
Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17. No 2. Pg. 188.

560 Graetz H. (1897): “Geschichte der Juden von den ?ltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart”,

Leiner. Leipzeg. Pg. 10, note 2; Cited in Bacon G. (2003): ‘The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah
in Modern Jewish Historical Writing”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17.
No 2. Pg. 183.

561 Dubnow S. (1916): “History of the Jews in Russia and Poland From the Earliest Times Until

the Present Day”. Jewish publication Society, Philadelphia. Vol. 1. Pg. 146-148.

562 Kohut
Z. (2003): “The Khmelnitsky Uprising, the Image of Jews and the Shaping of
Ukrainian Historical Memory”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History Vol. 17, No. 2,
Pg. 141-163

563 Bacon G. (2003): ‘The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah in Modern Jewish Historical
Writing”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17. No 2. Pg. 179-206.

564 Dubnow S. (1916): “History of the Jews in Russia and Poland From the Earliest Times Until

the Present Day”. Jewish publication Society, Philadelphia. Vol. 1. Pg. 146-148.

119

 For Dubnow, 1648 was the watershed year in the history of Polish Jewry.
According to the historian, that time marked the beginning of an economic decline and a
deep social and cultural crisis for the previously prosperous and world’s largest Jewish
community. The Jews no longer felt safe, and became the object of pogroms and
persecution565. The period of 1648-1656 can be regarded as critical not only for the
Polish Jews, but for Jewry worldwide. The vector of Jewish immigration, previously
moving from west to east, began to shift back to the west566.

Forced Conversion and Martyrdom in the Name of the Faith

Virtually all of the Jewish authors writing about the Cossack pogroms stressed
that the Jews of the Commonwealth were targeted because of their faith and not due to
their social status. In the introduction of “The Deep Mire”, Hanover stated that
Khmelnitsky’s followers intended to destroy the people of Israel, offering the Jews the
choice between Christianity and death. In Hanover’s words: “And so stated the Orthodox
folks according to their tradition: those Jews who want to stay alive must betray their
faith, and write on a bull’s horn that they renounce Israel and refuse to obey their God,
and the sons of Israel did not listen to these words and stretched their necks to be
slaughtered for the Holy Name, the gaons (sages) and the rest of the men alike, as well as
women and small children”567. This account fosters Hanover’s intention to place the
Cossack uprising within the grand narrative of Jewish history, as according to Borovoy,
Hanover’s report noticeably reflects an account in “Megillat Taanit” (“The Scroll of
Fasts”), a Jewish text authored in ancient Judea around 7 CE, which describes the
Maccabee war against the Greeks568. A similar theme is found in Meir’s “The Stress of
the Times”, where the author accounted that “the thieves, the Cossacks and the villagers,
had one intention – to annihilate the Jewish people”569. Likewise in “The Scroll of
Darkness”, Shabbetai wrote: “Many of the Cossack rebels and masses of Tatars, living
close to those towns, got together and proclaimed: let’s destroy the people of Israel and
not leave even a trace”570.
According to Rabbi Shabbetai’s interpretation of “Yoreh De’ah” (“The Teacher of
Knowledge”), an authoritative text of Jewish law from c. 1300s, published in Krakow in

565 Ibid.

566 Shulvass M. (1971): “From East to West: The Westward Migration of Jews from Eastern

Europe During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century.” West State University press,
Detroit.

567 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 86.

568 Borovoy S. (1997): “The Class Struggle in Ukraine in 17th Century Hebrew Chronicles of the

17th Century – Khmelnitsky Era”. Gesharim, Jerusalem. Pg. 81.

569 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 157.

570 Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 190.

120

1650, in cases where anti-Semitism is not the only motive for the violence committed
against Jews, and many non-Jews are murdered concurrently, such situations do not
implicate the biblical concept of “ha-shmad” (persecution) and therefore do not oblige a
Jew to perform the act of “kiddush ha-shem” (martyrdom)571. In other words, according
to the Ashkenazi Halakhic regulations, only in cases of religious hatred are Jews obliged
to sacrifice themselves and their families. In 1650, the central body of Jewish authority in
Poland, the Council of the Four Lands, declared a fast mourning the Cossack pogroms to
be the 20th of Sivan (in the Jewish calendar); a date which coincided with a fast
commemorating the Jews burned at the stake in Blois, France in 1171 for refusing to
accept Christianity. Hence, there is little doubt that the Polish-Lithuanian Jewry saw the
victims of the Cossack pogroms as righteous martyrs who gave their lives for Judaism,
having performed the act of “kiddush ha-shem”572.
The enumeration of the acts of religious devotion and righteousness of the
martyrs, the demonstration of an honorable behavior worthy of imitation takes central
place, above all, in Shabbetai ha-Kohen’s “The Scroll of Darkness”. The narrative of the
classic “kiddush ha-shem” act is exemplified in his description of the pogrom of Gomel’s
Jewish community of June 24, 1648. The Lithuanian Rabbi describes how the Jews,
betrayed by the Poles, were given over to the Cossacks, who then tried to force them to
accept Christianity. If they were to convert, not only did the Cossacks promise them their
lives, but also that they would enjoy power and wealth. The answer was unequivocal. Not
only did the Jews refuse to betray their faith, but also, in the uttered prayers, they proved
their faithfulness to the one God, the verity of their religion and consequently recognized
their death sentence as just573.
The martyrdom of Gomel’s Jews was also narrated by Meir Shebreshin in “The
Stress of the Times”. The author mentioned the spiritual leader of Gomel’s community,
Rabbi Eliezer, who persuaded his fellow tribesmen to adhere to their faith and die in the
name of righteousness, and acted upon his words: “Brethren, just like our brothers, let’s
give our lives for the holiness of the name, and with our deaths we will gain eternal life.”
And he himself, setting the example, was first to give himself over to be killed”574.
Narrative of the Jews being given over to the Cossacks and betrayed by the Poles, the
promises of becoming “lords” in exchange for accepting Orthodoxy, and the depiction of
the situations where God, having chosen the Jews but did not manifest himself to save his
people – are all also present in Meir’s chronicle.
Writing two years after Shabbetai and three years after Meir, Hanover described a
nearly identical account of martyrdom, however not in Gomel but in Ukrainian Tulchin,

571 Rosman M. (2002): “A Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish Cultural History”. Jewish
Studies, Internet Journal. Ramat Gan. Vol. 1. Pg. 116.

572 Teller A. (2008): “Jewish Literary Responses to the Events of 1648-49 and the Creation of a

Polish-Jewish Consciousness”. In: B. Nathans, G. Safran (eds.), Culture Front: Eastern European
Jews and their Culture. University of Pennsylvania press, Philadelphia. Pg. 25.

573 Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 187-188.

574 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 164.

121

some 600 kilometers to the south. Other authors also wrote of Tulchin as a place of the
devastation of the Jewish community, however in the case of “The Stress of the Times”,
Meir stated that only the children of the Tulchin community were given the choice to
baptize into Orthodoxy, while all of the adults were killed in front of their children’s
eyes. In Hanover’s chronicle, the Tulchin pogrom narrative features a story about how
Rabbi Eliezer, and his disciples Solomon and Chaim, called on their fellow tribesmen to
stay faithful to their religion and die for the sake of the Holy Name575. Fram has shown
how Hanover, influenced by Shabbetai’s and Meir’s texts, created the story of martyrdom
in Tulchin. In Fram’s opinion, Rabbi Eliezer in Hanover – is the Rabbi Eliezer from
Meir’s Gomel account, while Solomon and Chaim match the “three righteous men and
heads of the yeshivas” (Jewish schools), murdered in Nemirov and mentioned in the
eulogy of Ephraim ben Joseph from Vzheshin (1652) 576. Rabbi Eliezer, then, is one of
the central figures of Meir’s, Shabbetai’s and Hanover’s chronicles, albeit placed in
different towns in each of the individual accounts.
Borovoy noted that the similarity between Shabbetai’s and Hanover’s texts,
apparent in the triple structure of the narrative – the offer of the conversion to
Christianity, a speech given by the spiritual authority calling to remain faithful to the
religion of their forefathers, followed by the brutal murder of the Jews who refused to
convert – can be explained by the “commonly employed, standard schemes and the use of
literal-ideological methods of reworking texts”577. Furthermore, Fram pointed out that the
Cossack’s lure to Orthodoxy through the use of Christian symbolism, described by
Hanover, reflects the legendary Jewish story of Hanna and her seven sons, narrated in the
second book of the Maccabees. In Shabbetai’s text, according to which the Cossacks
proclaimed to their victims: “would it not be better for you to switch to the side of our
God, of our holy images and crosses, and unite into one tribe with us?” – also resembles
the story of Hanna and the lure to Greek Hellenismos. The Jewish answer, “If you don’t
kill us, enough emissaries will be found in the skies. Does God not have enough lions and
bears?” is evidently taken from the Midrash on Lamentations (1:7) (published in Venice
in 1545), where the story of Hanna is also recounted578.
The Christian sources confirm that Gomel was in fact a site of a mass murder of
Jews, however they do not mention anything about the Cossack offer of baptism. In a
letter dating April 23, 1649, the Polish nobleman Albert Radziwill wrote that while Jews
were seeking protection within the city walls, the mayor of Gomel gave the Jews over to

575 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 101-103.

576 Fram Е. (1998): “Creating a Tale of Martyrdom in Tulczyn, 1648”. In “Jewish History and

Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Y. H. Yerushalmi”. Edited by Carlebach E. Brandeis

publishing, Boston. Pg. 101.

577 Borovoy S. (1997): “Hebrew Chronicles of the 17th Century – Khmelnitsky Era.. Gesharim,

Jerusalem. Pg. 79.

578 Fram Е. (1998): “Creating a Tale of Martyrdom in Tulczyn, 1648”, in “Jewish History and

Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Y. H. Yerushalmi”. Edited by Carlebach E. Brandeis

publishing, Boston. Pg.100.

122

the Cossacks579. In another case, Ukrainian hetman Vzyakin reported to the Cossack
leadership of the Gomel capture that “in that town they’ve killed about eight hundred
Jews, women and children over two thousand, and right after one hundred Poles were
killed, while the Belarusians were not hurt nor robbed”580. Of that event, Wisner wrote
that after the attack on Gomel, the town’s mayor and gentry were accused of treason,
theft and murder of the Jews and the Poles581. Although the Polish sources, for the most
part, confirm the Jewish accounts of the Tulchin massacre, not a single one of them
mentions the Jews having been presented with the choice to convert. On June 24, 1648,
the date on which, according to Shabbetai, Tulchin was attacked, a Polish member of
Lviv’s magistrate Samuil Kushevich wrote to Warsaw stating that the Cossacks
unmercifully killed everyone in sight, regardless of gender, age or religion582.
On August 6, 1648, a witness to the Tulchin massacre named Hanan ben Mikhael
gave testimony at Lviv’s Rabbinical court, stating that the Poles gave the Jews over to the
Cossacks and that the event occurred on a Saturday, or Shabbat. Hanan does not mention
the Jews having been given the choice to save their lives by converting to Christianity,
nor the religious leaders of the community calling on their people to sacrifice their lives
in an act of martyrdom. During the pogrom, panic reigned in Tulchin: “I ran from there
together with the others and saw how the Cossacks began to kill everyone there right
away. Who ever tried to escape, was killed. No one escaped the massacre, except for
those who very physically fit and very fast. I was the first who escaped through the
cemetery”583. Hanan was not the only one who escaped from Tulchin; the testimony
given by him the next day (August 7) describes how he ran away with a friend and hid
together with him in the forest. There, they were found by Orthodox peasants, who came
to their calls for help, and he reported seeing how: “they hit his head a few times and he
fell to the ground and called for help, but I ran away in order to escape”. Hanan’s
testimony suggests that although the acts of “kiddush ha-shem” could have occurred in
Tulchin, survivors did not necessarily have recollection of them.

The Anti-Christian Themes in Jewish Chronicles and Jewish-Christian Sentiments

The Early Modern Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth contained the world’s

largest Jewish diaspora within its borders, renowned for its strict adherence to the tenets
of Judaism. In the conclusion of his chronicle, Hanover presented an exalted image of the

579 Kaczmarczyk J. (1988): “Bohdan Chmielnicki”. Ossolineum, Wroclaw. Pg. 59.

580 Archive of South-Western Ruthenia (1911). Volume 3. Pg. 227.

581 Wisner H. (2002): “Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of Vasa The Times of Sigismund III

and Władysław IV”. Volume 1. Pan History Institute, Warsaw. Pg. 187.

582 Fram Е. (1998): “Creating a Tale of Martyrdom in Tulczyn, 1648”, in “Jewish History and

Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Y. H. Yerushalmi”. Edited by Carlebach E. Brandeis

publishing, Boston. Pg. 93-94.

583 Ibid.

123

Polish Jewry, based on “righteousness and justice”584. He portrayed Poland as the world’s
center for the study of the Torah, and maintained that the Jewish communities of other
countries also revered the special status of the Polish Jews. The survivors of the uprising,
therefore, generally saw the destruction of the Polish Jewry as an attempt to destroy the
‘chosen’ status of the community, while the choice to sacrifice their lives over the
conversion to another faith – as an indicator of their extraordinary holiness.
The correlation of martyrdom with sacrifice, however, is a common theme found
in the Jewish chronicles from the earlier periods. In “The Scroll of Darkness”, Shabbetai
ha-Kohen wrote: “on the spot where the Jews gave up their lives, there the righteous
martyrs offered up themselves just like lamb and sheep in a redemptive sacrifice to the
Lord”585. The tradition of this correlation goes back to the Jewish chronicles describing
the tragedy of the German Jews during the time of the First Crusade. Then, Eliezer ben
Nathan rhetorically demonstrated how the martyrs of the Rhine region behaved more
decisively than Abraham himself during the sacrifice of Isaac 586. Even though the
authors’ dependency on biblical verses complicates the comprehension of the actual
events, this dependency does not necessarily suggest a literary or an imagined nature of
the chronicles. Coming across biblical quotations, the reader comprehends the imagery of
devastation in a hyperbolized form.
Following earlier traditions of the Jewish historiography, authors of the
‘Khmelnitsky era chronicles’ wrote of the pogroms with the intent of creating a policy of
group solidarity with the gruesome events. The idea of righteousness, based on the
willingness to die in the name of the faith, was directed against the surrounding Christian
pressure and the Orthodox claims on the verity of their religion. In that sense, the
problem of forced conversions can also be exemplified in the context of the anti-Christian
motives of the Jewish chronicles.
In a vehement speech leading his people to slaughter, Rabbi Eliezer of Gomel
spoke about the emptiness, baseness and absurdity of the Christian faith, and portrayed
Orthodoxy as nothing other than paganism. The Cossacks, offering the Jews to convert to
Christianity, asked them to cross over to the side of their God, sacred images and crosses.
The categorical refusal of the Jews symbolizes their faithfulness to the commandment
forbidding any alternative spiritual practice (Deuteronomy 18:10-14), as well as the
resistance to the temptation of material gain, as the Cossacks promised to the Jews that
after their baptism, they would become “very rich and noble gentry”587. Shabbetai was
adamant in relation to Christianity, the words, symbols and rituals of which lack
transcendence: “They tested them every day with words and offers to participate in their
religious rituals, temptations, threats, and hideous exaggerations”588. The author of “The

584 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 130-137.

585 Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 186.

586 Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz. In Cultures

of Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 464.

587 Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 187-188.

588 Ibid., Pg. 188.

124

Scroll of Darkness” maintained: “No one will be saved by their lies”, and that the hopes
of those who were deprived of their property will be fulfilled, as “God rises up for the
suffering and sighing of the poor” (Psalms 11:6). “God does not lie” (Habakkuk 2:3) –
maintained Shabbetai, thus emphasizing not only the verity of his own faith, but also the
confidence in the correct interpretation of the divine will, through which God takes the
Jews away from the material world to the spiritual, to greet the evening of the Holy
Shabbat589.
The narratives of Meir and Hanover are structured according to slightly different
schemes. Both “The Stress of the Times” and “The Deep Mire” do not contain any
mention of the Cossack promises of material rewards for the acceptance of baptism, and
also do not include any mention of the adherence to specific Christian symbols in their
demands. Furthermore, the Christians in Meir’s chronicle question the idea of the
“chosen people” status of the Jews, as God allowed for them to be killed, while
Hanover’s Tulchin narrative does not contain any kind of attacks against the Christian
sacra.
The chronicles dealing with the First Crusade and the liturgical texts of those
times also contain a substantial number of assaults on Christianity, the Christian dogmas
and symbols. They feature a sharp ridicule of the Christians seeking to forcefully convert
the Jews into their faith, a mockery of the Christian religion and holy places, as well as
insults of Christ and the Virgin Mary590.
The authors of the eulogies, poems and historic chronicles, sought not only to
preserve the memory of their co-religionists killed by the Cossacks. These texts feature
questions of a religious significance, the answers to which might be able to explain why
God, having selected the Jews as his chosen people, gave the victory to the Christians.
Did He then not betray the previously established contract and, accordingly, point to the
legitimacy of the New Testament591? While the Christians in Meir’s text explicitly
questioned the “chosen” prominence of the Jews, whom God had forsaken and allowed to
be killed, the author countered by proclaiming the act of “kiddush ha-shem” as the
ultimate test of one’s sincerity in his faith592.
The anti-Christian motives were also expressed via other methods, namely
through the use of the rhetoric of desecration. A conduct typical for the Christians,
described in the Jewish chronicles of 1096, was attacking the Jews with knifes and
swords, throwing them out of their houses onto the dirty streets where they were

589 Ibid.

590 Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz”. In
“Cultures of Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 471-
472.

591 Bacon
G., Rosman М. (1991): “A Chosen Community in Danger: Polish Jews after the
Pogroms of 1648-1649”, in “The Concept of Chosenness in Jewish and General History.” Edited
by Almog S. and Heyd M. Jerusalem. Pg. 219.

592 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 167.

125

undressed and trampled593. In the same manner the Christians acted towards the Torah
scrolls: unfolding and trampling them into dirt. All these examples testify that the
Christians were aware of the sacrum of the other culture, which had to be desecrated,
destroyed or humiliated. The Jewish chronicles of the Khmelnitsky era are replete with
similar examples of the ruthless treatment of the Jews and their sacra at the hands of the
Cossacks594.
Another method for the expression of the anti-Christian rhetoric was the polemic
comparison of the purity of the Jewish family with the impious Cossacks. A wide social,
age and gender range of the martyrs transmits the brutality of the murderers, who did not
spare anyone. Analogous to the First Crusade era chronicles, the Early Modern Jewish
texts speak of the numerous cases of violence and rape against women, with the intention
to convey the ruin of the pure image of the Jewish family. The analogous examples of
Jewish girls choosing to commit suicide over being raped by the Crusaders are expressed
in the Khmelnitsky era chronicles: the legend of two Jewish girls from Nemirov are
mentioned in Meir’s “The Stress of the Times” and Hanover’s “The Deep Mire”595. A
Cossack, her forced husband, shot one of the girls after she convinced him that she placed
a spell on the bullet and that it can’t harm her, while the other girl jumped off a bridge on
the way to the wedding and drowned. Marcus pointed to hypothetical and typological
connections between the female characters of the Jewish chronicles and the image of the
Virgin Mary formed in Christian Europe at the time. A Jewish mother killed her children
in the name of “kiddush ha-shem”, while it is not Mary that killed Jesus, but God, which
is presented as an absurdity. In that sense, the actions of Jewish mothers are considered
holier than Mary’s relationship with her son596.
The accounts of Jewish mothers being forced to eat their own children was yet
another method related to the ‘pious Jewish family’ image, that can be regarded as anti-
Christian. According to Hanover and Meir, in Ukrainian Polonne and Kremenets the
Cossacks roasted Jewish children on a spit and forcefully compelled their mothers to eat
the meat597. This motive is equally paralleled in the book of Jeremiah (10:25) where it is
stated that the tribes “ate Jacob”, as well as in the book of Lamentations (2:20; 4:10):

593 Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz”. In
“Cultures of Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 481-
482.

594 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… p 94, 95, 99, 118; Meir Shebreshin (1650):

“The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 159, 162, 165, 166, 171, 172; Shabbetai ha-Kohen (1651): “The
Scroll of Darkness”…Pg. 186, 188, 189.

595 Nathan Hanover: “The Deep Mire” (1653)…Pg. 99-100; Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The

Stress of the Times”…Pg. 158.

596 Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz”. In

“Cultures of Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 470-
471.

597 Nathan Hanover: “The Deep Mire” (1653)…Pg. 94, 99, 118., ; Meir Shebreshin (1650):

“The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 163, 170.

126

“Should the women eat the fruit of their womb, the children of their tender care?”. As
demonstrated by Yuval, the Old Testament prophecies of cannibalism amongst the
enemies of Israel gained a new meaning in the Middle Ages. In that context, the Jews
blamed for ritual murder, in their counter-argument blame the Christians for cannibalism
– it is not the Jews that drink the blood of Christian babies as a ritual but it is the
Christians, killing the Jews and professing the dogma of the Eucharist, who are the
cannibals598.
Through the use of anti-Christian rhetoric, the authors of the chronicles portrayed
the Jewish sentiment towards the surrounding Ruthenian population. Most commonly, the
authors wrote of the hypocritical treatment of the Jews by the Orthodox. Thus, the
authors maintained that when the Orthodox manifested love for their neighbors – that was
just outward, false behavior. This behavior, despite its apparent virtuousness, was fake,
while the true righteousness can be expressed only through the act of martyrdom for the
sake of the faith.
Meir calls the Christians “hypocrites and two-faced”, as they “pretend to love the
Jews, just like childhood friends, but deep within their soul conspire to shed their blood
and seize all their possessions”599. In the same manner, Hanover asserted a similar
consideration of the Ruthenians: “Khmelnitsky plotted evil, which is a customary habit of
the Orthodox, as they present themselves to love the Jews, maintaining friendly relations
with them, comforting and exhorting soft words, but avenging them with their mouth and
lying with their tongues in front of them, and theirs hearts are unjust and they are not
faithful to their covenant”600. In this context, Rosman pointed out the use of a reverse
motive, branded from the anti-Judaic rhetoric, where by the means of gifts, bribery and
even sorcery, the hypocritical Jews charm the Christians - the gentry in particular.
Accordingly, in a letter dated February 21, 1647, a Pinsk tradesmen Zhdan Babic
complained against a Jew named Movsha and his wife, who bribed the town’s magistrate
with “silver, gold and fancy dresses”601.
Both Meir and Hanover give examples of how in 1649, the residents of the
Ukrainian Ostrog sent letters to the Jews hiding in the region from the approaching
Cossacks, inviting them to return home. Once the Jews returned, the Orthodox called the
Cossacks into the town, who then attacked and killed all the Jews. According to Hanover,
only three Jews and one Polish military commander with 80 solders were able to
escape602. This motive can be explained by the commentary of the biblical story of Esau

598 Yuval. I. (2002):“They Tell Lies: You Ate the Man”: Jewish Reactions to the Ritual Murder

Accusations. In “Religious Violence Between Christians and the Jews. Medieval Roots and
Modern Perspectives”. Edited by Abulafia A. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

599 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 156.

600 Nathan Hanover: “The Deep Mire” (1653)…Pg. 89.

601 Rosman M. (2002). “Innovative Tradition: Jewish Culture in the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth”. In “Cultures of Jews: A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken, New York.
Pg. 523

602 Nathan Hanover: “The Deep Mire” (1653)…Pg. 109.

127

and Jacob, when Esau, kissing his brother, is really trying to kill him (Genesis 33:4). In
the Jewish literature, Esau came to represent Edom, the Christian world, and based on the
relations between the two biblical brothers, both the anti-Christian and the anti-Judaic
discourses are constructed. The hypocrisy and the duplicity of the Orthodox is
predominantly counteracted by the righteousness of martyrs, who unanimously chose
death.
A dialogue recorded in “Sefer Hassidim” (“The Book of the Pious”), a famous
13th century liturgical text, written by Rabbi Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg, sheds
light on the possible sources of the anti-Christian sentiment in the Jewish chronicles of
the 17th century. The tractate features a story of a Jew who wanted to destroy a Christian
icon, however his companion was able to convince him not to do so: “He said to him:
they can kill you if you do this. The other replied: It is for the sanctity of the divine
name”. The other answered “you will not be rewarded but will commit a sin, because you
are endangering your life, and the lives of your children and the other Jewish residents of
the town. As it says, “Do not profane my Holy Name, so that I will be hallowed among
the sons of Israel” (Leviticus 22:32); “only be careful and watch your self closely…”
(Deuteronomy 4:9)603. Therefore, the practice of violence towards the dominating part of
the society was considered harmful not only because it put the lives of the Jews at risk,
but also because it desecrated God’s name (a concept known as “hilul ha’shem”).
It is worth noting that Shusberg’s “The Path to Salvation” features motives that
are rather different from the traditional representation of the righteous Jewish community
of Poland. The chronicler repeatedly stated that the suffering of the Jews was caused by
their numerous “sins” 604. In that manner, Shusberg accused the Jews of neglecting the
study of the Torah, with adhering to non-Jewish authorities, as well as heavily criticized
the Ukrainian Jews for running drinking establishments. In his opinion, the production
and distribution of vodka brings about “non-Jewish behavior” – drunkenness, perversion
and debauchery. Accordingly, as in Nemirov the Cossacks boiled alive the local Jewish
bar leaseholders in an iron pot - the iron pot in this story symbolizes the leasing of
drinking establishments. In turn, the desecration of the Torah scrolls and other religious
symbols by the Cossacks represents the neglect of the religious observance. Furthermore,
the persecution of the Jews in this case is also related to their status as the chosen people.
Although the sins of the Jews are lesser than those of the Polish gentry, their suffering is
incomparably greater605.
The authors of the Jewish chronicles, Meir and Hanover in particular, portray the
vivid hatred of the Christians towards the Jews. Accordingly, the residents of Nemirov


603 Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz”. In
“Cultures of Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 483.

604 Shusberg G. (1651): “The Path to Salvation”. Amsterdam. Hayim Polack addition

Budapest-Krakow. 1903. Pg. 107-108.

605 Bacon
G., Rosman М. (1991): “A Chosen Community in Danger: Polish Jews after the
Pogroms of 1648-1649”, in “The Concept of Chosenness in Jewish and General History.” Edited
by Almog S. and Heyd M. Jerusalem. Pg. 216.

128

assisted the Cossacks “not for the purpose of sharing their faith, but due to their hatred of
the Jews”606. “At the sight of the Jews being murdered”, Meir wrote, “the Christians
rejoiced and triumphed, while the Jews were forced to bury their dead by night, so that
the Christians could not gloat by looking at the Jewish graves”607. Both Hanover and
Meir also describe how after the Cossacks left the Belorussian town of Bykhaw, leaving
behind many injured Jews, the local population not only refused to help them, but buried
them alive608. Through these accounts, the authors underlined that the reason for the
Cossack pogroms was not just ethnic hatred, but also religious intolerance.

On the Acceptance of Baptism

The investigation into the question of the baptism of Jews into Orthodoxy during
the Khmelnitsky uprising is central for the analysis of the issues of religious and social
motives of the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1648-1656. Already in mid 20th century, Mieses
challenged the opinion of the Cossack pogroms having been a consequence of the
economic and social conflicts. According to the historian, the acts of devastation
bestowed by the Cossacks on the Jews, as well as on the Poles, were based solely on
religious ideology: “factually the Cossack pogroms of 1648 were massacres of all non-
Orthodox populace, regardless whether they were Jewish or Catholic, privileged gentry,
simple tradesmen or peasants; the religious difference served as basis for the violence”609.
As evidence of his rather arguable position, Mieses emphasized the fact that the Cossacks
did not kill the Jews who accepted Orthodoxy. Were it social hatred, he argued, it would
be logical to assume that the change of one’s religious affiliation, but not of the social
status, would not have played a decisive role for the Cossack rebels. In turn, Fram610,
debating with Katz611, maintained that for the rebels, social, economic and political
motives prevailed over the religious, and the Jews, being aware of the causes of the
rebellion, accepted Orthodoxy “by their own free will”, thus saving their lives. In a given
situation, the Halakhah allegedly allowed for doing so, as neither the commanders nor the
soldiers involved in the rebellion were concerned with the task of converting the Jews to
Christianity. According to Yakovenko, however, such an approach could be disputed
based on the lack of a clear statement of social and religious discourses in the minds of

606 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”…Pg. 98.

607 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 161.

608 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”…Pg. 107; Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress

of the Times”…Pg. 165.

609 Mieses М. (1939): “Participation of Polish Jews in the Wars of Pre-Partition”. Maor

publishing, Warsaw. Pg. 80.

610 Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 – A New Analysis”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 61, No. 2. Pg. 23-29.

611 Katz J. (1997): “On the Events of 1096 and 1648”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion Vol. 62.

129

the rebels612.
Despite the calls by the majority of the rabbinical authorities to abide by the act
of “kiddush ha-shem”, both Jewish and non-Jewish sources attest that a significant
number of Jews converted to Orthodoxy during the Cossack uprising, out of fear. In “Tit
ha-Yaven” (“The Miry Clay”), a chronicle published in Venice by Rabbi Shmuel Feivish
between 1655-1658, the author states that in the Ukrainian communities of Gusyatin,
Greater Mezherich and Polonne, there were Jews who betrayed their faith during the
pogroms, and came back to Judaism after the situation had calmed down”613. Likewise,
in a 1649 eulogy commemorating the pogrom in Kremenetz, Joseph ben Eliezer Lipman
wrote that scores of Jews, primarily women and girls, betrayed their faith 614 .
Correspondingly, in a Ukrainian chronicle of a Christian origin, “Litopis Samovidtza”
(“The Chronicle of a Witness”), the anonymous author maintained that “at that hour, a lot
of Jews accepted the Christian faith out of fear for their lives, but when they ran away to
Poland, they became Jews again” 615.
In June 1648, Grigorii Klimov, a Russian envoy to the last Orthodox senator of
the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Adam Kisiel, was intercepted by Khmelnitsky’s
camp but was eventually able to return to Russia. At the border town of Starodub,
Klimov reported to the Russian military commanders that the Cossacks spared the lives
of those Jews who accepted baptism, while the Poles were killed even if they expressed
the will to convert to Orthodoxy: “the Jews baptize in large numbers and join the army of
the Zaporozhye Cossacks, while the Poles who want to baptize are not accepted and are
killed. They even say that they want to kill all the Poles in Poland and Lithuania”616.
While the reliability of this source can be questioned, Raba had demonstrated that the
Moscow government did not approve of the Cossack rebellion at the beginning, and often
relied on information from unverified sources, that had the intention to discredit the
Cossacks. In that context, Klimov reported that the rebels, in whose ranks Jews were
allegedly enlisted, massacred the Polish government officials, the authority of which was
considered legitimate by Moscow617. There are also Polish and Ukrainian sources that
reported the Jewish presence in the Cossack army; for instance in the description of the
siege of Zbarazh, the Polish author mentions that a baptized Jew from the Cossack camp

612 Yakovenko N. (2002): “A Parallel World. Research on the History of Imagery and Ideas”.

Kritika, Kiev. Pg. 192-208.

613 Shmuel Feivish (1655-1658): “The Miry Clay”. Venice. Edited by Gurland I. Odessa, 1892.

Pg. 11-13.

614 Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 – A New Analysis”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 61, No. 2. Pg. 175.

615 “The Chronicle of a Witness” (1670s). Prepared for publishing by Dzira Y. 1971. Scholarly

Thought, Kiev. Pg. 52.

616 Archive of South-Western Ruthenia (1869-1914). Volume 4. Kiev Pg. 214-215.

617 Raba J. (1997): “Pogroms of 1648-1649: Events and Their Meanings”. Edited by Bartal I.

and Gurman I. Vol. 1. Zalman Shazaer Center, Jerusalem. Pg. 187.

130

informed a Jew from the Polish camp of an upcoming attack618. While claims of Jewish
presence in the ranks of the Cossack army have been doubted ever since they first
appeared, the military enlistment of baptized Jews was arguably the easiest path for their
social adaptation and the deprivation of their former status. Accordingly, during the
Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667, when a significant number of Jews where displaced
from Poland onto the territory of the Moscow state, a Jew named Hamin expressed the
will to accept Orthodoxy and was enlisted into the ranks of Nizhny Novgorod
musketeers619. The same fund in the “Acts of the Moscow State”, contains a report to the
Russian Tsar, dated January 19, 1654, which states that at Yablonov, a town on the
Ukrainian-Russian border, during the questioning of the passing merchants by the
Russian border guards, a merchant named Afonka Grigorev stated that he was born near
the Ukrainian Kamenetz-Podolsk, from where he “followed hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky
to the Cherkassy town Nezhin, where he left the Jewish faith and baptized into in the
Orthodox faith about 8 years prior, and his wife and children currently live in Nezhin,
while he came to Yablonov for merchandise”620. Hence, all of these examples attest to the
tolerant attitude of the Cossacks and the Russians towards baptized Jews and their
acceptance into the Orthodox society.
Various Western European sources also confirm the rather comfortable
position of baptized Jews in the Ruthenian lands. According to a German pastor named
Conrad Jacob Hildebrandt, who visited Ukraine in 1657 and published the memories of
his travels in 1668, “…the Cossacks killed thousands of Jews. The survivors converted to
Orthodoxy and now in the country of the Cossacks they are treated tolerably”. Likewise,
in 1672 another German traveler to Ukraine, Ulrich von Verdun, wrote about meeting
baptized Jews621. A Venetian traveler named Alberto Vinimo, who visited Ukraine in
May 1650, recorded perhaps the most detailed of such testimonies. Vinimo wrote: “I saw
two beautiful girls, married to two rugged men, who forced them to wear holy symbols
on their necks and visit the church, although the Jewish girls were not baptized and were
given the freedom to keep all of their own customs” 622 . The Venetian cited this
observation as an example of the Cossacks not abiding by the rules of the Christian law in
relation to marriage. He further writes: “I can not say exactly what is the Cossack’s view
on marriage”, reaching a conclusion that “they tolerate divorce and polygamy. As

618 Documents on the War of Liberation of the Ukrainian People 1648-1654 (1965).
Scientific Thought, Kiev. No. 96, Pg. 256.

619 Acts of the Moscow state (1894). Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint

Petersburg. Vol. 2, Pg. 428-229. Note of a Nizhny Novgorod military commander Baturin
about sending Jews and Lithuanians to Kazan, dated June 11, 1655.

620 Ibid., Pg. 369. A note of commander Sheremetev.

621 Sichinski V. (1992): “Foreigners on Ukraine: A Selection of Narratives About Travels in

Ukraine over 10 Centuries”. Dovira, Kiev. Pg. 95.

622 Molchanovski N. (1900): “The Report of Venetian Alberto Vimina About the Cossacks and

Khmelnitsky”. Kiev Antiquity. No. 1. Pg. 73.

131

amongst them there are many who left their ugly and elderly wives and married young
and beautiful girls”623. Vinimo’s testimony indicates that while “rough men” forced
Jewish girls to attend sermons, Orthodox priests would have been aware of such
circumstances. On the other hand, in a chronicle compiled in 1670s in the form of
memoirs by a Polish Orthodox nobleman Joachim Jerlicz during his stay at the Pechersk
Lavra Monastery in Kiev, the author described how a Kiev archbishop named Kosov
saved many Jews during the Cossack uprising624. Plokhii used Jerlicz’s testimony to
suggest that while the upper Orthodox clergy harbored anti-Jewish sentiments and
favored Jewish conversions, it disfavored the committed violence and regretted the
harshness of the mob towards the Jews625.
According to Hanover’s report, the baptized Jews who returned to Judaism
after the pogroms of 1648 encountered resistance from the Orthodox Church. The
chronicler wrote that the Jews, who remained on the territories of Kiev, Chernigov and
Braslav provinces, were forced to flee, while on the territories that remained under the
control of the Polish administration, the Jews publicly returned to Judaism. He further
stated that the Jews used force to take away the baptized boys and girls from the
Christians 626 . The Ukrainian chronicle, “Litopis Samovidtza” (“The Chronicle of a
Witness”), confirms Hanover’s report that baptized Jews fled to Poland627.
Arguing that the Cossacks did not have a deliberate program for the conversion
of the Jews, Fram referred to a story narrated in a 1649 response of Rabbi Nathan Nata
Kahana628. The Rabbi described how in Sasov, the Cossacks captured a Jew and “wanted
to kill him, but he asked to stay alive and said that he wanted to become a Christian”.
They offered the Jew to eat non-kosher food, however after he had fulfilled their wish,
the Cossacks killed him anyway. On the other hand, a trial held at the Dubno magistrate
court, which reviewed a murder case of a Jewish landlord named Meir, indicates that
voluntary baptisms had in fact occurred at the time629. Amongst the accused were two
Jews – Leibe and Yazko. While both confessed to the “voluntary” participation in the
murder of their fellow tribesman, they told the court that many Jews, them including,

623 Ibid., Pg. 72-73.

624 “The Chronicle of Joachim Jerlicz”. Edited by Wojcicki K. (1853). Wienhoeber, Warsaw.

Vol. 1. Pg. 96.

625 Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University

press, Oxford. Pg. 192.

626 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 127.

627 “The Chronicle of the Witness” (1670s). Prepared for publishing by Dzira Y. 1971.

Scholarly Thought, Kiev. Pg. 52.

628 Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 – A New Analysis”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. 61, No. 2. Pg. 176.

629 Horn М. (1978): “The Responsibilities of the Jews in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in

XVI and XVII centuries”. Sciences, Warsaw. Pg. 89-91.

132

converted to Orthodoxy. Before their execution, however, they asked to return to the faith
of their forefathers.
The sources relating to the history of Nemirov and Pinsk, shed further light on
the question of the Cossack practice of forced baptisms. Describing the events that
occurred in Ukraine in 1648, the Polish military man Boguslaw Maskevitch recounted in
his diary that after the Poles captured the nearly deserted Nemirov, about 2 miles away
from the town they met a group of Jewish men and women who were hiding in the woods
from the pursuing Cossacks. With the support of the Polish army, the Jews were saved
and, as suggested by Nadav, most likely led to Prikuli, a small town near Tulchin630.
While Maskevitch did not mention anything about the Cossacks actually massacring the
Nemirov Jews, he stated that the Jews told the encountered Poles that they took an oath in
front of the Cossacks that they will not leave the town631. While the Jewish sources do
not mention the oath of the Nemirov Jews, Meir noted that some of the town’s Jews
saved their lives by converting to Orthodoxy632. According to Nadav, although an oath of
such sort was a formal expression of loyalty to the city magistrate and therefore had
political and legal contexts, only baptized Jews were able to take such oaths, as the
Ruthenian residents would have considered them as nearly equal tradesmen, who
received a new status. Hence, Nadav suggested that the oath of loyalty would have been
accompanied by baptisms633. Maskevitch, however, did not mention that the encountered
Jews were baptized. A possible explanation for this could be that while the Jews told the
Poles of the taken oath, they purposefully did not mention anything about their baptisms.
Fram’s argument of the Cossacks lacking a program for the conversion of the
non-Orthodox residents of the Commonwealth can be simultaneously confirmed and
refuted by the various Ukrainian sources. Judging by the words of Khmelnitsky himself,
his intention was to kill everyone who refused to baptize into Orthodoxy: “if a Pole wants
to live – he must baptize…, and those who won’t baptize – shall not stay alive”634.
On May 2, 1650, Jan Kazimierz, the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of
Lithuania, issued a decree that allowed the Jews who had been forcefully converted to
Orthodoxy to return to their previous faith if they wished to do, as well as required for all

630 Nadav M. (1984): “The Jewish Community of Nemyriv in 1648: Their Massacre and Loyalty

Oath to the Cossacks”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian
Studies, Vol. VIII. No3/4. Pg. 376-387.
631
Sajkowski A. (1961): “The Diary of Samuel Maskiewicz. 17th Century”. Ossolinskich,
Wroclaw. Pg. 247.

632 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 159.

633 Nadav M. (1984): “The Jewish Community of Nemyriv in 1648: Their Massacre and Loyalty

Oath to the Cossacks”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian
Studies, Vol. VIII. No3/4. Pg. 385-386.

634 “The
Reunification of Ukraine and Russia. Documents and Materials in Three Volumes”.
(1953). Publishing house of the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad. Vol. 2, No. 1447, Pg. 111.

133

of the property stolen from the Jews during the rebellion to be returned635. According to
Nadav, the decree was influenced by an intervention of the Vaad, Lithuania’s principal
Jewish authoritative body. The first resolution issued by the Vaad after the pogroms of
1648, proclaimed it their “duty to redeem the souls of Israel, captured and converted to
non-Jews”636, which indicates the desire of the Jewish authorities to solve the problem of
their forcefully baptized tribesmen. In Pinsk, a copy of the royal decree was composed on
August 5, 1650, and was addressed to “the town and the fortress officials and all others
holding an official post”. King Kazimierz, likely quoting an appeal he would have
received from the Jewish authorities, stated in the document that “during the Cossack
war, many Jews, men, women and children stayed in your faith, some of them due to
torture, some out of fear for their health, saving themselves, were forced into the Russian
faith and not released up until now, and even those Jews who escaped such dangers, you
don’t release them…”637. Although the town of Pinsk is not mentioned in the document,
Katz638 and Nadav639 were of the opinion that the decree is related primarily to the
situation of the Jews in Pinsk, considering the presence of the document’s copy at the
town’s magistrate. While the decree serves as vivid evidence that entire families of Jews
accepted Christianity under the threat of torture or death, at least a year and a half passed
between the time of their baptisms and the issue of the decree. During this time, for the
purpose of the adaptation to the Christian dogmas, the new Christians were virtually
isolated and kept under a rigorous oversight by the town’s administrative and Church
officials. They were forbidden to contact other Jews and practice their old rites, since
baptized Jews were regarded as Christians under the juridical authority of the Church,
and the act of returning to Judaism was evaluated as an act of apostasy of a Christian to
an infidel faith.
Fram had pointed out that the King’s decree distinguished between the two
groups of Jews who converted to Christianity – the first under torture, the other – “out of
fear for their health”. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the Jews of the second group
had converted by their own initiative, notwithstanding the violence of the rebellion640. If
some of the Jews had in fact accepted baptism by their own initiative, then could Meir’s
narrative of “the kind Orthodox residents of Pinsk” taking the Jews to their homes during
the rebellion be interpreted as the seclusion of the baptized Jews by the Christian

635 Nadav M. (2003): “The Jewish Community of Pinsk in 1648-1677”. Tel Aviv. Pg. 44.

636 Ibid.

637 Acts, published by the Vilnius Archeographic commission. (1902). Vol. 28 (The Acts
About the Jews). Vilnius. Pg. 8.

638 Katz J. (1997): ““On the Events of 1096 and 1648”. The Historical Society of Israel,

Jerusalem. Zion Vol. 62, Pg. 25.

639 Nadav M. (2003): “Jewish Community of Pinsk in 1648-1677”. Tel Aviv. Pg. 45.

640 Fram Е. (1997): “One More Time on the Question of Jewish Martyrdom in 1096 and 1648”.

The Historical Society of Israel, Jerusalem. Zion No. 62. Pg. 31-46.

134

authorities?
Employing the motive of martyrdom, the Jewish chroniclers depicted the
Orthodox Cossacks as a stereotypical enemy, who threatened their way of life not due to
their social status, but because of their holiness and a genuine commitment to the faith of
their ancestors. The idea of holiness, based on the willingness to die for the faith, was
directed against the Christian pressure and claims to the historical truth. The destruction
of the Jewry, therefore, was evaluated as nothing less than an attempt to eradicate the
virtuousness of the Polish community, while their choice to die rather than abandon
Judaism – proved their extraordinary holiness. The utilization of the concept of “kiddush
ha-shem”, therefore, achieved at least two purposes – the demonstration of the group
solidarity and the memorization of the event in a specific way. The faith of the forefathers
was subjected to the ultimate test not because their generation was unworthy, but on the
contrary, because of their distinction, and a special mission that was bestowed upon them.
The strategy of their behavior, proposed by the Jewish elites, reveals their relationship
with the outside world. In their highly conflictual relationship with the Christian world,
an understanding of the social, economic and political reasons for the rebellion can
nonetheless be spotted. Accordingly, some of the authors – Nathan Hanover, Gabriel
Shusberg and Meir Shebreshin were aware that the uprising was not driven exclusively
by a religious hatred, and demonstrated that even in tense situations, Jews and Christians
maintained rather close relations.

The Religious Motives of the Pogroms

The correspondence of the Cossack leadership contains a vivid Judaeophobia: in a

letter to Tsar Mikhail Alekseevich dated 1649, Bogdan Khmelnitsky wrote: “We request
that the Poles and the Jews no longer dominate the Orthodox Christians, inasmuch as
they are cunning, and for a long time have been extorting and spilling the Christian
blood…” 641 . Accordingly, in a letter to the Polish prince Dominik Zaslawski,
Khmelnitsky’s close aide Maksim Krivonosov wrote that the Jews were “the main cause”
of the uprising 642 . While Krivonosov’s statement does not diminish the anti-Polish
sentiment that was present amongst the insurgent forces, it demonstrates that for the
Cossack leadership, the Jews represented no less of an adversary group as did the Poles.
The economic and social conditions of the Ukrainians certainly incited such animosity:
the allegation that the Polish government granted more rights to the Jews than to the
Orthodox was a widespread notion in the Ukrainian writings of the time643. Nonetheless,
the religious contention of the rebels, expressed in relation to the Jews, cannot be

641 The Documents of Bohdan Khmelnitsky 1648-1657. Prepared by Kripyatkevich I. and

Butich I. Scholarly Thought, Kiev. 1961. Pg. 625.

642 Raba J. (1997): “The Pogroms of 1648-1649: Events and Their Meanings”. Edited by Bartal

I. and Gurman I. Vol. 1. Zalman Shazaer Center, Jerusalem. Pg. 181.

643 Sysyn F. (1990): “The Jewish Factor in the Khmelnytsky Uprising” in “Ukranian-Jewish

Relations in Historical Perspective”. Edited by Aster H. and Potichnjy P. Canadian Institute of

Ukrainian Studies Press, Edmonton. Pg. 48.

135

underestimated. The religious tensions in the multi-confessional Ruthenian lands were
exacerbated by the convocation of the Union of Brest in 1596, when the majority of the
Metropolitans of Ukraine and Belarus broke relations with the Patriarch of
Constantinople and entered into the communion with the Pope of Rome. The Union was
bitterly opposed by the nascent Cossack movement, which began to perceive itself as the
defender of the Orthodox faith. As far as the Orthodox Ukrainians were concerned, upon
the convocation of the Union of Brest, their religious rights and freedoms became lesser
than even of the neighboring Jews, whose social and economic conditions under the
Polish rule also appeared to be more favorable than theirs. In the middle of the 17th
century, the accounts of Poles leasing the churches of the parishioners who did not accept
the Union to the Jews, who kept the keys in their possession and thereby required the
priests to pay a fee in order to conduct ceremonies, became widespread644. The Cossack
chronicler Grigory Grabyanka presented the account as follows: “…and the infants were
baptized with the Jews’ permission, and the various religious customs of the pious
(Christians) were at the mercy of the Jewish leaseholders”645. In that context, the Jews
were characterized as “the irreconcilable enemies of Christianity”, who cursed the
Orthodox faith in their synagogues and enjoyed the opportunity to trample upon and
oppress the Ukrainians646. Paul of Aleppo, who visited Ukraine in 1654, reported his
observations in a similar vein. According to the archdeacon, “the wicked Jews” invaded
the spiritual and personal life of the Orthodox Christians: they “obstructed the
construction of churches”, “eliminated the priests who knew the mysteries of the faith”,
and even “raped their pious and chaste wives and daughters”647.
The practice of forced baptisms of the Jews during the rebellion indicates that the
central aim of the pogroms was not the extermination of the Jews of Ukraine and Belarus
per se, but rather the eradication of the Jewish faith from these lands. The conversion of
the Jews to Orthodoxy under the threat of death represented the most satisfying method
for the vengeance, and served as the demonstration of the superiority of Christianity over
Judaism. Correspondingly, there is evidence to suggest that the ruling elite of the
Hetmanate endorsed the practice of forced baptism of the Jews. The Cossack view of the
conversion of the Jews to Orthodoxy as one of the goals of the rebellion was reflected in
“The Chronicle of a Witness”, written by an unnamed highly ranking member of
Khmelnitsky’s army. According to the author, the Cossack leadership was particularly
discontent with the Jews who, having accepted baptism, eventually fled to Poland and

644 Hrushevski M. (1922): “History of Ukraine-Ruthenia”. Scientific Partnership named after

T. G. Shevchenko. Vol. 8, Pt. 2. Pg. 124.

645 Kohut Z. (1998): “The Image of Jews in Ukraine’s Intellectual Tradition: The Role of

“Istoriia Rusov”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian

Studies, Vol. 22. Pg. 346.

646 Konisskij G. (1846): “The History of Ruthenians”. University Typography, Moscow. Pg. 40.

647 Paul of Aleppo (1660s): “The Travels of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch to Russia in the

Middle of XVII Century, Depicted by His Son Archimandrite Paul of Alepo”. Edited by Murkos
G. 1896-1900. Typography of the University, Moscow. Vol. 2. Pg. 3, 7, 40.

136

returned to Judaism648. In that context, the author reported that while many of the Jews,
fearing death, accepted the Christian faith, ‘there was not a single Jew remaining in
Ukraine…”649. This statement testifies to the chronicler’s view of the Jews as a purely
religious grouping. According to this perspective, it sufficed to change one’s religion to
cease being Jewish and gain acceptance by the rebels as an equal. Thus, the Cossack
register of 1649 contains 24 names, derived from the term ‘convert’ (‘перехрист’), as
well as other names such as Zhydenko and Zhydovkin, which have the root of a ‘Jew’
(жид – zhyd)650.
Although the sources contain very little information on the attitude of the
Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities towards the Jews during the time of the uprising, it is
most probable that the Church was in favor of the conversion of Jews to Christianity. At
the same time, the clergy condemned the violence caused by the pogroms: although the
upper Orthodox hierarchy harbored anti-Jewish sentiments on par with the Cossack
officers and noblemen, they regretted the harshness of the mob-violence 651. In that
regard, Ettinger proposed that the Cossacks pursued the policy of Jewish baptisms in part
due to the growing political influence of Moscow, with its enduring tradition of
intolerance of Judaism and the restriction of Jewish residence on its territories652.
There can be little doubt that the authors of the Jewish chronicles, depicting the
pogroms, downplayed the scale of Jewish conversions to Christianity, emphasizing
instead the martyrdom and the devotion of the Jews of Ruthenia to their faith.
Nonetheless, Rabbi Meir of Shebreshin noted that “many women denied their religion
and married the Greeks (Orthodox) they had chosen; many Jews broke the covenant”,
adding however that those Jews who converted “did not obey God’s commandments and
transgressed them, while those who were honest did not escape the destruction”653.
Hanover, in turn, maintained that “hundreds” of forced convers, including Jewish women
married to the Cossacks, and “hundreds of Jewish children” returned to Judaism after
1649654. The reports of Jewish and Ukrainian chronicles of the mass conversions of Jews

648 Ibid.

649 “The Chronicle of a Witness” (1670s). Prepared for publishing by Dzira Y. 1971. Scholarly

Thought, Kiev. Pg. 52.

650 Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University

press, Oxford. Pg. 201.

651 Ibid.

652 Ettinger S. (1988): “Jewish Participation in the Settlement of Ukraine in the Sixteenth and

Seventeenth Centuries”. In “Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective”. Edited by

Potichnyj P. and Aster H. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, Edmonton. Pg. 30.

653 Meir Shebreshin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”…Pg. 162.

654 Nathan Hanover (1653): “The Deep Mire”… Pg. 103.

137

to Orthodoxy are corroborated by the 1650 proclamation of King Jan Kazimierz, which
allowed the Jews who had been forcibly converted to return to Judaism655.

655 Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University

press, Oxford. Pg. 201.

138

 Chapter 4: Christian Apostasy and Jewish Proselytism in Imperial Russia: The
Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boruch Leibov

In mid-1738, a public auto-da-fe was implemented in Saint Petersburg: a Russian

man convicted of apostasy from Christianity to Judaism was burned at the stake along
with his Jewish seducer. This event, in its essence, was analogous to the inquisitional
processes of the Russian state at the end of 15th – beginning of the 16th centuries, aimed at
the eradication of the infamous ‘Judaizer heresy’, which enveloped an influential part of
the Russian nobility and clergy. The first of the two victims was a retired Navy captain-
lieutenant Alexander Artemiev Voznitsyn of Moscow, and the second – a Jewish tax
farmer from Smolensk named Boruch Leibov. Notably, their death sentences were the
last in the history of the Russian judicial system that involved a punishment by burning at
the stake pertaining to a religious crime – subsequently, the executions by the means of
burning were issued only on the charges of witchcraft.
The multi-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, published in the beginning of the 20th
century by Brockhaus and Efron in Saint Petersburg, devoted to Alexander Voznitsyn
only 4 lines: “…a captain-lieutenant of the Russian fleet, burned at the stake in Saint
Petersburg in 1739 for the apostasy from Orthodoxy and the adoption of the Jewish
faith”656. In the contemporary Encyclopedia of the Russian Jewry, Voznitsyn is denoted
as a first lieutenant of the Russian fleet, who “apostatized from Orthodoxy to Judaism by
the efforts of his mentor Boruch”657, without indicating the family name of the later. The
most well known source of the case is the 1913 publication of the proceedings in “Re-
lived”, Russia’s first scientific journal that published original materials related to the
history of the Russian Jewry658. For the publication, Markon extracted the documents
from the archive of the highest governing authority of the Russian Orthodox Church - the
Most Holy Governing Synod. Presently, further sources related to the case have been
identified in the collection of the Russian State Archive of Early Acts in Moscow,
including materials of an additional investigation, conducted predominantly after the
execution of the convicted men659. The persona of Boruch Leibov had been mentioned in
the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories as a proselytizer of the Jewish faith amongst

656 Brockhaus F. and Efron I. (1908-1913): “Jewish Encyclopedia”. Society of Scholarly

Jewish Publications, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 5, Section 688.

657 Encyclopedia of the Russian Jewry (1994). Edited by Branover G. Epos publishing,

Moscow. Vol. 1, Pg. 236-237.

658 Markon I. (1913): “The Case of the Burning at the Stake of Captain-Lieutenant Alexander

Voznitsyn for Apostasy into the Jewish Faith and Boruch Leib for Enticement”. In “Re-lived: A
Journal Dedicated to the Social and Cultural History of Jews in Russia”. Typography of
Fleitman I., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 4. Appendix, Pg. 81-112.

659 The archival sources pertaining to the case were published in Feldman D. (2005): “The

Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the Case of Alexander Voznitsyn
and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Appendix Pg. 1-82. Moscow.

139

Orthodox Christians, and being involved in the ritual murder and the extraction of blood
from Christian adolescents660.
This chapter presents a detailed examination of the sources pertaining to the
Voznitsyn-Leibov case, as well as of the analogous criminal investigation of the
‘Judaizing sect’ in Kazan, which transpired in the aftermath of the execution in Saint
Petersburg. The objectives of the analysis include the assessment of the potentiality of the
proselytization of Judaism in Imperial Russia, the inquiry into the prejudice of the
Russian Church and State authorities in relation to the apostasy from and the
safeguarding of the Orthodox faith, and the construction of the models of perception of
Jews in Russia in relation to the anxieties of burgeoning ‘Judaizing’.

Policies on Jews and Judaism in Imperial Russia

For the analysis of the case materials, Russia’s policies towards the Jews in the
examined time period must be taken into consideration. At the time of Voznitsyn’s and
Leibov’s execution, the Empress of the Russian Empire was Anna Ioannovna Romanova
(1730-1740), and that period was generally marked by an anti-Judaic predisposition. On
the Jewish question, Anna largely followed the policies of Empress Catherine I (1725-
1727), who became the first Russian monarch in the post-Peter I era to manifest religious
and social intolerance, and implement legislature limiting Jewish presence in the Russian
Empire.
By the beginning of the 18th century, scarce Jewish communities existed in Left-
bank Ukraine (Little Russia) and in the Smolensk province, the lands that came under the
Russian control in 1667 following the Truce of Andrusovo with the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth661. The truce agreement stipulated for the Jews taken captive to Russia
during the war to be able to freely return to the Commonwealth, except for those who
baptized into Orthodoxy while in captivity, as well as for Jewish women who married
Russian men662. Correspondingly, those Jews wishing to remain “in the domain of His
Majesty the Tsar” were to be permitted to settle in the territory of the Russian state upon
their baptism. Thus, the 1670 population census of the Meshanskaya sloboda, a suburb of
Moscow settled by the Polish-Lithuanian natives, cited two baptized Jews living there “in
their own courtyards”, meaning that they owned the land663.

660 Platonov O. (2005): “Gregory Rasputin and “the Children of the Devil””. Eksmo publishing,

Moscow. Pg. 33-34.

661 Boguslavski V., Kuksina E. (2001): “The Truce of Andrusovo// Kievan Rus-Muscovy” in
“Slavic Encyclopedia”. Olma Press, Moscow. Vol. 2, pg. 56.

662 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1649 to 1675 (1830).

Typography of the Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty, Saint Petersburg. First edition. Vol.
1, Pg. 662.

663 Kandel F. (1988): “Essays of Times and Events from the History of the Russian Jews (Till the

2nd Half of the 18th century)”. Tarbut Association, Jerusalem. Vol. 1, Pg. 173.

140

 Although a decree issued by Tsar Feodor III in 1676 explicitly prohibited Jews to
enter Moscow664, in the newly acquired Ukrainian and Belarusian territories (Smolensk),
formerly of the Commonwealth, the Jews were able to sell merchandise at markets,
operate taverns and lease inns. In January 1725, two days before his death, Peter I issued
a decree not only reaffirming the governmental permission for the Jews to sell
merchandise and operate taverns in these regions of the Russian Empire, but also to
practice revenue leasing at the country’s borders 665 - a livelihood pursued by the
aforementioned Boruch Leibov. Two years later, the Emperor’s immediate successor
Catherine I reversed the ruling – in March 1727 she issued an edict which prohibited the
leasing of inns and customs duties to the Jews in Smolensk, and ordered the deportation
of Leibov and his associates from the territory of Russia666. Catherine did not stop at
Smolensk - a month later she promulgated another ruling ordering the expulsion of all
Jews from Russia, and henceforth for the Jews “not to be allowed to enter Russia under
any circumstances”667. The texts of either of the two edicts did not state the reasons for
the enactment of such measures. Baptism remained the only option for the Jewish
individuals, who wished to remain in the domain of the Russian Empire.
As it turned out, the enactment of such policies substantively contradicted the
economic interests of the local Christian population, as the volume of trade declined
drastically after the banishment of Jewish merchants. Thus, within a year from the
implementation of Catherine’s orders, the Hetman of Left-Bank Ukraine Daniil Apostol
appealed to Saint Petersburg to allow Jewish merchants to trade fairs in Little Russia on
par with other foreigners668. The Supreme Privy Council of the Russian Empire approved
Apostol’s request in August 1728, although with a reservation that the Jews were to be
allowed to enter Ukraine only on a temporary basis669. The affirmations on the ban of
permanent residence of the Jews in the country, which the Saint Petersburg government
was forced to reissue over the next ten years, indicates that the landowners and the local
authorities ignored this ruling and continued to permit the extended residence of the Jews
on their territories, primarily out of financial interests.

664 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1649 to 1675 (1830).
Typography of the Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty, Saint Petersburg. First edition. Vol.
2, Pg. 76.

665 Shugurov M. (1894): “The History of Jews in Russia”. Russian Archive. Book 1. Vol. 1. Pg.

69.

666 Ryvkin H. (1910): “The Jews in Smolensk: Outline of the History of Jewish Settlements in

Smolensk from the Ancient Times as Related to the Social Status of the Jews in Ancient
Ruthenia”. Typography of S. Bussel, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 61.

667 Golytsyn N. (1886): “History of Russian Legislation Related to the Jews 1649-1825”.

Typography of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1, Pg. 284.

668 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1728 to 1732 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 8, Pg. 14.

669 Ibid.

141

 It is important to note that during the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, strict
measures were implemented to suppress schismatic movements, as well as to prevent the
proliferation of the Catholic and the Protestant Christian faiths in the country. In response
to the increasingly frequent cases of missionary activity by the non-Orthodox Christian
priests, in 1735 the Senate issued a manifest which ordered for these friars to
“immediately cease converting our subjects into their law, otherwise they will be dealt
with in accordance with our governmental regulations and decrees”670. Since Judaism
was not mentioned in the manifest, the Russian government apparently did not expect a
similar tendency of proselytism to surface from a religion that had been virtually
outlawed in the country. The investigation into the case of Alexander Voznytsyn and
Boruch Leibov would not begin for another two years.
Nonetheless, in 1738 the Senate conducted an inquiry into the actual number of
Jews in Ukraine. According to the report of the General Army Chancellery, despite the
edict of 1727 forbidding the presence of Jews in the region, 140 Jewish individuals were
residing in Ukraine, all of them having come from the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth671. In response, the Senate ordered their immediate deportation672. The
Chancellery replied that their deportation presented a strategic danger due to the ongoing
Russo-Turkish war: “so that spying does not occur along with their expulsion”673. The
Ministerial Council of Her Imperial Majesty agreed, and in 1739 it was ruled that the
expulsion of the Jews was not to be implemented until the end of the was with Turkey674.
With that ruling, however, the Ministers ordered the Chancellery of the Ukrainian
army to affirm the exact number of illegally settled Jews in the region and the nature of
their livelihood, and to concurrently “oversee and strictly prohibit, so that in all of Little
Russia no one would take Jews into their houses, nor sell or rent property to them”675.
Soon after, the requested census was issued to the Council, and according to that
document, the number of the Jews in Ukraine substantially exceeded the initial figure:
292 men and 281 women resided across 130 manors676. It was noted that these Jews “did
not live in their own houses”, “did not process any land, factories or fisheries”, while the

670 Soloviev S. (1993): “The History of Russia from the Ancient Times”. Golos Publishing,
Moscow. Essays, Vol. 20. Pg. 561-562.

671 Golytsyn N. (1886): “History of Russian Legislation Related to the Jews 1649-1825”.

Typography of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1, Pg. 288.

672 Ibid.

673 Ibid., Pg. 289.

674 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1737 to 1739 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 10, Pg. 662.

675 Ibid.

676 Ryvkin H. (1910): “The Jews in Smolensk: Outline of the History of Jewish Settlements in

Smolensk from the Ancient Times as Related to the Social Status of the Jews in Ancient
Ruthenia”. Typography of S. Bussel, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 63.

142

landlords leased to them shops, where they sold “wine, beer and honey”. Baffled by this
information, the authorities immediately issued a decree, signed by Empress Anna
Ioannovna, which once again banned the rental of land and property to the Jews in
Ukraine677.
Consequently, at the end of the war with Turkey in 1740, the Empress issued a
resolution for the approval of the Senate and the Cabinet of Ministers, in which she
demanded for the immediate expulsion of the Jews living in Ukraine: “Based upon the
previous accords, the said Jews are to be deported abroad” 678 . This included the
renunciation of the permission for temporary visits of Jewish merchants to markets,
which was formally in place. Such a transition from the policy of necessary concessions
and the toleration of a limited Jewish presence, which was followed out of the economic
interests for the development of the region, was therefore superseded by the
implementation of discriminatory policies, principally due to the inquisitional process of
Alexander Voznytsyn’s apostasy from Christianity under the guidance of Boruch Leibov.
Not only did this event amplify the anxieties of the spread of Judaism from the
Empire’s sole (practicing) Jewish community in the former Polish-Lithuanian lands, but
the hostility of the Russian government towards the Jews, namely of the Empress herself,
increased accordingly. The fears of the influx of the proselytizing Judaic elements were
taken very seriously – when a threat to the Christian faith manifested, all pragmatic
considerations came to an end. Nonetheless, due to the unwillingness of landowners, far
from all of the Jewish residents were expelled from Russia and hence the law was never
fully implemented.
Nevertheless, the Judaeophobia of Empresses Catherine I and Anna Ioannovna
did not prevent them and their dignitaries to use the services of the Jews in financial and
other matters, for whom exceptions were made to be able to reside in the capital. These
individuals visited and lived in Saint Petersburg under the personal protection of the
Empress, thereby factually violating the existing legislation. A prime example was Levi
Lipman – a prominent financier, who in 1727 became a financial agent at the Royal court
of Peter II, and later functioned as a personal agent of Ernst Johann von Biron, the regent
of the Russian Empire and the Duke of Courtland and Semigallia679. Lipman, who had
business ties with Boruch Leibov as evidenced by the correspondence between them680
was engaged in the resale of state owned property and merchandise, holding the title of

677 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1737 to 1739 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 10, No 7869.

678 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1740 to 1743 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 11, No 8169.

679 Stroev V. (1910): “Bironovshina and the Cabinet of Ministers: Essays on Internal Politics of

Empress Anna”. Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Part 2,
pg. 26.

680 Brednikov L. (2003): “Anna Ioannovna and the Jews: Bironovshina or Lipmanovshina?”.

Neva publishing, Saint Petersburg. Number 10, pg. 246.

143

Chief State Commissioner from 1734 and Chief Financial Agent from 1736681. Notably,
there is no indication that Levi Lipman had ever converted to Christianity, although it is
most likely that his affiliation with Judaism was also inexistent.
While the country’s legislation explicitly forbade the entitlement of Jews with
governmental ranks, a likely explanation for Lipman’s extraordinary succession is a
personal connection to Anna Ioannovna – in the early 1720’s both Lipman and the future
Empress resided in the Duchy of Courtland and Semigallia, and already then Lipman
provided her with financial services 682 . Upon her ascension to the throne, Anna
generously endowed her creditors, of which Lipman was the principal683. In 1727, for
instance, Lipman was issued six thousand rubles for the sale of three diamonds to the
Royal Treasury, and in 1733 Anna Ioannovna ordered for 160 thousand rubles to be paid
out to Lipman as a payment for the purchase of “various merchandise” from him, as well
as an additional one thousand rubles for the invitation of “a foreign Jewish doctor” to
Russia684. A contemporary wrote of Lipman: “In Saint Petersburg there is one Jew at the
court, who deals with financial matters. He can keep under his domain as many Jews as
he wishes”685. Lipman’s exceptional connections at the court is evidenced by an edict
signed by the Cabinet of Ministers, which called for Lipman to assist in the return of a
son of a Jew from Shklov, abducted by a lieutenant of the Russian army686.
Of the influence of Lipman, the French ambassador at the Russian court marquis de
la Chétardie wrote that “Biron consults the banker Lipman on all matters and acts only
upon his approval, and it is Lipman who really rules Russia”687. The members of the
Russian nobility expressed an avid displeasure with the Jewish financier, as for instance
an article published in the Bayreuther Zeitung in January 1740 depicted “the greed of
Biron’s favorite banker, who enriched himself at the expense of the country”688. Even

681 Gessen V. (2000): “Of the History of the Saint Petersburg Religious Jewish Community:
From the First Jews to the XX century”. Theme, Saint Petersburg, Pg. 17.

682 Shubinski S. (1893): “Historic Essays and Stories”. Typography of Suvorin S., Saint

Petersburg. Pg. 114.

683 Ibid., Pg. 116-117.

684 Golytsyn N. (1886): “History of Russian Legislation Related to the Jews 1649-1825”.

Typography of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1, Pg. 61, 67-68.

685 Stroev V. (1910): “Bironovshina and the Cabinet of Ministers: Essays on Internal Politics of

Empress Anna”. Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Part 2,
pg. 26.

686 Golytsyn N. (1886): “History of Russian Legislation Related to the Jews 1649-1825”.

Typography of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1, Pg. 68.

687 Korsakov D. (1877): “Ancient and New Russia”. Typography of Grazinsky V., Saint

Petersburg. Vol. 7, pg. 219.

688 Soloviev S. (1993): “History of Russia from the Ancient times”. Essays, Vol. 20. Golos

Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 641.

144

after the removal of Duke Biron from power and his subsequent arrest in 1740, Lipman
continued to serve at the court. To refute the rumors of him having been discharged along
with Biron, in January 1741 the “Saint Petersburg bulletin” officially reported that “the
Chief State Commissioner Lipman continues to perform his duties and is present at the
Imperial Court on all public occasions”689. It is most likely that Lipman’s stable position
at the court even under the new government of Anna Leopoldovna was due to his
compliance with the authorities and a detailed testimony about Biron’s finances known to
him690. Only after the fall of Anna Leopoldovna and the ascendance to the throne of
Elizaveta Petrovna did Lipman’s commercial activity end in the capital of Russia.
It is worth noting that at the court of Anna Ioannovna living out his days was a
court jester of Peter the Great, a Marrano of Sephardic origin named Yan d’Akosta,
whom the Tsar kept not so much for his amusement, but rather as “a weapon for
ridiculing the gross prejudice and ignorance amongst the Russian society of the time”691.
D’Akosta came from a prominent Portuguese Jewish-Marrano family, who escaped the
inquisition by fleeing to Amsterdam, London and Hamburg in the 17th century. While
working at a Hamburg brokerage house in the early 18th century, d’Akosta met a Russian
nobleman and soon after came with him to Russia. His proficiency in a number of
European languages, an attic wit, resourcefulness and a cheerful character earned him a
favorable disposition at the imperial court, and in 1714 Peter I awarded him with the title
of a court jester692. The Tsar enjoyed debating with d’Akosta on the questions pertaining
to religion and theology, as the Marrano had an excellent knowledge of the Bible. Despite
being a Catholic by faith, at the court he was referred to as “the Portuguese Jew
Dakosta” 693 . For his loyal service, Peter I endowed d’Acosta with the title of a
“Samoyedic king”, and awarded him an uninhabited sandy island Sommera in the Finish
Gulf694. In the same role, Yan d’Akosta served at the court of Anna Ioannovna.

Boruch Leibov, the Jewish Philanthropist

In the early 1720s, Boruch Leibov, a Jewish merchant from Poland, settled in
Smolensk, taking advantage of Peter the Great’s edict that permitted Jewish settlement in


689 Stroev V. (1910): “Bironovshina and the Cabinet of Ministers: Essays on Internal Politics of

Empress Anna”. Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Part 2,
pg. 27.

690 Brednikov L. (2003): “Anna Ioannovna and The Jews: Bironovshina or Lipmanovshina?”.

Neva publishing, Saint Petersburg. Number 10, pg. 248.

691 Shubinsky S. (1893): “Historic Essays and Stories”. Typography of Suvorin A., Saint

Petersburg. Fourth Edition. Pg. 114.

692 Ibid., Pg. 116-117.

693 Ibid.

694 Ibid., Pg. 118.

145

the region. By the beginning of the 18th century, the Smolensk province became a key
point for the trans-shipment of goods between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and
the Russian Empire. The Jewish community grew in numbers during the last years of the
rule of Peter I, with many of its members having been involved in the merchant trade.
Leibov was one of the most active members of this community: in a village called
Zverovichi in the Smolensk region he built a synagogue in 1721, funding the construction
out of his own pocket 695 . Not only did Leibov’s philanthropic activity cause the
vehemence of the local Orthodox population, but it also caught the attention of Russia’s
highest governmental institutions. In 1722, a group of Smolensk merchants filed a formal
complaint against Leibov to the Most Holy Governing Synod, the highest governing body
of the Russian Orthodox Church, claiming that not only did Leibov build a “Jewish
school” near a church, in which “he proselytizes his infidel faith”, but also avowing that
he “blasphemed against the Christian faith” and “had beaten to death” a priest of
Zverovichi named Avraamiy, who “caused him, the Jew, much trouble in building the
Jewish school”696. The complainants went on to emphasize that the Jews who settled in
the province “seduce the Orthodox into the Jewish faith” and have a wide-ranging
corrupting effect on the Christians: “on Saturdays they rest, while during the Christian
holidays “they sell goods and by that distract the Orthodox from attending church
services”697. More likely than not, the complaining merchants were driven not by pious
intentions, but rather by a desire to get rid of competitors.
Having reviewed the complaint, the Synod ordered to have the synagogue
demolished and for the books found inside to be burnt. Regarding the rest of the
accusations brought against Leibov, a separate investigation was to be conducted, which
was started in 1723 by the archbishop of Smolensk Filofei 698 . This investigation,
however, was drastically protracted, as in 1727, at the time of the issue of the edict
ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Smolensk province, it was still not completed.
Simultaneously followed a decree to confiscate from the Jews their tax farming
businesses. As a result of the protests from the local Orthodox clergy, the authorities
ordered for Leibov and his associates to be expelled to Poland, although stipulating that
they were to receive all money owed to them before being deported699.
The documentation of the Saint Petersburg Publishing Office, the highest
governmental publishing institution in Russia at the time, contains information on the

695 Gessen Y. (1925): “History of the Jewish People in Russia”. Typography of the Co-operative

Society, Leningrad. Vol. 1. Pg. 12.

696 Brockhaus F. and Efron I. (1908-1913): “Jewish Encyclopedia”. Society of Scholarly

Jewish Publications, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2, Section 593.

697 Ibid.

698 Ibid.

699 Ryvkin H. (1910): “The Jews in Smolensk: Outline of the History of Jewish Settlements in

Smolensk from the Ancient Times as Related to the Social Status of the Jews in Ancient
Ruthenia”. Typography of S. Bussel, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 61.

146

activities of Boruch Leibov and his companions in the 1720s. Leibov’s name appears in
the administrative receipt books, stating the sums of money collected as fees for the
sealing of imperial decrees and other letters from the various institutions and entities.
Thus, from a 1724 report of the Chamber-board to the Senate it becomes known that in
July of that year the board assessed a complaint of Leibov, who requested the return of
the customs fees confiscated from him and his partners in the Smolensk province under
the pretense that the money was collected “with ill intentions”700. In the same letter, the
Chamber-board expressed an opinion that although the customs fees do belong to the
Jews, returning the money is not desirable, as according to the edit of the Holy Synod,
“the Jews are hostile to the Orthodox faith”701. Hence, the letter concludes that the board
does not have the authority to make a decision on Leibov’s request without the approval
of the Senate.
From another document in the fund it becomes known that in January 1725, still
under the rule of Peter I, the Chamber-board sent a report to the Saint Petersburg central
police department in response to Boruch Leibov’s request to issue to his companion
Mikhail Davydov “a passport” for the transport of “tavern supplies from Saint Petersburg
to his house in Zverovichi village702. According to the report, the request was granted.
Almost concurrently to the previous document, in January 1725, the Senate issued a
decree in response to the report received from the Chamber-board in regards to the
confiscated customs fees of Boruch Leibov and companions. The decree stipulated for all
fees to be paid out to the Jewish tax-farmers as per the contractual regulations “for all the
years”703. After the settlement of the financial dispute, Leibov and his partners were to be
deported from Russia, and their tax-farming business to be sold at a public auction to
“others, but not to Jews”704. Consequently, these demands were repeated almost word for
word in the royal rescript of 1727, which prohibited Jewish residence in the Smolensk
region705.
In the pursuance of the Senate’s decree, the Chamber-board ordered the Smolensk
vice-governor to make a settlement with Leibov and his companions for the tax farming

700 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Appendix,
Moscow. Pg. 13; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 265 - Saint Petersburg
Printing Office. Book 1, Case 30, pg. 22. Moscow.

701 Ibid.; Ibid.

702 Ibid., Pg. 14; Ibid., Book 1, Case 34, pg. 20.

703 Ibid., Pg. 15; Ibid., Pg. 153-154.

704 Ibid.; Ibid.

705 Ryvkin H. (1910): ““Jews in Smolensk: Outline of the History of Jewish Settlements in

Smolensk from the Ancient Times as Related to the Social Status of the Jews in Ancient
Ruthenia”. Typography of S. Bussel, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 61.

147

conducted by them between 1720 and 1724706. However, the document also postulated
that the allegations that were previously brought against Leibov by the residents of
Zverovichi village were to be investigated and considered against the settlement. The
allegations being of a local merchant named Skryp who claimed that Leibov did not pay
him for tax farming his windmill; a cohort of Zverovichi residents attesting to paying fees
to Leibov for his purchase of bread and alcohol for them under the pretense of being
cheated; and an accusation by a former village commissioner stating that Leibov
concealed a shipment of kettles707. Simultaneously, the Chamber-board sent memos
reporting the event to the Justice-board, and to the Chief Magistrate, Russia’s central
institution that regulated commerce and industry in the country. In August 1725, the
Justice-board responded by sending an edict to the Smolensk central court to immediately
resolve the dispute between Leibov and Skryp regarding the windmill708, while the Chief
Magistrate concurrently ordered the Smolensk Magistrate to investigate and resolve the
dispute between Leibov and the local merchants on the tax-farming fees709.
In June 1726, however, the Royal Chancellery sent an edit to the Smolensk
regional government to institute criminal proceedings, if necessary, against the Smolensk
merchants for their “debts owed to the Jews”710. The text also mentions that the Royal
Chancellery sent a corresponding resolution, addressed personally to the steward of the
Smolensk region Shagin. Therefore, these documents depict a very complicated
relationship between the Jews of Smolensk and Russia’s central government in Saint
Petersburg: while ordering to expel the Jews from the country, the central authorities
simultaneously demanded for a just resolution of the financial disputes between the said
Jews and the Russian merchants.
From a 1734 book of receipts of the Saint Petersburg Publishing Office, it becomes
known that the financial disputes between Leibov and Smolensk merchants went on. On
July 11th of that year, the Senate issued a decree ordering the vice-governor of the
Smolensk region to investigate and reach a decision on a complaint made against Leibov
by two local merchants, claiming that he owed them 700 rubles711. Simultaneously,
Leibov sent a plea of his own to the Holy Synod, writing that the claims of the Smolensk
merchants named Shila and Paskin, who asserted that he “corrupted the Orthodox

706 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix, Pg. 16; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 265 - Saint Petersburg
Printing Office. Book 1, Case 38, pg. 11. Moscow.

707 Ibid., Ibid.

708 Ibid. Pg 18; Ibid. Book 1, Case 42, Pg. 15.

709 Ibid. Pg 19; Ibid. Pg. 41.

710 Ibid. Pg 21; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 265 - Saint Petersburg Printing

Office. Book 1, Case 42, pg. 305. Moscow.

711 Ibid. Pg. 22; Ibid. Case 46, Pg. 13.

148

Christians with his teachings and performed many other vile deeds” was slander712. The
Synod ordered for the complaint to be investigated by the local authorities. It wasn’t the
first time Leibov was charged with proselytizing Judaism – in 1725 the Synod ordered for
the Smolensk bishop Filofei to investigate an allegation made by the same Smolensk
merchants mentioned above, accusing Leibov with undermining the foundations of
Orthodoxy with Jewish teachings713. Unfortunately, the results of these two investigations
are unknown.
A manuscript book of the central governmental institution monitoring the
expenditure of state funds contains a record of a 1736 case, mentioning that 217 rubles
were levied from Boruch Leibov as a penalty for operating a tavern in Zverovichi village
in 1723714. Accordingly, the fine was collected from Leibov’s account at the Stats-office.
Leibov responded by pleading to the office of the Ruling Senate in Moscow that the
money was levied from him unjustly, as during that period in 1723 he did not operate the
taverns715. This was confirmed by a report of the administration of the Smolensk region,
which stated that during that time Leibov’s taverns “stood empty” and the sales of wine
did not occur 716. Concurrently, Leibov sent a plea to the Smolensk administration,
requesting them to investigate who operated the sales of alcohol at the time and
accordingly was to be taxed717. The ruling of the Senate favored Leibov: it was ordered
for 217 rubles to be returned to him in full amount and for the Chamber-board to identify
the actual debtor718. Hence just a few years before Leibov’s burning at the stake, the
Russian authorities made rulings in favor of the Jewish tax-farmer, despite the numerous
accusations of his engrossment in the proselytization of Judaism.

Proceedings of the Investigation of Voznitsyn’s Apostasy to Judaism

A decade after the initial investigation proceedings against Boruch Leibov, a far
more serious accusation was put forward against the Jewish merchant – he was charged
with luring a retired navy captain-lieutenant Alexander Voznitsyn into the Jewish faith,
subjecting him to the ritual of circumcision, and accordingly to apostate from Christianity
and blaspheme against the Church. The two men met in 1736 in Moscow, when Leibov

712 Ibid., Pg. 23; Ibid., Case 76, Pg. 75.

713 Ibid.; Ibid., Case 41, Pg. 12.

714 Ibid., Pg. 25; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 265 – Stats office. Book 1, Case

187. Pg. 217-220.

715 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 218.

716 Ibid.; Ibid.

717 Ibid.; Ibid.

718 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 219.

149

was temporarily residing in the German quarter of the city along with a few other Jews719.
Of Voznitsyn it is known that he enrolled at Moscow’s Navy academy in 1717 and
served with the Russian fleet until 1728, when he quit720. In 1732, Voznitsyn once again
entered the Navy service, working with various commissions, although the following
year he was discharged by the Admiralty-chamber for “not meeting the standards of the
service”721.
The proceedings of the investigation are contained in a record in the collection of the
Russian State Archive of Early Acts in Moscow entitled “The anagraph of a case, which
began on 4th of May 1737 based on a report of the retired captain-lieutenant Alexander
Voznitsyn’s wife Alena Ivanovna, who pleaded that her husband had apostated from
Orthodoxy into the Jewish law” 722. Although this document was compiled after the
execution of Voznitsyn and Leibov, this record is extremely valuable for the study of this
event, as it contains a list of practically all of the written materials of the investigation of
1737-1738. The document was drawn with legal punctuality: stated are the numbers of
sheets and pages of each of its components, noted are the authors of each of the
documents, and even the marginal notes made in the documents. Containing a total of 90
documents related to the case of Voznitsyn and Leibov, not only does the anagraph
thereby allow to comprehend the mechanism of the investigation in great detail, but also
uncovers all of its immediate participants – the private individuals involved such as the
witnesses and the accused, as well as the institutions – central and local.
On May 4th 1737, the Synodal Chancellery launched the investigation into
Voznitsyn’s apostasy to Judaism, prompted by the report of the fact by the captain’s wife
Alena Ivanovna. For making the “honorable report” that exposed her husband’s apostasy,
by a 1739 royal decree of Empress Anna Ioannovna issued after the execution,
Voznitsyn’s widow received the full ownership of the captain’s land and property, and on
top of that was awarded with “100 serfs”723. Alena Ivanovna’s report had an immediate
response – the same day the Synodal Chancellery issued an arrest warrant for Voznitsyn,
and the next day the captain was apprehended724. During his arrest, the first tangible

719 Markon I. (1913): “The Case Concerning the Burning at the Stake of Captain-Lieutenant

Alexander Voznitsyn for Apostasy into the Jewish Faith and Boruch Leib for Proselytism”. In
“Re-lived: A Journal Dedicated to the Social and Cultural History of Jews in Russia”.
Typography of Fleitman I., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 4. Appendix, Pg. 83.

720 Ibid., Pg. 85.

721 Ibid.

722 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 49; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg. 9.

723 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1737 to 1739 (1830). First

edition, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 10, No 7725.

724 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.

150

evidence of Voznitsyn’s conversion was discovered in his house – “a tattered note, pasted
on a sheet of paper, with Russian letters but Jewish syllables”725. The day after the
captain’s first interrogation, which took place on the 6th of May, a clerk of the Synod was
sent to Voznitsyn’s household “to search for a Jewish dress” 726 . Consequently,
Voznitsyn’s serfs were also questioned727. Meanwhile, the Synodal Chancellery was
accumulating objects attesting to the retired sailor’s guilt: on the 10th of May the clerk
presented a Jewish dress, a tattered book with the Psalms, and two letters written in
Hebrew from a Jew named Shmerl728. On May 11, the Synod issued a warrant for the
arrest of Shmerl and in another day’s time he was apprehended729. For the translation of
Shmerl’s letters found in Voznitsyn’s house, they Synod requested the services of a
baptized Jew named Vasili Alekseev, who was proficient in Hebrew 730 . At the
Chancellery, Shmerl was interrogated, and after having spent the night in detention, he
was released into the custody of his landlord, a Jew named Abraham Samoilov731.
On the 16th of May, the interrogation of Voznitsyn was resumed732. The captain’s
claims denying his conversion to Judaism were presented to his wife, with a demand to
provide additional support to her accusations. A week later, Alena Ivanovna presented the
investigators with a substantial piece of evidence – a letter addressed to her by Voznitsyn,
sent in December 1736 from Smolensk733, the region where his alleged Jewish patron
Boruch Leibov resided at the time. Consequently, Voznitsyn was interrogated once again
against the evidence presented by his wife734. In about a month’s time, Alena Ivanovna
submitted yet another report to the Synodal Chancellery, to which she attached Orthodox
icons, which Voznitsyn “tossed into the water”735. The results of the examination of the
icons were logged in the protocol of the investigation.

Appendix Pg. 55; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
19.

725 Ibid., Ibid.

726 Ibid. Pg. 56; Ibid., Pg. 22.

727 Ibid.; Ibid.

728 Ibid., Pg. 57; Ibid., Pg. 25.

729 Ibid., Pg. 58; Ibid., Pg. 26-27.

730 Ibid.

731 Ibid.

732 Ibid. Pg. 59; Ibid., Pg. 31.

733 Ibid.; Ibid.

734 Ibid.; Ibid.

735 Ibid., Pg. 60; Ibid., Pg. 32.

151

 In June 1737, Moscow’s Central Court got involved in the case: according to its
report, Alexander Voznitsyn was being sued by the state councilor Brylkin, who claimed
that the captain owed him money, and Voznitsyn was requested to appear in court736.
However, the Synodal Chancellery responded to the Court that a trial on Voznitsyn on
that matter was “not possible” at this stage of the investigation of his apostasy737.
Concurrently, the Chancellery expanded the list of witnesses to be questioned regarding
the case. Within a few weeks, a number of priests from Moscow and Smolensk, as well
as the elders of the regions in Russia where Voznitsyn had served were questioned on the
captain’s religious convictions and his association with Boruch Leibov and other Jews738.
The archdeacon of the Kremlin’s Annunciation Cathedral Evpal was even questioned
about Voznitsyn’s serf Andrei Konstantinov, who was a parishioner at his
congregation739. In light of a new round of allegations by Voznitsyn’s wife, who reported
to the Chancellery claiming that her husband refused to eat pork, the captain was once
again interrogated740. Consequently, the Chancellery submitted a report to the Holy
Synod, telling of the results of the initial stage of the investigation741.
Having received the report from the Chancellery, on the 12th of July 1737 the
Synod issued an edict ordering for Voznitsyn to be incarcerated, shackled and kept
isolated742. This edict attests to the exceptional importance that the authorities placed on
the case. Two days later, when Voznitsyn was placed in shackles, the soldiers on guard of
the prison were forced to sign a document, which stated that they were to keep the
apostate separately from the other prisoners, as was stipulated in the Synodal edict743.
Moreover, the copyists of the Synodal Chancellery also signed a document, commanding
them to keep the soldiers on guard in check, in order to make sure that the edict was
thoroughly implemented 744. Hence, there was a clearly defined chain of command,
overseeing this ‘state criminal’. Against this background, the questioning of the various
witnesses pertaining to the case continued, including the merchants, serfs and farmers
that Voznitsyn had been in contact with over the previous few years745.


736 Ibid., Pg. 57; Ibid., Pg. 25.

737 Ibid.; Ibid.

738 Ibid., Pg. 61; Ibid., Pg. 32.

739 Ibid.; Ibid.

740 Ibid., Pg. 62; Ibid., Pg. 45.

741 Ibid., Pg. 63; Ibid., Pg. 46.

742 Ibid.; Ibid.

743 Ibid.; Ibid.

744 Ibid.; Ibid.

745 Ibid., Pg. 63-65; Ibid., Pg. 46-48.

152

 About two months after the launch of the investigation, the authorities directed
their attention to the persona of the Smolensk Jewish tax-farmer Boruch Leibov. As
followed from a Synodal Chancellery record dated July 18th, 1737, the Holy Synod
ordered the Smolensk governor’s office to apprehend “the Jew Boruch” and to send him
to Moscow, which took about two weeks746. Along with Leibov in person, to Moscow
were sent various books and documents belonging to the tax-farmer, as well as a copy of
the Smolensk governor’s office record of the issue to Voznitsyn a “passport for travel to
Poland”747. The same day, a clerk at the Synodal Chancellery made a list with all of
Leibov’s possessions that were delivered to Moscow748, and issued an order to the soldier
guards specifying the terms of Leibov’s incarceration: like Voznitsyn, he was to be kept
in isolation749. On the 5th of August began the interrogation of the Jewish tax-farmer,
which produced a lengthy report signed “from his hand” in Hebrew750.
The interrogations of the principal figurant Alexander Voznitsyn continued over
the span of the next few months: the reports with their proceedings were produced on
August 24th751, and on October 5th of 1737752. During this time, on the 2nd of September a
report was received by the Synodal Chancellery from archbishop Aaron of the Solovetsky
monastery in Archangelsk, a city on the White Sea where Voznitsyn had done navy
service, in which the archbishop attested to Voznistsyn’s “lack of faith”753. The testimony
of archbishop Aaron was particularly important, as from the 16th century the Solovetsky
monastery, the greatest citadel of Orthodoxy in the Russian north, was the place of the
imprisonment of the clergy and nobility found guilty of religious and political crimes754.
Concurrently, the Chancellery requested the Smolensk governor’s office to send to
Moscow the extracts from the investigation that had been conducted on “the enticement
of Christians to Judaism” in the town of Zverovichi by Boruch Leibov755. Once the

746 Ibid., Pg. 65; Ibid., Pg. 48.

747 Ibid.; Ibid.

748 Ibid.; Ibid.

749 Ibid.; Ibid.

750 Ibid,. Ibid.

751 Ibid., Pg. 66; Ibid., Pg. 49.

752 Ibid., Pg. 67; Ibid., Pg. 50

753 Ibid.; Ibid.

754 Frumenkov G. (1968): “The Inmates of the Solovetsky Monastery”. North-West publishing,

Archangelsk. Vol. 2, Pg. 21-22.

755 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.

153

record from Smolensk was received, the investigation took a few months break for the
analysis of all of the documents and data. The activity was resumed on December 27,
when Voznitsyn’s serf Andrei Konstantinov was questioned once again, this time on a
rather intimate matter – his knowledge of the “secret circumcision” of his master756.
In January 1738, the Synodal Chancellery requested information on Alexander
Voznitsyn from the Holy Consistory of Moscow, an ecclesiastical institution responsible
for overseeing worship procedures and the identification of the violation thereof757. The
reply indicated that as far it was known to them, no violation of worship had been noted
in relation to the retired captain-lieutenant in question758. About a month later, the
Chancellery received an edict from the Holy Synod, ordering to transfer the “convicts
Voznitsyn and Leibov” to the authority of the general-adjutant of Her Imperial Majesty
and ober-hofmeister Count Simon Andreevich Saltykov759, a blood relative of Empress
Anna Ioannovna who had the jurisdiction over the Office of Secret Investigations and
factually acted as her representative in Moscow760. The following day, the Synodal
Chancellery reported to the Holy Synod of the transfer of Voznitsyn and Leibov to the
central Office of Secret Investigations in Moscow761.
All of the documents and materials of the investigation were transferred to the
Office of Secret Investigations, and the Voznitsyn-Leibov case was assigned personally
to the head of Moscow’s branch of the institution, general-adjutant Count Andrei
Ivanovich Ushakov. According to his contemporaries, Count Ushakov had resounding
inquisitorial inclinations; Bantysh-Manenskyi wrote of him: “As the head of the Office of
Secret Investigations, Ushakov directed the most severe torture practices, and had an

Appendix Pg. 67; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
79.

756 Ibid.; Ibid.

757 Olevskaya V. (2009): “On the Question of the Formation of the Diocesan Administration in

Moscow in the Early Synodal Period”. Bulletin of the Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Vol.
11. Pg. 10.

758 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 69; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
88.

759 Ibid., Pg. 70; Ibid., Pg. 91.

760 Solovev S. (2002): “History of Russia From the Ancient Times // Rule of Empress Anna

Ioannovna”. AST Folio publishing, Moscow. Vol. 20, Pg. 137.

761 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 69; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
88.

154

outstanding ability for ferreting out the mindset of his interlocutors”762. Count Ushakov
had a substantial investigative experience, starting his career as a crime detective in 1709
and making his way up to the position of the country’s head inquisitor, which he held
until his death. The ‘invincible’ general was one of Anna’s most trusted patricians, and
regularly reported to her about the most important investigations under his jurisdiction.
Bantysh-Manenskyi noted that the Empress actively influenced the course of the
investigations, giving Ushakov instructions and making adjustments to the procedures.
Moreover, Anna had the last word in all final decisions and sentencing, with her
recommendations apparently often being harsher than that of count Ushakov and the
Cabinet of Ministers763.
During the reign of Empress Anna Ioannovna, the Office of Secret Investigations
was engaged in the investigations of the most heinous crimes against the state:
assassination attempts and hazards to the health of the monarch; treason, plots against the
authorities and coup attempts; defamation of the Empress’s honor and slander against the
actions and intentions of the authorities; false accusations, deviations from the oath of
allegiance to the Empress, as well as other serious political crimes as determined by the
“word of the sovereign”764. Guarded around-the-clock by soldiers, the building in which
this penal institution was located also served as a penitentiary for political prisoners,
while the interrogators, judges and executioners worked in the main complex of the
building. The principal methods employed by the institution were interrogations and
torture, however the arrested noblemen were normally given a more temperate
treatment 765 , as was in the case of the captain-lieutenant in retirement Alexander
Voznitsyn. Despite the cruel methods employed in the course of the investigations and
the severity of the judicial sentencing, during the reign of Anna Ioannovna relatively few
death sentences were handed out – a few dozen, with all of them having been approved
by the Empress766. More often than not, the executions were implemented publicly and
carried a distinctive educative character – so as to deter others from committing such
crimes. The locations for the executions were chosen amongst muddy wastelands or
ruins. Although beheading (by the use of a sword or an axe) is mentioned most frequently
in the materials of the Office of Secret investigation as the method of execution, other,
more barbaric methods were also applied: hanging (by the neck, legs, or rib),

762 Bantysh-Kamenskiy (1847): “Dictionary of Memorable Individuals of the Russian Land”.

Typography of Avgust Simon, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 3, pg. 445.

763 Ibid.

764 Volkov L. (1999): “The Office of Secret Investigations in Moscow//Statehood in Russia (End

of 15th Century-February 1917): Vocabulary-Directory”. Home of Books Publishing, Moscow.

Book 2, Pg. 233-234.

765 Ibid., Pg. 406.

766 Anisimov E. (1994): “Russia Without Peter”. Lenizdat publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg.

344.

155

impalement, quartering, breaking on the wheel, and burning alive, etc.767. The death
sentence by burning was predominantly handed out for the crimes pertaining to religion,
namely to heretics, apostates, blasphemers, witches and sorcerers768. Nonetheless, the
group burning of Boruch Leibov and Alexander Voznitsyn, a nobleman, was
unprecedented in the 18th century, and their religious deviations without a doubt were
considered by the authorities to have been severe crimes against the State.
On the 14th of March 1738, the Holy Synod issued an edit to the Synodal
Chancellery ordering the arrest of Leibov’s son-in-law Shmerl and Voznitsyn’s head serf
Alexander Konstantinov769. Both men were pronounced “to have been involved” in the
case of Voznitsyn’s conversion to Judaism: the investigation showed that Shmerl and
Konstantinov accompanied Voznitsyn and Leibov to Poland, where the captain was
circumcised in accordance with the Jewish law. On March 19th, the Chancellery held a
meeting to discuss the status of the men’s capture, during which a report compiled by a
copyist of the Chancellery was examined. The copyist was sent along with soldiers to the
German quarter, a neighborhood in Moscow reserved for foreigners, to search for Shmerl
and Konstantinov770. Upon visiting the house where Shmerl resided along with two other
Jews, the copyist found out from the landlord that about a week earlier, the three men
departed to Saint Petersburg to their owner, a banker and financial advisor at the Royal
court Levi Lipman. Although Konstantinov also did not turn up at Voznitsyn’s residence
in the German quarter, another one of Voznitsyn’s servants was taken in for questioning
and stated that Konstantinov was absent from Moscow, for he was held under guard at
the Kashirskaya Provincial Office due to his master’s nonpayment of the capitation fees
for his estates in the town of Kashir. Accordingly, on the 20th of March the Synodal
Chancellery sent soldiers to Kashir, along with the fees that Voznitsyn owed to the local
treasury, with the instructions to deliver Konstantinov to Moscow. A highly ranking
bishop Venyamin of the Holy Synod, involved in the investigation of the Voznitsyn-
Leibov case, signed the order771.
Meanwhile, the Office of Secret Investigations was trying to expedite the case, and
on the 28th of March sent a letter to the Synodal Chancellery with a request to have
Shmerl and Konstantinov detained immediately, and to have the two men transferred

767 Volkov L. (1999): “The Office of Secret Investigations in Moscow//Statehood in Russia (End

of 15th Century-February 1917): Vocabulary-Directory”. Home of Books Publishing, Moscow.

Book 2, Pg. 406.

768 Ibid.

769 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 69-70; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
88-89.

770 Ibid., Pg. 70; Ibid., Pg. 89.

771 Ibid.; Ibid.

156

under their jurisdiction right away772. The Synodal Chancellery replied the very next day,
stating that Konstantinov had been located in Kashir and that soldiers had been sent to
deliver him to Moscow, while Shmerl fled to Saint Petersburg with two other Jews, and
the measures for their detention were being undertaken773. Accordingly, on the 31st of
March Konstantinov was delivered to Moscow and immediately sent to the Office of
Secret Investigations, of which the Synodal Chancellery reported to the Holy Synod on
April 4th774. In turn, Shmerl was also detained at some point before April 20th, as on that
day he was sent to face the civil court along with Voznitsyn and Leibov775.
As stated in the reports of both the Chancellery of Justice and the Holy Synod to the
Empress regarding the case of Voznitsyn and Leibov, the retired captain was incarcerated
at the Office of Secret Investigations on March 22, 1738, where he admitted, having been
hung upside down, to “keeping the Jewish law”, blaspheming against Christianity and to
his circumcision, which was done in at the Polish town Dubrovna at the house of Boruch
Leibov’s son Meir776. During Leibov’s interrogation, the Jewish tax-farmer recounted
that at Voznitsyn’s will, he brought to him a Dubrowna Rabbi who then performed the
circumcision ritual on the captain for a fee 777 . While Voznitsyn’s apostasy clearly
violated “the rules of the Canons of the Apostles”, the “spiritual punishment” that the
canonical rule stipulated, as stated in the report of the Holy Synod to the Empress, was
deemed to be insufficient for the severity of the captain’s crime. Accordingly, the report
concluded that Voznitsyn’s crime fell under the first paragraph of the first clause of the
first section of the Council Code of 1649, which stipulated: “If a person of another faith,
which ever that faith may be, or a Russian person, blasphemes against God and our savior
Jesus Christ, or against Our Lady the Virgin Mary who gave birth to him, or against the
Honest Cross, or against his Holy Saints, an investigation against this person must be
launched promptly. If the investigation exposes the blasphemer, he is to be executed by
burning”778. In turn, the crime prescribed to Boruch Leibov fell under the 24th clause of
the 22nd chapter of the Council Code: “If an infidel successfully conveys his infidel faith
onto a Russian person by any means, forcefully or by deceit, and converts a Russian
person into his infidel faith, this infidel is to be found immediately and to be executed by
the means of burning without any mercy”779.

772 Ibid., Pg. 71; Ibid., Pg. 90.

773 Ibid., Pg. 72-73; Ibid., Pg. 90-91.

774 Ibid., Pg. 73; Ibid., Pg. 91.

775 Ibid., Pg. 74; Ibid., Pg. 92.

776 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1737 to 1739 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 10, Pg. 557-559.

777 Ibid.

778 Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”.

Institute of History of USSR, Leningrad. Pg. 15.

779 Ibid., Pg. 37.

157

 Seeing in this case a perceptible danger for the Church, Empress Anna Ioannovna
ordered for both of the detainees, along with “another Jew Shmerl, Boruch’s son-in-law”,
to be transferred from the Office of Secret Investigations to the Senate on April 20, 1738
“to be tried at the civil court”780. The next day, the Senate issued a resolution for the three
men, along with the materials of the investigation, to be sent to the Chancellery of
Justice, which was assigned to “examine and review the case according to the laws and
statutes, sign the sentence and submit it to the Senate for approbation”781. A week later,
according to a resolution of the Senate, the original materials of the following cases
against Boruch Leibov were to be sent to the Chancellery of Justice: the case of the
murder of priest Avrami of Zverovichi village in the Smolensk region by the Jewish tax-
farmer, the case of Boruch Leibov’s “proselytization of Judaism, along with other Jews,
amongst the common people of Smolensk and of building a Jewish school”, as well as the
case of “the torment of a Russian peasant girl from the Smolensk region who was at his
service” – in which Leibov was accused of ritual torture of his Orthodox servant with the
purpose of extracting blood782.
The Chancellery of Justice was required to “immediately conclude the
investigation” of these cases, and taking into consideration the principal case of “the
conversion of Voznitsyn from Orthodoxy to Judaism, his circumcision, and blasphemy”,
to issue a sentence. However on the 2nd of May, the Chancellery reported to the Senate
that it could not issue or sign any sentences, as according to the stipulations of the 1649
Council Code, “seeking out the sheer truth requires a solid investigation”, and as far as
the Chancellery was concerned, in all of the given cases proper investigations had not
been conducted, while the confessions of the accused were obtained under torture and
hence did not serve as the unquestionable evidence of their guilt783. However, as early as
the 10th of May, count Ushakov announced in the Senate the Empress’s determination for
a prompt decision to be made on the Voznitsyn case784. In response to Ushakov’s
assertions that “Voznitsyn and Leibov must be sentenced without any further
investigation” and that “they deserve to be brutally executed”, the Senators carefully
objected, making the following statement: “Would not a further investigation on this
Boruch expose his collaborators on converting Christians from the Greek faith into the
Jewish law and other deeds harmful for the Eastern Church? While if they are to be
executed without further inquiry into their proselytizing activity, then others who may be

780 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 25; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1183. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
111.

781 Ibid., Pg. 26; Ibid.

782 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 112.

783 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 121.

784 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 125.

158

guilty of committing such crimes will go unpunished”785. Nonetheless, not daring to
contradict the will of the Monarch and the influential count Ushakov, a few days later the
Senate issued another edict, repeatedly ordering the Chancellery of Justice to “sign the
sentence” on Voznitsyn, Leibov and Shmerl “without any further questioning or
investigating, as their guilt had been proven sufficiently”786. This act clearly pointed to
the determination and the dedication of the authorities to this case, and this time around,
the Chancellery officials were also tractable with the will of the Sovereign: both
Alexander Voznitsyn and Boruch Leibov were found guilty of violating the various
sections of the Council Code of 1649, and sentenced accordingly – “death by burning”787.
The third person held under arrest, “the Jew Shmerl”, was to be released, as no criminal
activity had been proven on his part in the given case.
The bureaucratic process of the sentencing did not end there: having received the
signed sentence from the Chancellery of Justice, the Senate predictably upheld the
Chancellery’s decision, and submitted a report with the sentence verdict to the Empress
for her approval, as per the required protocol. On July 3, 1738, Anna Ioannovna issued
the following resolution: “Voznitsyn’s blasphemy against our Savior Christ, the rejection
of the true Christian law and the adoption of the Jewish faith, and his conversion to
Judaism by the Jew Boruch Leibov by the use of deceit, to which both have admitted, no
further investigation is necessary. And so that these ungodly acts do not continue, and
those like the blasphemer Voznitsyn and the proselytizer Boruch would not dare to tempt
others – by the authority of the State, both men are to be executed by burning, so that
ignorant and impious people would be deterred from apostating from the Christian law,
and proselytizers such as Boruch would not dare to convert others from the Christian law
to their laws; while the Jew Shmerl is to be freed, if he is not guilty in any way in the
given case788.
On the 15th of July 1738, Alexander Voznitsyn and Boruch Leibov were publicly
executed by burning on the Admiralteyski Island in Saint Petersburg. Due to the efforts
of Moscow’s Synodal Chancellery, however, the investigation into the case did not
conclude with the punishment of the religious criminals. A few months after the
implementation of the Empress’s order to brutally execute the two men in a public auto-
da-fe, the cause of the renewed investigation became the fate of the personal items that
belonged to the condemned, which remained at the Synodal Chancellery after their
deaths. A report written by a senior clerk, read at the Chancellery’s meeting on
September 6th, listed these items: “Belonging to Alexander Voznitsyn – a blue amulet
made from Chinese material (in Russian "повраска синяя китайческая"), a Psalter with
handwritten notes, a printed Bible in German; belonging to the Jew Boruch – three books
in the Jewish print, a quadrangular Talas, Jewish prayer belts, a knife in a case, a pocket

785 Ibid., Pg. 27; Ibid., Pg. 128.

786 Ibid.; Ibid., Pg. 131.

787 Ibid., Pg. 28; Ibid., Pg. 133-135.

788 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1737 to 1739 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 10, Pg. 560.

159

size copper inkwell”789. The clerk requested from the Chancellery directorate for a
decision to be made on what was to be done with these objects. Only seven weeks later,
on the 25th of October, a request for the resolution of the given matter was sent to the
Holy Synod, where it was to be decided “how these items and books were to be
utilized”790. Peculiarly, in the text of the given protocol, of Voznitsyn and Leibov it was
stated that “the Moscow Synodal Chancellery does not have information on what was
done with the convicted”, although the public execution of the two men happened over
four months prior.
The Most Holy Governing Synod reacted on the 2nd of December 1738, ordering
the Synodal Chancellery to transfer Voznitsyn’s and Leibov’s personal items to the
Chancellery of Justice in Saint Petersburg791. According to the protocol of the Synodal
Chancellery, however, the items were to be transferred to the Moscow office of the
Chancellery of Justice and not to the headquarters in Saint Petersburg792, likely due to the
convenience of proximity. Yet, in the sluggish bureaucratic machine, with its red tape and
confusion, the time for the implementation of orders increased drastically, when the
matter was not related personally to State criminals. Accordingly, only a year and a half
later, on May 31, 1740 the Synodal Chancellery sent the edict to the office of the
Moscow office of the Chancellery of Justice 793 . However, the Moscow office
categorically refused to receive the belongings of the executed heretics, as according to
the order of the Holy Synod, the items were to be transferred specifically to the
Chancellery of Justice headquarters in Saint Petersburg794. The Holy Synod resolved the
issue rather quickly: since the Chancellery of Justice refused to receive the items, it was
ordered for Voznitsyn’s Psalter to be stored at the Synodal sacristy; for his Bible in
German and Leibov’s three books in “Jewish print” to be given over to the library of
Moscow’s Synodal typography; for Voznitsyn’s “blue amulet made from Chinese
material”, and Leibov’s “quadrangular Talas” and “Jewish prayer belts” to be burnt in the
presence of the parliamentarians of the Synodal Chancellery who were also “members of
the clergy” and for the ashes to be scattered; while for the rest of the items, unrelated to
the Jewish religious rites – namely Leibov’s knife and copper inkwell – it was decided to

789 Feldman D. (2005): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the

Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740”. Parallels, No. 6-7, Moscow.
Appendix Pg. 76-77; The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 1181. Book 1, case 86. Pg.
28.

790 Ibid., Pg. 77; Ibid., Pg. 29.

791 Ibid., Pg. 79; Ibid., Pg. 31.

792 Ibid., Pg. 80; Ibid., Pg. 32

793 Ibid., Pg. 81; Ibid., Pg. 34.

794 Ibid., Pg. 82; Ibid., Pg. 35.

160

leave them at the Chancellery: for the inkwell to be given to the copyist “for writing”,
and the knife – to the Chancellery’s boiler-man795.
It is clear that Leibov’s “quadrangular Talas” mentioned in the documents
referred to a traditional Jewish prayer shawl, also called a ‘Tallit’, worn by men. The
“prayer belts” most certainly referred to a ‘Tefillin’, a set of two leather boxes containing
the scrolls of parchment inscribed with the verses from the books of Exodus and
Deuteronomy, which symbolize the connection between the physical body and the
spiritual self, and are worn by men during weekday morning prayers. As for the
description of the destroyed item that belonged to Voznitsyn, the word “повраз” has two
meanings in the Russian language: 1) a membrane gland liver, used as a sacrifice in
ancient Judea, and 2) a pole, on which the table of the oblation was carried796. The amulet
was said to be made from “Chinese material”, which meant cotton. For the Synodal
authorities, all of these objects were associated with a conflicting faith, therefore it is not
surprising that it was decided to have them burned, just as it was done with their owners.
This act of the extermination of ‘foul’ infidel property can be considered in terms of the
phenomenon, which was characteristic of the Medieval and Early Modern culture of the
Russian Orthodox Church – for instance, Jewish ritualistic objects were destroyed en
masse during the 1648 – 1656 Cossack uprising in Ukraine and Belarus. On the other
hand, the transfer of Voznitsyn’s German Bible and Psalter, as well as Leibov’s books “in
Jewish print” to the Synodal library for practical usage signified that printed material,
including Jewish, apparently did not pose a danger for the Church authorities.
Justifiably, the act of the conversion to Judaism of a Russian nobleman by the
efforts of a prominent figure of the Jewish community could not have been perceived by
the Russian Church and State authorities as anything less than disturbing. Reminiscent of
the Judaizer heresy that beleaguered Moscow and Novgorod in the 15th-16th centuries, the
decisive actions taken by the Empress and her companions to punish the “apostate
Voznitsyn” and the “proselytizer Leibov” publicly by the cruelest means possible,
demonstrated that the anxieties of Judaization remained rampant in Imperial Russia.
Without a doubt, the repeated decrees of 1740797 and 1742798 banishing the Jews from the
Russian Empire, except for those “who wished to accept the Christian faith of the Greek
rite”, were undertaken in light of the tangible threat of proselytism, stemming from the
Jewish communities in the west of the Empire, of which the Voznitsyn-Leibov case
connoted for the authorities. Despite the stratagem of the Jewish population’s expulsion
being economically maleficent for Ukraine and Belarus, as per the result of the
communities’ banishment over the previous decades 799 , the religious predisposition

795 Ibid.; Ibid.

796 Yandex dictionary: http://slovari.yandex.ru

797 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1740 to 1743 (1830). First

edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 11, No 8169.

798 Ibid., No 8673.

799 Within a year from the implementation of the royal edict ordering for the banishment of

the Jews from Ukraine in 1728, Hetman of Left-Bank Ukraine Daniil Apostol appealed to

161

prevailed over pragmatic considerations when a threat to the Orthodox faith emerged,
even through an isolated incident.

Investigation of the Judaizer Sect in Kazan 1748-1749

The question of heretical movements practicing Judaism or professing elements of

the Jewish law, such as the “Judaizers” and the “Sabbatarians”, sprung up periodically in
the markedly Christian Orthodox Russian state throughout the 15th-19th centuries. This
period of Russian history saw a number of judicial processes aimed at persecuting Jewish
individuals for proselytizing their faith and Russians for apostating from Orthodoxy. In
1748, when the gruesome conclusion of the Voznitsyn-Leibov case was still fresh in the
public consciousness, yet another investigation aimed at exposing an alleged Judaizing
sect was launched in the city of Kazan. Without a doubt, the echoes of the preceding
high-profile investigation, which exposed a retired Navy captain’s apostasy to Judaism,
were manifested in the course of the judicial proceedings ten years later.
The documents pertaining to the case of the Kazan Judaizers were initially archived
at the Secret Expedition of the first department of the Governing Senate in Saint
Petersburg, and are currently stored at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts in
Moscow800. As follows, the investigation was launched in February 1748 based on the
testimony of Timofei Nesterov, a man convicted for tax evasion, to the Kazan Provincial
Office, who during questioning made a claim that the ratmann of the Kazan Magistrate
Grigory Kaftannikov and a retired soldier of the Kazan Admiralty Makar Sergeev with
their wives “practiced the Jewish law in secret”. Nesterov claimed that the men were
circumcised, kept Jewish religious literature in their homes and enticed Christians to
Judaism, including his acquaintance Nikita Ivanov with his wife and two sons, and
himself801. The declarant asserted that while he was initially attracted to their teachings,
he rejected their “heresy” and “remained in the Christian law”. Ivanov and family,
however, were successfully lured into the Judaizing circle by the efforts of the mentioned
individuals. Appropriately, the Kazan Provincial Office immediately sent a report based
on Nesterov’s testimony to the Chancellery of the Governing Senate in Moscow802. The
highest administrative body of the Russian government reacted with a predictable

Saint Petersburg to allow Jewish merchants to trade fairs in Little Russia on par with other
foreigners. In The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1728 to 1732
(1830). First edition. Saint Petersburg. Vol. 8, Pg. 14.

800 The archival documents pertaining to the case were published in Feldman D. (1999):

“The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications of the Hebrew
University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 296-323.

801 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 306-307;
The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”. Document 1, Pg. 1-2.

802 Ibid.; Ibid.

162

perseverance: it ordered to apprehend the 8 offenders immediately (each listed by name)
and have them delivered to Moscow “shackled and guarded by solders”, which was
implemented a few weeks later803. It is interesting to note that Kaftannikov, far from a
low ranking official of the town’s administration was being charged with apostasy -
according to the regulations of the Kazan magistrate, the ratmann was elected from the
city’s oldest families804.
Once the suspected apostates were delivered to Moscow, the Chancellery
physician inspected the men of the group, in order to determine whether they were
circumcised. The result of the inspection was reported as negative805. Following the
examination of the report, the Senate determined that further inquiry into the case was
required, because “the detainees had not been cross examined on the nature of the
charges and the relationship to each other”806. Moreover, missing was the information
from the local priests on whether the Kaftannikov and Sergeev families had conducted
the “Communion of the Holy Mysteries and confessions during all the years”807. Hence,
the Senate ruled to have the accused sent back to the authority of the Kazan Provincial
Office, along with the documented materials of the investigation, in order to have the
case investigated further, conjointly with “a member of the clergy”808. As follows, for a
definite resolution to the cases involving apostasy from Christianity, the participation of
the representatives from the Russian Orthodox Church was mandatory.
Before the transfer of the suspected apostates back to Kazan had been
implemented, in March 1748 the Senate reported on the development of the investigation
to the Most Holy Governing Synod809. The report requested of the Synod to issue an edict
to the bishop of Kazan, requiring the appointment to the case of a “spiritual persona”, or a
clergy member. From the consequent report of the Chancellery notifying the Senate of
the transfer of Kaftannikov and Sergeev families to Kazan, it becomes known that a
number of Moscow’s governmental institutions had been consigned to the case: the
Military Chancellery was required to send 12 soldiers under the command of a
“renowned officer”, who was to be instructed by the Senate Chancellery on the proper
conduct of the conservation of prisoners on the road; the Chamber of Agronomy was to

803 Ibid., Pg. 208; Ibid., Document 2, Pg. 1.

804 Soloviev S. (1873): “The History of Russia from the Ancient Times”. Public Benefit
Fellowship, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 16, Pg.

805 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 306-307;
The Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”. Document 3, Pg. 1-2.

806 Ibid.; Ibid.

807 Ibid.; Ibid.

808 Ibid.; Ibid.

809 Ibid. Pg. 306; Ibid., Document 3, Pg. 1.

163

provide 8 horses for the transfer; the Office of the Treasury was to allocate the funds for
the travel supplies for the 6 prisoners, while the remaining supplies were to be paid by
ratmann Kaftannikov810. In this document, the profession of Timofei Nesterov is revealed
– he was a merchant, engaged in salt trade. Likewise, the professions of the accused were
also stated: the retired soldier Sergeev was engaged in carpentry, while ratmann
Kaftannikov also owned a clothing shop in the center of Kazan811.
The next stage of the investigation lasted from April 1748 to January 1749, and was
concluded by a detailed report by the Kazan Provincial Office to the Chancellery of the
Governing Senate in Moscow, written by abbot Ioannikii, whom the Diocese of Kazan
assigned to lead the investigation812. The lengthy duration indicates the rigor applied to
the investigative activities, involving the participation of the numerous clergymen of
various posts and ranks. The report opens by stating the results of the search for “Jewish
literature” – in the homes of Kaftannikov, Sergeev and Ivanov such literature was not
discovered. The inspection of the men by a member of the clergy, conducted to determine
whether they were circumcised “in accordance with the Jewish law”, produced the same
result as the inspection of the physician in Moscow – negative. Furthermore, during the
cross-examinations, none of the suspected apostates admitted to having practiced
Judaism, keeping Jewish literature or luring Christians to Judaism. The three men, their
wives and children did admit to knowing each other and to have visited each other’s
homes, yet claimed to have nothing to do with Judaism. Moreover, each of the accused
professed to be law abiding Christians and swore to have conducted the Communion of
the Holy Mysteries and the confessions with their priests, stating the churches they
visited and the names of their priests as proof. Consequently, all of the named priests of
the Kazan churches did in fact confirm the truthfulness of these statements813.
In respect of the findings, Timofei Nesterov was questioned by abbot Ioannikii in
order to determine how, when and from whom did he find out that Kaftannikov and the
group kept the Jewish law. Nesterov declared that three years had passed since he visited
Ivanov’s home, who in front of his wife and two children conveyed to him that ratmann
Kaftannikov and soldier Sergeev, along with their wives and children, practiced the
Jewish law814. For the purpose of “knowledge”, Nesterov agreed to visit the homes of
Kaftannikov and Sergeev, both of whom “revered the Jewish law over the Christian law”
and taught him how to read a Hebrew prayer. Kaftannikov wrote down the prayer in
Russian letters and gave it to Nesterov, and although he could not produce this paper to
the examiner because “he lost it”, Nesterov recounted the prayer form memory: “Barug,
ata, adanai, elyugenu, melon, allan, asher, kidashenu, bemits, vitiv, vedevatu, at”. It must
be said that the given passage, stated by Nesterov, does in fact entail the beginning of a

810 Ibid., Pg. 311; Ibid., Document 4, Pg. 1-2.

811 Ibid; Ibid.

812 Ibid., Pg 313; Ibid., Document 6.

813 Ibid., Pg. 314-315; Ibid., Pg. 2-5.

814 Ibid., Pg. 315; Ibid., Pg. 3.

164

Jewish prayer, with the exception of some of the words being wrong or incomplete. The
segment of the prayer translates to English in the following manner: “Blessed are you,
Lord, our God, the king of the universe, who hallows us through the commandments and
commands us…”815. Nonetheless, Nesterov maintained that he rejected the heretical
teachings of Kaftannikov and Sergeev and remained a practicing Christian. To the
question of why he did not report on the Judaizers for so long (3 years), Nesterov replied
that after his meeting with them, he left to the Ural Mountains for business to purchase
salt, where he was arrested for tax evasion and brought back to Kazan. Finally, Nesterov
was asked if he could provide any additional evidence to his claims, to which he replied
that he could not, for when Kaftannikov and Sergeev taught him the Jewish law and
compelled him to get circumcised just as they were, no witnesses were present816.
In another round of the interrogation of the accused by abbot Ioannikii, each of the
three men repeatedly swore against Nesterov’s allegations, stating that they do not keep
the Jewish law, nor did they try to convey it onto Nesterov. According to Kaftannikov,
Sergeev and Ivanov, Nesterov’s claims against them were “unjustified slander”.
Moreover, they stated unanimously that Nesterov had never been a guest in their homes.
Nonetheless, Nesterov firmly maintained his position, claiming in response that Ivanov
did in fact bring him to Sergeev’s home for instruction in the Jewish law, and that
Kaftannikov had kept the Jewish law for at least the past three years817.
Upon the consideration of the questioning versus the evidence unraveled by the
investigation, abbot Ioannikii’s found Nesterov’s accusations of Kaftannikov, Sergeev
and Ivanov families of the apostasy from Christianity and Judaic practice to be “false and
dark slander”818. Accordingly, the Kazan Provincial Office dropped all of the charges
against the wrongfully accused, ordered for their immediate release and permitted
Kaftannikov to retain his position as the ratmann of the Kazan magistrate. Abbot
Ioannikii went so far as to suggest that Nesterov slandered against Kaftannikov out of
“spite” for being on the board of the magistrate, the institution that charged him with tax
evasion. By accusing Kaftannikov of apostasy, Ioannikii continued, Nesterov tried to
“ruin” the ratmann, hoping that by doing so, the tax evasion charges brought against him
would be dropped and he would be released from custody. The slander against Sergeev
and Ivanov was avowed out of “some kind of a grudge”819.

815 Washofsky M. (2001): “Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice”.
University of American Hebrew Congregations publishing, New York. Revised Ed., Pg. 215.

816 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 316; The
Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”. Document 6, Pg. 4.

817 Ibid.; Ibid.

818 Ibid., Pg. 317; Ibid., Pg. 5.

819 Ibid., Pg. 319; Ibid., Pg. 7.

165

 Reasoning on the sort of punishment Nesterov deserved to receive for making the
false accusations, abbot Ioannikii cited a number of edicts, which in his opinion pertained
to the case. Firstly, the abbot referred to the Council Code of 1649, the first section of
which stipulated for the death by the means of burning to anyone who blasphemes against
Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or the Saints820 – for being found guilty of committing
these crimes, the retired navy captain Alexander Voznitsyn was burned at the stake in
Saint Petersburg ten years earlier. Ioannikii referred to this law as a prerequisite to his
consequent citation of chapter 7, section 31 of the Council Code, which stipulated: “If
someone purposely slanders against another person and it is proven that the person
slandered against is innocent, the informer is to receive the same kind of punishment that
the accused would have received if their guilt would have been proven821. Furthermore,
the abbot continued, chapter 22, section 13 of the Code stated: “Those thieves that
conspire malicious affairs in order to deceive, are to be punished by execution”822.
Another citation referenced a law enacted by Peter the Great, which stipulated for the
death sentence for the offenders, who upon being wrongfully convicted, informed on
others with the intention of having the charges brought against them dropped823. Finally,
Nesterov’s guilt was aggravated by the fact that he did not report of the apostasy of the
alleged Judaizers for 3 years, while according to the law entitled “On the Great Deeds”,
treason (including religious) was to be reported within 3 days from the time of its
discovery824.
Based on the jurisdiction cited above, the Kazan Provincial Office determined the
following sentence for Timofei Nesterov: for the “false accusations” – punishment by
whipping; for slandering against the Kazan citizens on their alleged Judaizing – death by
burning825, for if Kaftannikov and the group were found guilty, they would have received
the same kind of punishment. The verdict was sent to the Senate in Moscow for its

820 Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”.
Institute of History of USSR, Leningrad. Pg. 15.

821 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 318; The
Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”. Document 6, Pg. 6.

822 Ibid.

823 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1723 to 1727 (1830). First

edition, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7, No 4434.

824 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1728 to 1732 (1830). First

edition, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 8, No 5528.

825 Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. Publications

of the Hebrew University: History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 318; The
Russian State Archive of Early Acts. Fund 248, Anagraph 113, Case 169: “Of the Sect of
Judaizers in Kazan”. Document 6, Pg. 6.

166

approval, as the implementation of the punishment required the signature of the Empress.
Until then, Nesterov was to remain in the custody of the Kazan magistrate.
Whether or not Nesterov was finally executed is unknown. The only other
document at the Russian State Archive of Early Acts pertaining to the case is an
instruction sent by the Senate to its chancellery on October 6, 1749 requesting to locate
and archive the materials of the investigation826; by this time the case had already been
closed. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the severity of the crime committed, it is
more likely than not that the verdict had not been implemented, for an extraordinary
event such as a public burning would have been well documented. Moreover, during the
reign of Elizaveta Petrovna (1741-1762) no death sentences of any kind had been
issued827. Most probably, Nesterov was sent to a convent, where he spent the rest of his
life.
Although it was determined that Nesterov slandered against the residents of Kazan
in the hopes of obtaining freedom and out of a personal grudge against the accused, his
source of knowledge of the Jewish prayer in the Hebrew pronunciation remains a
mystery. There is no record indicating the existence of a Jewish community in Kazan at
the time, and since Elizaveta’s edict of 1742, Jewish merchants were also officially
barred from entering the Russian Empire828. Nonetheless, could it be that Jewish rituals
were practiced in Kazan in great secrecy after all? This question remains open. In any
case, it can be firmly stated that Judaism, but not Jews per se, had a direct influence on
the course of the events in Kazan in the middle of the 18th century. It is worth noting that
in the same century, the neighboring Saratov province became one of the centers of the
Sabbatarian sect, which professed various principles of Judaism.
For the purpose of this research, it is not of a principal importance that a “Judaizer
heresy” as such was not found in Kazan, but rather that in order to absolve himself of
charges, a convict accused a man of authority with committing one of the gravest crimes
– of the apostasy from Christianity to Judaism. It is likely that Nesterov was aware of
Voznitsyn’s and Leibov’s execution; accordingly the event may have given him the idea
to make this kind of a denunciation. Furthermore, the method of the investigation of a
potential heresy closely followed the proceedings of the Voznitsyn-Leibov case, with the
procedures becoming precedent and being later utilized in relation to the Sabbatarian
movement and other non-Orthodox fractions.

826 Ibid., Pg. 322; Ibid., Pg.6

827 Mironov B. (2003): “The Social History of Russia During the Imperial Period: XVIII –
Beginning of XX”. Bulanin publishing, Saint Petersburg Vol. 2, Pg. 27

828 The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1740 to 1743 (1830).

Typography of the Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty, Saint Petersburg Saint Petersburg.
First edition. Vol. 11, No 8673.

167

 Conclusion

The central aim of the research was to address religious altercations between Jews
and Orthodox Christians in the Ruthenian lands during the Early Modern Period. The
subject has been studied through the examination of some of the most momentous
instances of proselytism and apostasy that transpired between Christians and Jews during
this era, which had been depicted in polemical works, chronicles, correspondence, legal
documents and criminal cases. Going beyond the boundaries of the traditional
historiography, which predominantly consigned Jews as the victims of zealous
proselytism and forced conversions imposed by the dominant Christian realm, within the
framework of the presented dissertational research, the adherents of Judaism appear as
ideologically motivated parties that were congruently involved in the dissemination of
their faith amongst the Orthodox faithful. In that regard, an argument is put forward on
the intolerance of the Jews in the Russian controlled territories during the Early Modern
period being based not on racial chauvinism, but rather impelled by a religious contention
and the anxieties of ‘Judaizing’. This predisposition is demonstrated by the keenness of
both the Russian State and Church on welcoming the Jews who baptized into Orthodoxy
within their geographical and spiritual domains as equals, and even granting generous
privileges for their embracement of the Christian faith. Moreover, in light of the threat of
Jewish proselytism, the apprehension of which is found across the ecclesial polemics and
the legislative proclamations of the time, the act of Jewish conversion to Christianity
came to symbolize the ideological triumph of the Church over the Synagogue.
Whilst it was forbidden for the adherents of Judaism to reside on the territory of
the Russian state throughout the Early Modern period, the Orthodox literature of the time
is almost completely void of ‘real life’ persons of the Jewish faith. Rendering of the Jews
in sermons and polemical writings is predominantly based on their biblical imagery, the
contention against which is constructed based on their denial of the divine and messianic
status of Jesus Christ. A few notable exceptions are the late 15th century tractates and
epistles of Monk Savva, Josef Volotsky and Archbishop Gennady, which assert that the
‘heresy of the Judaizers’ was instigated by a Jew named Zacharia Skara (Skhariya), who
arrived to Novgorod from Kiev in 1470 and effectively proselytized Judaic teachings
amongst the Orthodox faithful of Muscovy. Although the actual existence of his persona
is a matter of dispute, Bruckus and Taube had brought forward considerable literary
evidence identifying Zacharia the heresiarch as a Jewish Kievan scholar Zacharia ben
Aharon ha-Kohen, who copied and anointed a number of philosophical and astronomical
texts in the corresponding time period. The denial of the Jewish trace in the spread of the
Judaizer heresy in Novgorod and Moscow is predominantly based on the perception of
Judaism being a non-proselytizing religion on the one hand, and on the other on the
reluctance to accept the possibility that amongst the high clergy and nobility there could
have been those who rejected the dogmas of Christianity in favor of Judaic philosophies.
Yet, while the writings of a prominent contemporaneous Kiev Rabbi Moses ben Jacob
ha-Goleh, for whom the aforementioned Zacharia had copied texts of a mystical nature,
contain elements of a Kabbalistic eschatology which stress the importance of proselytes
for the advent of the Messianic age, the questions pertaining to the timing of the end of
the world were likely to serve as the grounds for the initial impulse of attraction of the
Orthodox clerics to the cross-confessional communiqué with the erudite Jews. Thus, in

168

this study it has been asserted that while the Judaizer heresy embodied a deliberate
attempt at the conversion of Russia’s religious and political elite to Judaism (or elements
thereof) by the Kabbalists of Kiev, this episode materialized age-old anxieties of the
existential threat of Jewish proselytism and inherently caused the Church to cultivate
practical mechanisms for the protection of the Orthodox faith from eccentric
encroachments. Accordingly, there can be little doubt that the episode had a direct impact
on the consequent categorical intolerance of the Jewish presence on the Russian soil, for
as far as the Church intellectuals and the State officials were concerned, Jews living side
by side with Christians constituted a principal danger to the Orthodox establishment.
By exposing the problems of religious identity in the emerging Russian state, the
ideological battle with the Judaizers provided the impetus for the creation of such vertices
of the Russian Orthodox heritage as the first complete Slavonic codex of the Bible,
commissioned by the aforementioned principal opponent of the heresy archbishop
Gennady, as well as of the first Russian theological treatise “The Enlightener” by abbot
Josef Volotsky. Nonetheless, lacking effective institutes for control of the parishioner
consciousness, as compared to those established by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox
hierarchs insisted on the intervention of the royal authorities into the matter. By
demanding the death penalty for the Judaizers, whom Volotsky categorized not only as
heretics but as factual apostates from Christianity to Judaism, the abbot sought to prevent
the catastrophe of the religious and cultural division in the fragilely united Russian
society. For the first time in the history of Russia, the punishment for a crime committed
against the Church – namely the apostasy to Judaism and the proselytization thereof –
was the death penalty by the means of burning at the stake. It must be noted that the cruel
punishment generally achieved the desired effect: the unity of the Church was restored,
the threat of Judaizing was eradicated, the heretical fractions were forced into deep
hiding, and the disoriented clergy and laity were comforted. In the development of legal
thought, the need to protect the faith from encroachments was anchored not only in the
canonical law, but also received a juridical verification in the State legislation. Thus,
when Russia’s first comprehensive set of laws was codified through the Council Code of
1649, the death sentence to apostates and proselytizers of other faiths by the means of
burning was stipulated in its very first clause.
The analogous fiery auto-da-fe was executed in 1738, when by the orders of
Empress Anna Ioannovna the retired navy captain Alexander Voznitsyn was sentenced to
death by burning at the stake for “blasphemy against Christ, the rejection of the true
Christian law and the adoption of the Jewish faith” along with his Jewish ‘mentor’, tax
farmer Boruch Leibov. This act demonstrates that the anxieties of Judaization remained
acute in the Russian State well into the late Early Modern period. Evidently, the
conversion of a Russian nobleman to Judaism through the efforts of a prominent Jewish
philanthropist could not have been perceived as anything less than disturbing by Russia’s
Orthodox faithful. For the purpose of this study, it is not of a principal importance
whether Voznitsyn actually apostated from Christianity and embraced the Jewish faith
under Leibov’s spiritual guidance, although the fact of the captain’s circumcision,
coupled with the implicating testimonies of his wife and certain other material evidence,
do not permit for the exclusion of such a possibility. In a similar vein, despite the ensuing
investigation of the Judaizing sect of Kazan in the 1740s having been concluded by the
acquittal of the accused, the knowledge of a Jewish prayer in a nearly correct Hebrew

169

pronunciation by their denouncer, who claimed that it had been taught to him by the
members of the group, suggests the possibility of a concealed Judaic practice. What is
imperative is that in both cases, the authorities reacted to the accusations of ‘Judaizing’
with the most attentive, thorough investigations, on par with matters of national security.
Thus, the involvement of the country’s central ecclesial and governmental institutions in
the case proceedings, including the Most Holy Governing Synod, the Ruling Senate, the
Office of Secret Investigations, and the monarch herself, indicate that Voznitsyn’s
transgression measured up to a crime against the State. Moreover, there can be little
doubt that the incident connoted to the authorities that from the Jewish population in the
western regions of the Empire (the former territories of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth) stemmed a tangible threat of the proselytization of their faith. Even
though the previous attempts of central government to limit the Jewish settlement in
Ukraine and Belarus proved to be detrimental for the region’s economy, the religious
predisposition prevailed over pragmatic considerations. As far as the Russian authorities
were concerned, tolerance of another faith could not have been endured if the
representatives of that faith were trying to impose it upon others. Thus, the causality
between Boruch Leibov’s conviction for proselytism and Her Imperial Majesty’s
adoption of the nominal decrees ordering for the expulsion of the Jews from the Russian
Empire, issued repeatedly in 1740 and 1742, cannot be underestimated. Notably, the
decrees stipulated that those Jews, who “wished to accept the Christian faith of the Greek
rite”, were to be permitted to remain on Russian soil. The very fact that the conversion to
Orthodoxy presented an individual of the Jewish ethnicity with a legitimate opportunity
to integrate into the Russian society emphasizes that the antipathy of the Russian
authorities towards adherents of Judaism during the Early Modern period was based
strictly on religious grounds. Accordingly, it follows that while the conversion of a
Christian Orthodox individual to Judaism was categorically unacceptable for the
hierarchs of the Russian Church and State, as the embracement of the most principally
contending religion by their flock not only undermined their authority but also challenged
the very truths of Christianity, the conversion of a Jew to Orthodoxy was a matter of a
principal ideological significance. More so, it was encouraged, welcomed and rewarded
by substantial benefits.
The policy of permitting Jewish settlement on the Russian territories based on the
condition of the conversion to Christianity began to be endorsed about a century earlier,
when during the course of the recurrent Russo-Polish wars, a considerable number of the
Polish-Lithuanian Jews were taken captive by the Russian army. While the subsequent
peace agreements stipulated for their release, a larger number of the Jewish captives
chose to accept baptism and settle in the Russian State than those who remained devoted
to Judaism and returned home to their communities. Moreover, the archival records
reveal numerous cases of a voluntary migration of the Polish-Lithuanian Jewry to Russia
throughout the 17th century, which inevitably constituted the assumption of the Orthodox
faith. The analysis of the corresponding clerical records and the sources of a personal
origin (the correspondence between the members of the high clergy) has led to the
conclusion that the Jew-turned-Christian neophytes had a very limited, and often utterly
absent comprehension of the nature of the “Orthodox Greco-Russian faith”. During the
process of the compulsory instruction ahead of the Christening ceremony, the Jews were
taught only the basic postulates and prayers of Orthodoxy. Accordingly, given that the

170

conversion presented the possibility of obtaining financial support from the State,
provided for the various social benefits such as exemptions from taxation and
conscription, as well as significantly broadened career perspectives, it is pertinent to
postulate that amongst the ranks of the Jews who chose to embrace Christianity and settle
in the Russian State, there was a significant number of individuals who were driven by
the perspectives of comfort and economic well-being rather than by spiritual convictions.
In that context, rampant were the allegations of baptized Jews being involved in
‘Judaizing’ activities – that is practicing Judaism in secret and enticing Christians into
their faith.
For the purpose of the study, therefore, the Jews are principally considered as
actors who made the decision to convert to Christianity based on their personal set of
values, individual life circumstances and ideological convictions. By assuming such a
standpoint, the aim is not to abate the enormity of forced conversions, the practice of
which had been analyzed based on the example of its systematic employment by the
Cossacks during the rebellion against the Polish crown. Rather, the alteration of the
research angle towards the study of the individual biographies of the Jews who chose to
breakout from the bosom of Judaism and join the Orthodox realm, and the juxtaposition
thereof with the internal processes that took place within the Jewish communal
environment, allowed to place new issues at the center of the analysis of the phenomenon
of Jewish conversion to Christianity. Thus it has been proposed that the contexts, which
influenced the increase in the number of individuals who withdrew from the Jewish faith
and became Christian in the second half of the 17th century, included but were not limited
to the deterioration of the socio-economic conditions of the Jewish communities, the
intensification of the Jewish-Christian contacts, and the upsurge of messianism and
millennialism brought about by the ascent and desolation of the Sabbatian momentum.
That being said, the examination of the individual cases of conversion of the Polish-
Lithuanian Jews to Orthodoxy and immigration to Muscovy, the evidence of which
survives across the various archival records, has indicated that the decision to undergo
such a radical change in their lives included reasons of a personal nature, such as their
marital relations, social origin, and professional appurtenance, amongst other. The choice
to baptize into Orthodoxy rather than to embrace another Christian denomination may
have been associated with the opportunity to leave the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth and migrate to the Russian state, where Jewish communities did not
exist. The willingness of the Russian authorities to accept baptized Jews into its domain
cannot be overemphasized.
The perception of Jews in the Russian State discourse had been assessed by most
historians as intrinsically negative, wherein no significant difference had been depicted
between the adherents of Judaism and christened Jews. In those terms, the act of baptism
was connoted as a repressive measure. Such conclusions were based predominantly on
the analysis of the discriminative legislation enacted in relations to the Jews by the State
authorities throughout the Early Modern period. Without disputing such an assessment of
the general State policy tendencies towards the Jews, and in order to gain a more
complete understanding of the formation of the conventional models of perception of
Jews by the ecclesiastical and governmental authorities, taken into account must be the
specifics of the apprehension of foreign faiths in Russia during the period in question.
Moreover, the causal-investigatory connections between specific events (for the most part

171

conflictual situations) and the issuance of legislative acts must be given a prime
consideration.
Upon baptizing into Orthodoxy, a Jew received a new name (at times a Russified
version of their Jewish name), and acquired the status of a ‘newly christened Jew’, which
usually accompanied them for the rest of their lives. For the most part, the connotations
such as an “ex-Jew” or a “christened Jew” were not pejorative, but rather pointed to the
ethnic origin of the individual. Concurrently, such a predisposition does not exclude the
possibility of conflictual situations, in which a person could have been discriminated
against due to having Jewish roots – particularly in regards to the accusations of
‘Judaizing’. Such instances, however, do not suggest the existence of particular anti-
Semitic tendencies in Early Modern Russia, but rather point to the prevalent xenophobia
towards foreigners and adherents of other faiths. In fact, the records attest to a highly
favorable treatment of Jewish neophytes by the authorities. The involvement of baptized
Jews in the affairs of the state also suggests the invalidity of the assertions of the
existence of a robust anti-Semitism in the Russian State discourse. During the Early
Modern period, the confessional factor dominated over the ethnic, and accordingly
effected the perception of the adherents of the Jewish faith on the one hand, and the
christened Jews on the other, by the Russian authorities and the general population alike.
While the ‘Jewish question’ was at the forefront of the Moscow endorsed Cossack
uprising of 1648-1656 against the Polish crown, there is evidence to suggest that for the
Cossacks too, the Jews principally embodied a religious rather than an ethnic grouping.
According to the contemporaneous Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish sources, the rebellion
was accompanied by the systematic pogroms of the Jewish communities in Ukraine and
Belarus, during the course of which the Cossacks presented the Jews with the choice to
convert to Christianity or else be killed. Thus, the Jewish chroniclers depicted the
Orthodox Christian Cossacks as enemies who threatened their lives due to the religious
hatred of Judaism, and accordingly formed an idealized, apologetic image of a holy
community – its destruction was assessed as a test of faith, where the majority of its
members chose martyrdom over betraying their religious heritage. While the chronicles’
authors downplayed the scale of the acceptance of baptism by their coreligionists, their
narratives do contain the accounts of Jewish conversions to Orthodoxy, which are
depicted judgmentally as the transgression of God’s commandments. In a similar vein,
the chronicles of a Cossack origin depicted the Jews as being the irreconcilable enemies
of Christianity, and elatedly account that due to their efforts, scores of Jews had accepted
baptism under the threat of death. In that context, emblematical assertions were made that
not a single Jew was left in Ukraine. The presence of Jewish names in the Cossack
military registers suggests that it sufficed to change one’s religion to cease ‘being a Jew’
and gain acceptance by the rebels into the Orthodox society on practically equal terms.
Thus it can be deduced that the contention of the Cossacks against the Jewish population
of Ruthenia was fueled predominantly by religious animosity, where the act of baptism
was connoted as a mode for safeguarding the Orthodox faith, and the demonstration that
the Church, not the Synagogue, was in God’s favor.
Inquiry into the phenomena of proselytism and apostasy, so scarcely addressed in
the context of the history of Jewish – Christian Orthodox relations in Early Modern
Eastern Europe, encompasses a platform for a concurrent study of a vast array of aspects.
A simultaneous exploration of the intersection of the confessional, geographic and social

172

boundaries leads into an area of omnifarious frontiers. Thus, scrutinizing a polysemantic
social process such as the change of faith in a complex from a methodological point of
view territory – the Polish-Russian borderlands, presents a unique approach to the study
of this multicultural region. While the work presented a comparative analysis of the
transmission of religious ideologies between the two most discernible confessional
communities of the Early Modern Ruthenian lands, the problems of proselytism and
apostasy in the Jewish and the Orthodox realms are, of course, not confined to this
dissertational research. Further archival inquiry into the subject matter promises to yield a
vaster understanding of the intricacy of the transmission and the alteration of faith.

173

 Bibliography

Published Literature

Abramovich G., Mankov A. (1987): “The Council Code of 1649: Text, Commentaries”
(Соборное уложение 1649 года: Текст, комментарии). Institute of History of the USSR,
Leningrad.

Ashkinazi I. (2000): “The Krymchaks. Historical and Ethnographic Essays” (Крымчаки.

Исторические и этнографические очерки). Dar publishing, Simferopol.

Agoshton M. (2006): “The Problem of the Genealogy of Clerk Fedor Kuritsyn (“К проблеме о
родословии дьяка Федора Курицына”) // “Royal Court in the History of Russia XV-XVII
centuries” (“Государев двор в истории России XV-XVII вв”). Materials of the International
Scientific Conference. Vladimir.

Alekseev A. (1999): “Textual Analysis of the Slavic Bible” (Текстология славянской Библии).
Dmitry Bulanin Publishing, Saint Petersburg.

Alekseev Y. (1998): “At the Helm of the Russian State: Outline of the Development of the
Administrative Apparatus in XIV-XV Centuries” (У кормила Российского государства: очерк
развития аппарата управления XIV-XV вв). Saint Petersburg State University publishing, Saint
Petersburg. Pg. 203-224.

Amelang J. (2013): “Parallel Histories. Muslims and Jews in Inquisitorial Spain”. Louisiana
State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Anisimov E. (1994): “Russia without Peter: 1725-1740” (Россия без Петра: 1725-1740).
Lenizdat publishing, Saint Petersburg.

Archangelski A. (1888): “The Creations of the Church Fathers in Ancient Russian Literature:
Examination of Manuscript Material” (Творения отцов церкви в древнерусской
письменности: Обозрение рукописного материала). Journal of the Ministry of National
Enlightenment, Saint Petersburg.

Bacon G. (2003): “The House of Hanover: Gezeirot Tah in Modern Jewish Historical Writing”.
Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17. No 2. Pg. 179-206.

Bacon G., Rosman М. (1991): “A Chosen Community in Danger: Polish Jews After the Pogroms
of 1648-1649”, in “The Concept of Chosenness in Jewish and General History.” Edited by
Almog S. and Heyd M. Jerusalem.

Baer M. (2009): “The Dönme: Jewish Converts, Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks”.
Stanford University Press, CA.

Bantysh-Kamenskiy (1847): “The Dictionary of Memorable Individuals of the Russian Land”

(Словарь достопамятных людей русской земли). Typography of Avgust Simon, Saint
Petersburg. Vol. 3.

174

Barabanov N. (2004): “The Byzantine Church and the Phenomenon of the Phylacteries”
(Византийская церковь и феномен филактериев) // “Slavs and Their Neighbors” (Славяне и
их соседи). Indric publishing, Moscow. Vol. 11.

Begunov Y. (1957): “Council Verdicts as the Sources of History of the Novgorod-Moscow

Heresy”. (Соборные приговоры как источник по истории новгородско-московской ереси).
Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature, Moscow-Leningrad. Vol. XIII.

Begunov Y. (1973): “Cosmas the Priest in Slavic Literature” (Козма Пресвитер в славянских
литературах). Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.

Begunov Y. (1996): “Yan Gus and the Eastern Slavs” (Ян Гус и восточное славянство).
Words of the Division of Ancient Russian Literature. Pushkin House, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 49.

Belokurov C. (1902): “The Epistle of Monk Savva Against the Jews and Heretics” (Послание
инока Саввы на жидов и на еретики). Readings at the Society of Russian History and Ancient
Studies at Moscow University. Vol. 3. Pg. 1-94.

Belova O. (2003): “Ours or Foreign? Jews and Slavs Through the Eyes of Each Other. A
Collection of Essays” (Свой или чужой? Евреи и славяне глазами друг друга. Сборник
статей). Sefer Publishing, Moscow.

Belova O., Petruhin V. (2007): “”The Jewish Myth” in Slavic Culture” (Еврейский миф в
славянской культуре). Gershaim, Moscow.

Belova O. (2006): “The Religious Practices of the Jews Through the Eyes of Slavs”
(Религиозные практики евреев глазами славян). // “Religious Practices in Modern Russia”
(Религиозные практики в современной России). New Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 111-133.

Belyakova E. (1984): “The Sources of the Korchmaia of Ivan Volk Kuritsyn (Источники
Кормчей Ивана Волка Курицына // Ancient Russian Literature” (Древнерусская литература).
Chronology, Leningrad. Pg. 75-83.

Berezhnaya L. (2008): “The Ruthenian Lands and the Early Modern Multiple Borderlands in
Europe. The Ethno-confessional Aspect” in “Religion and the Conceptual Boundary in Central
and Eastern Europe: Encounters of Faiths”. Edited by Bremer T. Palgrave Macmillan
Publishing, New York.

Berger D. (2008): “Reflections on Conversion and Proselytizing in Judaism and Christianity”.

Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, Boston. Studies in Christian-Jewish
relations Vol. 3.

Berhin I. (1888): “Two Jewish Doctors at the Moscow Court” (Два еврейских врача при
Московском дворе). Voshod Journal, Saint Petersburg. No. 3.

Berlin I. (1910): “The Judaizer Heresy” (Ересь жидовствующих)//”Jewish Encyclopedia

(Еврейская энциклопедия)”. Brokgaus and Efron publishing, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7, Table
577-582.

175

Berlin I. (1919): “The Historic Fate of the Jewish Nation on the Territory of the Russian State”
(Исторические судьбы еврейского народа на территории Русского государства).
Publishing house of the Jewish Historic Library. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 165-166.

Bet-Arie M. (1979): “Hebrew Manuscripts Copied in Jerusalem before the Ottoman Conquest”
in Kedar B.: “Jerusalem in the Middle Ages”. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem.

Boguslavski V., Kuksina E. (2001): “The Truce of Andrusovo” (Андрусовское перемирие)//

“Kievan Rus-Muscovy”(Киевская Русь — Московия). In“Slavic Encyclopedia” (Славянская
энциклопедия). Olma Press, Moscow. Vol. 2.

Borovoy S. (1997): “The Class Struggle in Ukraine in the 17th Century Hebrew Chronicles–
Khmelnitsky Era” (Классовая борьба на Украине XVII в. в свете современных еврейских
хроник - Эпоха «хмельничины») . Gesharim, Jerusalem.

Brednikov L. (2003): “Anna Ioannovna and Jews: Bironovshina or Lipmanovshina?” (Анна

Иоанновна и евреи. Бироновщина или липмановщина?). Neva publishing, Saint Petersburg.
Number 10.

Broyde M. (1999): “Proselytism and Jewish Law: Inreach, Outreach, and the Jewish Tradition”.
In “Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism”. Edited
by Witte J. and Martin R. Orbis books, New York.

Bruckus J. (1918): “Zacharia, the Prince of Taman” (Захария, князь Таманский). Jewish
antiquity No 10, St. Petersburg.

Bruckus J. (1930): “Judaisierende”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 9. cols., Berlin.

Buslaev F. (1863): “On Determining the Foreign Sources of the Story About Muntenian Governor
Dracula” (Для определения иностранных источников Повести о мутьянском воеводе
Дракуле). Tichonravov’s Chronicles, Moscow. Vol. 5, Part 3.

Campion N. (1999): “Political Cosmology in the Renaissance”. Paper delivered to the Inspiration
of Astronomical Phenomena (INSAP II) conference. Malta.

Carlebach E. (2001): “Divided Souls. Converts from Judaism in Germany 1500-1750”. New
Haven&London, Yale University Press.

Carlebach Е. (1995): “Converts and Their Narratives in Early Modern Germany. The Case of
Friedrich Albrecht Christiani.” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, New York. No. 40. Pg. 65-83.
Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine. Fund 127, Inventory 167, Case 95.

Chirovsky, N. (1984): "The Lithuanian-Rus' Commonwealth, the Polish Domination, and the
Cossack-Hetman State". Philosophical Library, New York.

Collins S. (1671): “The Present State of Russia: In a Letter to a Friend at London”. Printed by
“John Winter for Dorman Newman At the Kings Arms in the Poultry”, London. Chap. XXV.
From the first edition at Houghton Library, Harvard University. Edited by Poe M. (2008),
Department of History Publications, University of Iowa.

176

Dal V. (1880): “The Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” (Толковый
словарь живого великорусского языка). Typography of M. O. Folf, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1.

Damian P. (1040-1041): “Against the Jews”. In “The Fathers of the Church: Mediaeval
Continuation”(2005). Letters 141-180. CUA Press. Washington. Pg. 37-83.

Dan J. (2006): “Toledot Yeshu”. In Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Encyclopaedia
Judaica 20 (2nd ed.). Gale Virtual Reference Library, Detroit.

Doktor J. (2004): “Conversions within Shabbatianism”. Institute of Jewish History, Warsaw.

Jewish History Quarterly, No. 1 (209).

Dole G. (1990): “Philosemitism in the Seventeenth Century”. Studia Swedenborgiana Press, CA.
Studia Swedenborgiana Vol. 7, No. 1.

Dong Y. (2012): “Understanding Religious Conversion: The Case of Saint Augustine”. Pichwick
Publications, Eugene.

Dubnov S. (2003): “History of the Jews in Europe” (История евреев в Европе) // “Middle Ages
Until the End of the Crusades” (Средние века до конца крестовых походов).
Gershaim/Bridges of Culture, Moscow. Vol. 1,.

Dubnow S. (1913): “On the Departing” (Letter to the Editorial Office) (Об уходящих (Письмо в
редакцию)). Voshod Journal, Saint Petersburg. No. 29, table 6-8.

Dubnow S. (1916): “History of the Jews in Russia and Poland From the Earliest Times Until the
Present Day”. Jewish publication Society, Philadelphia. Vol. 1.

Dunlop, M. (1967): “The History of the Jewish Khazars”. Schocken Books, New York. Olsson J.
(2013): “Coup d'état, Coronation and Conversion: Some Reflections on the Adoption of Judaism
by the Khazar Khaganate”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, Vol. 23, Pg. 495-526.

Eidelberg S. (1991): “R. Juspa, Shammash of Warmaisa (Worms): Jewish Life in 17th Century
Worms.” Magnes press, Jerusalem. No. 15.

Endelman T. (2001): “Welcoming Ex-Jews into the Jewish Historiographical Fold // Broadening
Jewish History Towards a Social History of Ordinary Jews”. The Littman Library of Jewish
Civilization, Portland.

Ettinger S. (1988): “Jewish Participation in the Settlement of Ukraine in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries”. In “Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective”. Edited by
Potichnyj P. and Aster H. Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, Edmonton.

Ettinger S. (1995): “Influence of the Jews on the Judaizer Heresy in Muscovy”. The Hebrew
University, Jerusalem. Jews & Slavs, Vol. 4.

Feldman D. (2005): “”Pleading for Mercy are Old-Law Orphans…”The Case of the Petitions of
Jews of Breslau for the Baptism into Orthodoxy”. (Бьют чолом сироты старозаконные...»:
дело по челобитным бреславльских евреев об их крещении в православие)// Historic Archive,
Moscow. No. 1. Pg. 198-202.

177

Feldman D. (2012): “A Note from the Musketeer Office on the Baptized Jew Yaakov of 1667”
(Память из Пушкарского приказа в Приказ полоняничных дел о крещеном еврее Иакове
1667 г.). Parralels, Moscow. Pg. 181-188.

Feldman D. (2009): “And in Kazan the Jews are to be Ordered to Baptize…” The Documents
Relating to the Transfer of Captive Jews to the Volga Region in 1655” (А в Казани жидам
велено говорить, чтоб они крестились...»: Документы об отправке пленных евреев в
Поволжье в 1655 г.). Bulletin of the Hebrew University, Moscow. Pg. 207-238.

Feldman D., Minkina O. (2007): “The Fair Jewess” in Russia XVII-XIX Centuries: Images and
Realities” (Прекрасная еврейка" в России XVII-XIX веков: образы и реальность). Ancient
Archive, Moscow.

Feldman D. (1999): “The Unknown Investigation of the Kazan Judaizer Sect”. (Неизвестное
следствие о «Казанской секте жидовствующих). Publications of the Hebrew University:
History. Culture. Civilization. No. 2 (20). Moscow. Pg. 296-323.

Feldman D. (1999): “The Last Inquisitional Fire in Russia: The Moscow Investigation of the
Case of Alexander Voznitsyn and Boroch Leibov 1738-1740” (“Последний инквизиционный
костер в России: Московское следствие по делу Александра Возницына и Бороха Лейбова
1738–1740 гг.”). Parallels No. 6-7. Appendix Pg. 1-82. Moscow.

Florovski G. (1937): “The Ways of Russian Theology” (Пути русского богословия). YMCA
Press, Paris.

Fonkich B. (1977): “Greek-Russian Cultural Ties in XV-XVII Centuries” (Греко-русские

культурные связи в XV— XVII вв.). Sciences. Moscow.

Fram Е. (1996): “Between 1096-1548 - New Analysis” (‫ט"ת עיון מחדש‬- ‫)בין ח"ת‬. The Historical
Society of Israel, Jerusalem. Zion, Vol. LXI., No2, Pg. 159-182.

Fram Е. (1997): “One More Time on the Question of Jewish Martyrdom in 1096 and 1648” (‫ט"ת‬
- ‫)ועדיין עיין בין ח"ת‬. The Historical Society of Israel, Jerusalem. Zion, No. 62, Рg. 31-46.

Fram Е. (1998): “Creating a Tale of Martyrdom in Tulczyn, 1648”, in “Jewish History and
Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Y. H. Yerushalmi”. Edited by Carlebach E. Brandeis
publishing, Boston. Pg. 89-109.

Frenk E. (1914): “The Relations between Jews and Christians” (Взаимоотношение евреев и
христиан) // History of the Jewish People” (История еврейского народа). Peace publishing,
Moscow. Vol. XI.

Froyanov I. (2007): “The Drama Of Russian History: On the Road to Oprichnina” (Драма
русской истории: На путях к опричнине). Parad publishing, Moscow.

Frumenkov G. (1968): “Inmates of the Solovetsky Monastery” (Узники Соловецкого

монастыря). North-West publishing, Archangelsk. Vol. 2.

Galas, M. (2001): “Sabbatianism in the Seventeenth-Century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:

A Review of the Sources”. In “The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath: Messianism,

178

Sabbatianism and Frankism”. Ed. Rachel Elior, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Studies In
Jewish Thought, vol. 2.

Galas, M. (2010) “Sabbatianism”. YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.

http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Sabbatianism

Galatowski J. (1669): “The True Messiah Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Typography of Kiev-
Pechersk Lavra, Kiev. Text reproduced in Shpirt A. (2008): “The True Messiah of Johannes
Galatowski”. Institute of Slavic Studies, Moscow. Slavic studies No. 4, Pg. 37-45.

Georg J. (1906): “A Diary of a Journey to Muscovy” (Дневник путешествия в Московию).

Publishing house of A. S. Suvorin, Saint Petersburg.

Gessen V. (2000): “Of the History of the Saint Petersburg Religious Jewish Community: From
the First Jews to the XX century” (К истории Санкт-Петербургской еврейской религиозной
общины. От первых евреев до XX века. Санкт-Петербур). Theme, Saint Petersburg, Pg. 17.

Gessen Y. (1913): “Three Hundred Years Ago: Jews in the Moscow State Before and After the
Times of Trouble” (Триста лет назад: Евреи в Московском государстве до и после
Смуты»). Voshod journal, № 9. St. Petersburg.

Gessen Y. (1925): “History of the Jewish People in Russia” (История еврейского народа в
России). Typography of the Cooperative Society, Vol. 1. Leningrad.

Ginsburg S. (1946): “Converts in Tsarist Russia” (“Meshumadim in Tsarishn Russland”)//

“Studies in the History of Jewish Life in Russia”. Cyco Biher Farlag, New York.

Ginzburg C. (2012): “Microhistory, Two or Three Things That I Know About It”. In “Threads
and Traces”, University of California Press, Berkeley. Chapter 14, Pg. 193-214.

Goldberg J. (1974): “De Non-tolerandis Judaeis: On the Introduction of Anti-Jewish Laws in

Polish Towns and the Struggles Against Them”. Studies in Jewish History: Presented to Prof. R.
Mahler on His Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by Yeivin S. Merhavia, Tel Aviv.

Golb N., Pritsak O. (1984): “Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century”. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Golb N. (1987): “Jewish Proselytism: A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early Medieval
Europe”. University of Cincinnati, Ohio;

Goldfrank D. (1998): “Burn, Baby, Burn: Popular Culture and Heresy in Late Medieval Russia”.
The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 31. No. 4. Michigan State University. Pg. 17-32.

Golytsyn N. (1886): “The History of the Russian Legislation Related to the Jews 1649-1825”
(История русского законодательства о евреях 1649-1825). Typography of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 1.

Gove P. (1973): “Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms”. A Dictionary of Discriminated

Synonyms and Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words. 4th ed. Merriam Publishing,
Springfield. Pg. 189, 646.

179

Graizbord D. (2004): “Souls in Dispute. Converso Identities in Iberia and the Jewish Diaspora”.
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Graetz H. (1897): “Geschichte der Juden von den altesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart”. Leiner,
Leipzeg. Pg. 10, note 2. (https://archive.org/details/geschichtederjud03grae).

Grayzel S. (1968): “A History of the Jews”. Revised Ed. Signet, New York.

Trivlois M (1860): “Essays of Saint Maksim Grek” (Сочинения преподобного Максима

Грека.). Part 2. Spiritual Academy of Kazan. Pg. 225-239.

Grigorenko A. (1999): “The Spiritual Quest in Ruthenia in the late XV century” (Духовные
искания на Руси конца XV в.). Eidos Publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 40-41.

Grosman A. (1991): “The Roots of Kiddush Hashem in Early Ashkenaz”, in “Sanctity of Life and
Martyrdom: Studies in Memory of Amyr Yekutiel”. Edited by Gafni I. and Ravitzky A. Hebrew
University, Jerusalem. Pg. 99-130.

Gruzenberg S. (1898): “Doctor Sanchez” (Доктор Санхец). Voshod Journal, Saint Petersburg.
Book VII, Pg. 22-38.

Heideman E. (1996): “Proselytism, Mission and the Bible”. International Bulletin of Missionary
Research, Vol. 20. No. 1. New Haven.

Howlett Y. (1993): “The Testimony of Archbishop Gennady on the Heresy of “Novgorod

Heretics Judaizer Philosophizers”” (Свидетельство архиепископа Геннадия о ереси
«новгородских еретиков). Words of the Division of Ancient Russian Literature. Pushkin House,
Saint Petersburg. Vol. 46.

Horn М. (1978): “The Responsibilities of the Jews in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVI

and XVII centuries” (Powinnosci wojenne Zydow w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI i XVII wieku).
Sciences, Warsaw. Pg. 89-91.

Hrushevski M. (1922): “History of Ukraine-Ruthenia” (История Украины-Руси). Scientific

Partnership named after T. G. Shevchenko, Lviv. Vol. 8, Pt. 2.

Hundert G. (2004): “Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: A Genealogy of

Modernity”. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kaczmarczyk J. (1988): “Bohdan Chmielnicki”. Ossolineum, Wroclaw.

Kalik J. (2003): “The Orthodox Church and the Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”.
Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17, No 2. Pg. 229-237.

Kalik J. (2010): “Jewish Presence in Russia in XVI-XVIII Centuries”. // “History of the Jewish
People in Russia. From the Ancient Times Until the Early Modern Period”. Bridges of Culture,
Moscow. Pg. 328.

Kamensky A. (2000): “Middle Ages” and “Modern Times”: the Boundaries of Concepts in the
Context of Russian History” ("Средневековье" и "Новое время": границы понятий в
контексте русской истории)// “Historian in Time” (Историк во времени. Третьи

180

Зиминские чтения). Third Zimin Readings: Reports and Presentations of Scholarly Conferences.
Moscow. URL: http://annales.info/rus/zimin/zimin3.htm

Kandel F. (1988): “Essays of Times and Events from the History of the Russian Jews (Till the 2nd
Half of the 18th century)”. Tarbut Association, Jerusalem. Vol. 1.

Karamzin N. (1842): “History of the Russian State” (История государства Российского).

Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg.

Kartashev A. (1991): “Essays on the History of the Russian Church” (Очерки по истории
русской церкви). Terra publishing, Moscow. Vol. 21.

Kashaev S., Kashkovskaya N. (2009): “Archeological Data on the Jewish Diaspora on

Bosphorus (Иудейская диаспора на Босфоре по данным археологии)”//Archeologia
Abrahamica: Research in the Area of Archeology and Traditions of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam” (Archeologia Abrahamica: исследование в области археологии и художественной
традиции иудаизма, христианства и ислама). Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Archeology, Moscow. Pg. 55-78.

Kashtanov S. (1967): “Socio-Political History of Russia at the End of XV – First half of XVI
centuries” (Социально-политическая история России конца XV - первой половины XVI).
Sciences. Moscow.

Katz J. (1997): “On the Events of 1096 and 1648” (‫ ט"ת‬- ‫”)עוד על מאורעות ח"ת‬. The Historical
Society of Israel, Jerusalem. Zion Vol. 62. Pg. 23-29.

Kazakova N. (1976): “Livonian and Hanseatic Sources on the Domestic Political History of
Russia at the End of XV-Beginning of XVI” (Ливонские и ганзейские источники о
внутриполитической истории в России в конце XV начале XVI вв.). Auxiliary of historical
disciplines, Leningrad.

Kazakova N. (1978): “When Did the Polemic Between Josephites and Non-Possessors Begin?”
(Когда началась полемика нестяжателей с иосифлянами?). In “History of Feudal Russia”
(Из истории феодальной России). Sciences, Leningrad.

Kazansky P. (1849): “The Venerable Josef of Volokolamsk” (Преподобный Иосиф

Волоколамский) // “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian Translations”
(Дополнения к произведениям святых отцов в русских переводах). Moscow, Pg. 224-270.

Kazmierczyk A. (2009): “Conversion in the 17th–18th Centuries: a Serious Problem?” // Be-

tween Coexistence and Divorce: 25 Years of Research on the History and Culture of Polish Jewry
and Polish–Jewish Relations. International Conference. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
March 17–19.

Khodarkovsky M. (2001): “The Conversion of Non-Christians in Early Modern Russia”//”Of

Religion and Empire: Missions, Conversion, and Tolerance in Tsarist Russia”. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca and London. Pg. 115-143.

Klibanov A. (1960): “The Reformation Movements in Russia in the First Half of XVI centuries”
(Реформационные движения в России в XIV — первой половине XVI в). Sciences, Moscow.

181

Knyazevskaya O. (1987): “The Monuments of Literature in Museums of the Volgograd Region: A
Directory and Guide” (Памятники письменности в музеях Вологодской области: Каталог-
путеводитель). Vologda regional museum, Vologda. Part 1, Vol 2.

Kobrin V. (1966): “The Letter of Joseph Volotsky to Archimandrite Evfimij” (Послание Иосифа
Волоцкого архимандриту Евфимию). In “Manuscript Volumes of V. I. Lenin State Library of
the USSR” (Рукописные собрания Государственной библиотеки СССР им. В. И. Ленина).
Vol. 28. Moscow.

Kohut Z. (2003): “The Khmelnitsky Uprising, the Image of Jews and the Shaping of the
Ukrainian Historical Memory”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History Vol. 17, No. 2,
Pg. 141-163

Kohut Z. (1998): “The Image of Jews in Ukraine’s Intellectual Tradition: The Role of “Istoriia
Rusov”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 22.

Kochnev H. (1992): “More on the Issue of the Essence of the Heresy of the Judaizers in the
Balkans and Russia in IX – XV Centuries” (Още към въпроса за същноста на ереста на
юдействувщитс на Ьалканите и в Русия през IX-XV вв) // “Russian-Balkan Cultural Links in
the Middle Ages” (Руско-балкански културни връзки през средповековието). BAN
publishing, Sofia.

Konisskij G. (1846): “History of the Ruthenians” (История Русов). University Typography,

Moscow.

Konopeeva N. (1982): “The Western Sources in the Works of the Novgorod Scribes at the End of
XV - Beginning of XVI Centuries” (Западные источники в работе новгородских книжников
конца XV — начала XVI в.). Federov readings. Moscow.

Korenevsky A. (2001): “New Israel and Holy Russia: Ethno-Confessional and Socio-Cultural
Aspects of Medieval Russian Judaizer Heresy” (“Новый Израиль” и “Святая Русь”:
этноконфессиональные и социокультурные аспекты средневековой русской ереси
жидовствующих). Ab Imperio, Moscow. No. 3.

Korsakov D. (1877): “Ancient and New Russia” (Древняя и новая Россия). Typography of
Grazinsky V., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7. Pg. 98-114.

Kostromov N. (2007): “Russian History Through the Lives of its Principal Figures” (История
России в жизнеописаниях ее главнейших деятелей). Eksmo piublishing, Moscow. Vol. 2, Pg.
485.

Kovrigina V. (1998): “The German Quarter in Moscow and its Inhabitants at the End of XVII-
First Quarter of XVIII Centuries” (Немецкая слобода Москвы и ее жители в конце XVII -
первой четверти XVIII вв). Archeographic Center, Moscow.

Kuchkin V. (1995): “The Beginning of the Simenov Monastery” (Начало московского

Симонова монастыря) // “Culture of Medieval Moscow XIV-XVII” (Культура средневековой
Москвы XIV–XVII вв). Sciences. Moscow.

182

Kurts B. (1916): “Kilburger’s Essay on Russian Commerce During the Reign of Aleksey
Mikhailovich” (Сочинение Кильбургера о русской торговле в царствование Алексея
Михайловича). Chokolov typography, Kiev.

Kulik A. (2004): "The Earliest Evidence of the Jewish Presence in Western Rus’”. Harvard
Ukranian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukranian Studies Vol. 27, No. 1/4. Pg. 13-24

Leib ben Ozer (1711-1718): “The Story of Shabbetay Zevi”. Trans. Shazar Z. (1978), Shazer C

Lemer N. (2012): “Religion, Secular Beliefs and Human Rights”. 2nd Rev. Ed. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, Leiden and Boston.

Leskov N. (1883): “Jews in Russia: a Few Remarks on the Jewish Question” (Евреи в России:
несколько замечаний по еврейскому вопросу). Reprint 1919, Petrograd publishing, Saint
Petersburg. Part 1.

Levanda V. (1874): “The Complete Chronological Collection of Laws and Regulations Relating
to Jews, from the Legal Code of Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich to the Present Time” (Полный
хронологический сборник законов и положений, касающихся евреев, от Уложения царя
Алексея Михайловича до настоящего времени). Typography of K. Trubnikov, Saint
Petersburg.

Levin C. (2006): “Jewish Conversion to Christianity in Medieval Northern Europe. Encountered

and Imagined, 1100-1300”. New York University.

Library of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergious. “Sinodal Kormchaya of Novgorod” (1653). No. 132,
Pg. 418. http://old.stsl.ru/manuscripts/staropechatnye-knigi/9-1

Likhachev D., Dmitriev A. (1982): “The Tale of Dracula” (Повесть о Дракуле) //“The
Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XV Century” (Памятники
литературы Древней Руси. Вторая половина XV века). Sciences, Moscow.

Lilienfeld F. (1976): “John Trithemius and Fedor Kuritsyn (On Some Features Of the Early
Renaissance in Ruthenia and Germany)” (Иоанн Тритемий и Федор Курицын (о некоторых
чертах раннего Ренессанса на Руси и в Германии) // “Cultural Heritage of Ancient Ruthenia”
(Культурное наследие Древней Руси). Sciences, Moscow. Pg. 116-123.

Lozinski S. (1991): “Romania” (Румыния) // Jewish Encyclopedia” (Еврейская энциклопедия).

Terra-Terra publishing, Moscow. Vol. 13, pg. 725.

Lurie S. (1565): “The Sea of Solomon” (‫)ים של שלמה‬. Wahrmann publishing, Jerusalem (1995).
Yevamoth 4.49.

Lurie Y. (1957): “On the Question of the Ideology of Nil Sorkski” (К вопросу об идеологии
Нила Сорского). Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature, Leningrad. Vol. 13.

Lurie Y. (1960): “An Ideological Battle in Russian Writing at the End of XV – Beginning of XVI
Centuries” (Идеологическая борьба в русской публицистике конца XV — начала XVI).
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

183

Lurie Y. (1973): “On Certain Principles of Source Critique” (О некоторых принципах
критики источника). Chronology of National History, Moscow.

Lurie Y. (1985): “Russian Contemporaries of the Renaissance” (Русские современники

Возрождения). Leningrad Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Leningrad.

Lurie Y. (1999): “The Epistle of Gennady to Iosaf” (Послание Геннадия Иоасафу). Library of
Literature of Ancient Ruthenia, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 7. Pg. 446-570.

Lurie Y., Kazakova N. (1955): “Anti-feudal Heretical Movements in Ruthenia XIV – Beginning of
XVI Centuries” (Анти феодальные еретические движения на Руси XIV—начала XVI века).
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Lvov A. (2003): “Between ‘Ours’ and ‘Foreigners’ (on the Treatment of Sabbatarian
Sectarians)” (Между “своими” и “чужими” (об отношении к сектантам субботникам) //
// Ours or Foreign? Jews and Slavs in the Eyes of Each Other”. (Свой или чужой? Евреи и
славяне глазами друг друга. ) House of Jewish Book, Moscow. Pg. 248-265.

Maksimovich K., Protopriest Cipin V. (2001): “Apostasy” (Апостасия). In “The Orthodox

Encyclopedia”(Православная энциклопедия). Edited by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
Aleksey II. Published by the Research Center of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow. Vol. 3,
Pg. 94-95.

Magnus S. (2010): “Good Bad Jews: Converts, Conversion, and Boundary Redrawing in Modern
Russian Jewry: Notes Toward a New Category // Boundaries of Jewish Identity”. Ed. by Glenn S.
and Sokoloff N. University of Washington Press, Seattle. P. 132-160

Marcus I. (2002): “A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz. In Cultures of

Jews. A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken Books, New York.

Markon I. (1913): “The Case Concerning the Burning at the Stake of Captain-Lieutenant
Alexander Voznitsyn for Apostasy into the Jewish Faith and Boruch Leib for Proselytism”. In
“Re-lived: A Journal Dedicated to the Social and Cultural History of Jews in Russia” (Дело о
сожжении отставного морского флота капитан-поручика Александра Возницына за
отпадение в еврейскую веру и Бороха Лейбова за совращение его). Typography of Fleitman
I., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 4. Appendix.

Markov N. (1902): “Apostasy” (Апостасия) // “The Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia”

(Православная Богословская Энциклопедия). Petrograd Publishing, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 3,
table 1153.

Medgyessy L. (2004): “Mission or Proselytism? Temptations Tensions and Missiological

Perspectives in Eastern European Christianity: A Case Study of Hungary”. In “Contextuality in
Reformed Europe: The Mission of the Church in the Transformation of European Culture”.
Edited by Linemann-Perrin C., Vroom H., and Winrich M. Rodopi publishing, Amsterdam-New
York.

Melioransky B. (1895): “On the History of Anti-Feudal Movements in Macedonia in XIV (К

истории противоцерковных движений в Македонии в XIV в.)//Stephanos”. Collection of
essays in honor of F. Sokolov, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 65-72.

184

Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) (1996): “History of the Russian Church” (История Русской
Церкви). Publishing of Spaso-Preobrazhensk Valaamsk monastery, Moscow. Book 4, Chapter 1.

Mieses М. (1939): “The Participation of Polish Jews in the Wars of Pre-Partition” (Udział
Żydów w wojnach Polski przedrozbiorowej). Maor publishing, Warsaw.

Milyukin A. (1909): “The Visits of Foreigners to the Moscow State” (Приезд иностранцев в
Московское государство” / “From the History of Russian Law XVI-XVII centuries” (Из
истории русского права XVI–XVIIвв). Trud publishing, Saint Petersburg.

Minkina O. (2009): "A Restless Charecter: Episodes from the History of the Jews in Russia in the
Late XVIII - Early XIX Century” (Беспокойный характер». Эпизоды из истории евреев в
России конца XVIII – начала XIX века). Lechaim journal № 9, Moscow.

Mironov B. (2003): “The Social History of Russia During the Imperial Period: XVIII –
Beginning of XX” (Социальная история России периода империи (XVIII — начало XX вв.).
Bulanin publishing, Saint Petersburg Vol. 2.

Molchanovski N. (1900): “The Report of Venetian Alberto Vimina about the Cossacks and B.
Khmelnitsky” (Донесение венецианца Альберто Вимина о козаках и Б. Хмельницком). Kiev
Antiquity. No. 1.

Morrison K. (1992): “Understanding Conversion”. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Moscovich W. (2003): “Attitudes Towards Baptized Jews in Eastern Europe in the 17-18th
Centuries”// “Jewish-Polish and Jewish Russian Contacts”. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem, Gdansk. Jews and Slavs Vol. 11, Pg. 79-87.

Moshe ben Jacob of Kiev (1509): “Lily of Secrets” (‫)שושן סודות‬. Partial ed., Johan Anton Krieger,
Koretz. 1788. (Reprint Jerusalem, 1995).

Moshinskiy M. (1846): “A Historic Monument of Pinsk” (Исторический памятник о Пинске).

Reading in the Society of History and Antiquity of Russia. Moscow University, Moscow. No. 5.

Muslow M., Popkin R. (2004): “Secret Conversions to Judaism in Early Modern Europe”. Brill,
Leiden.

Nadav M. (1984): “The Jewish Community of Nemyriv in 1648: Their Massacre and Loyalty
Oath to the Cossacks”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge. Harvard Ukrainian
Studies, Vol. VIII. No3/4. Pg. 376-387.

Nadav M. (2003): “Jewish Community of Pinsk in 1648-1677” (‫ מחקרים בתולדות יהודי פולין וליטא‬:
‫)פתוח פנקס‬// “Studies on the history of the Jews of Poland and Lithuania” (‫בתולדות יהודי פולין וליטא‬
‫מחקרים‬:‫)פתוח פנקס‬. Goldshtain-Goren, Tel Aviv.

Neuman L. (2006): “Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.”

6th edition. Pearson, Boston.

Nevostruev K. (1865): “The Life of Venerable Joseph, Abbot of Volokolamsk, Composed by

Bishop Savva Krutitski” (Житие Иосифа Волоцкого, составленное Саввой Черным).
Readings of the Moscow society of devotees to spiritual enlightenment. Moscow. Book 2.

185

Nichik. V. (2002): “Simon Todorski and Hebraic Studies at Kievan-Mogilyan Academy” (Симон
Тодорский и гебраистика в Киево-Могилянской академии). KM Academy, Kiev.

Notarius К. (2004): “The Deep Mire” of Nathan Hanover and the Jewish Historiography in
Poland in the Middle of 17th Century”. Jerusalem. Pg. 65-81.

Olevskaya V. (2009): “On the Question of the Formation of the Diocesan Administration in
Moscow in the Early Synodal Period” (К вопросу о становлении Московского Епархиального
управления в начальный Синодальный период). Bulletin of the Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox
University, Vol. 11.

Oparina T. (2007): “Foreigners in Russia XVI-XVII Centuries. Essays on Historical Biography

and Genealogy” (Иноземцы в России XVI-XVII вв. Очерки исторической биографии и
генеалогии). Progress Tradition, Moscow.

Oparina T. (2009): “The Audience of the Tsar as a Reward for Conversion to Orthodoxy //
Spatial and Temporal Crossroads of Cultures” (Царская аудиенция как награждение за
переход в православие). Altai State University publishing, Barnaul.

Panchenko A. (2000): “Russian Culture on the Eve of the Reforms of Peter the Great” (Русская
культура в канун петровских реформ). // “Russian History and Culture: Works of Different
Years” (Русская история и культура: Работы разных лет). Azbuka publishing, Saint
Petersburg.

Paul of Alepo (1660s): “The Travels of Macarius, Patriach of Antioch to Russia in the Middle of
XVII Century, Depicted by His Son Archimandrite Paul of Alepo” (Путешествие
Антиохийского Патриарха Макария в Россию в половине XVII века, описанное его сыном,
архидиаконом Павлом Алеппским). Edited by Murkos G. 1896-1900. Typography of the
University, Moscow. Vol. 2.

Panov I. (1877): “The Judaizer Heresy” (Ересь жидовствующих). Journal of the Ministry of
National Enlightenment. February. Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint
Petersburg.

Pereswetoff-Morath A. (2002): “A Grin without a Cat. Adversus Judaeos Texts in the Literature
of Medieval Russia”. Slavonic Monographs, 4. Lund University, Lund.

Peter of Blois (1211): “Against the Unbelief of the Jews”. In Williams L. (1935): “Adversus
Judaeos: A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologies Until the Renaissance”. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge. Pg. 400-407.

Pikhoya R. (1990): “Korchmaya of Perm” (Пермская кормчая) // “Public Consciousness, Book

Keeping and Literature in the Epoch of Feudalism” (Общественное сознание, книжность,
литература периода феодализма). Department of Sciences of Siberia. Novosibirsk.

Platonov O. (2005): “Gregory Rasputin and “the Children of the Devil”” (Григорий Распутин
и "дети дьявола"). Eksmo publishing, Moscow. Pg. 33-34.

Plokhii S. (2001): “The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine”. Oxford University
press, Oxford.

186

Plokhii S. (2006): “The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Pre-modern Identities in Russia, Ukraine,
and Belarus”. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Podskalski G. (1996): “Christianity and Theological Literature in Kievan Rus (988-1237)”

(Христианство и богословская литература в Киевской Руси (988–1237 гг).
Byzantinorossica publishing, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 433.

Polyakov Y. (1899-1913): “Registers and Inscriptions. The Collection of Materials for the
History of Jews in Russia” (Регесты и надписи. Свод материалов для истории евреев в
России). Jewish Historic-Ethnographic Society, St. Petersburg.

Ponomarev L. (1916): “On the Literary History of Ancient Russian Collections of the ”Golden
Chain”” (К литературной истории древне-русских сборников «3латая цепь»). Scholarly
Notes of Kazan University. Book 8.

Pliguzov A., Tikhonyuk I. (1988): “The Letter of Dmitry Trakhaniot to Novgorod Archbishop
Gennady On the Symmetry of the Count of Years” (Послание Дмитрия Траханиота
Новгородскому архиепископу Геннадию Гонзову о седмеричности счисления лет). Natural
Scientific Understanding of Ancient Ruthenia. Moscow.

Prohorov G. (1972): “The Debate of Gregory Palamas with “Chione and Turks” and the
Problem of “Judaizer Subtilize” (Прение Григория Паламы с "хионы и турки" и проблема
"жидовская мудрствующих). Works of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature,
Leningrad. Vol. 17.

Prokopenko M. (2001): “The ‘Jewish Motives’ of the Case Against Patriarch Nikon: The
Denunciation of a Baptized Jew M. Afanasev to Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich in 1666” (Еврейские
мотивы» следственного дела патриарха Никона: Донос крещеного еврея М. Афанасьева
царю Алексею Михайловичу в 1666 г.). Publication of the Hebew University, Moscow. №6 (24),
Pg. 349-366.

Prokopenko M. (2003): “Baptized Jews Versus Patriach Nikon: The Materials of the
Invsetigation on Pariach Nikon in 1666” // Jewish Moscow: Collection of Articles and
Materials”(Выкресты против патриарха Никона: Материалы следственного дела
1666 года). MEKPO Publishing, Moscow. Pg. 330-338.

Protopriest Cipin V. (2008): “Heresy” (“Ересь”). In “The Orthodox Encyclopedia”

(Православная энциклопедия). Edited by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill.
Published by the Research Center of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow. Vol. 18.

Pushkareva N. (2002): “The Problem of the Institutionalization of the Gender Approach in the
System of Historic Sciences and Historic Education” (Проблема институализации гендерного
подхода в системе исторических наук и исторического образования). In “Women. History.
Society: A Collection of Articles” (Женщины. История. Общество: Сборник научных
статей). Edited By Uspenskaya V. Tver Regional Literature Publishing house, Tver. Vol. 2.

Raba J. (1997): “Pogroms of 1648-1649: Events and Their Meanings”. Edited by Bartal I. and
Gurman I. Vol. 1. Zalman Shazaer Center, Jerusalem.

187

Rabbi Meir ben Shmuel of Shebershin (1650): “The Stress of the Times”. The first edition
(Krakow 1649/1650) was published by Hebrew University, Department of the History of the
Jewish people Jerusalem, 1968.

Rabbi Nathan Nata ben Moses Hanover (1652/53): “The Deep Mire”. Venice, A.M. 5413. Ed.
and rev. Israel Halpern. The United Kibbutz, Tel-Aviv, 1966.

Rabbi Shabbetai ben Meir Katz ha-Kohen (1651): “The Scroll of Darkness”. Amsterdam, A.M.
5411. Published in “The Jewish Community of Poland”. Youth Department of Zionist
Organization, Jerusalem. Vol. 2. 1953.

Rambo L. (1993): “Understanding Religious Conversion”. Yale University Press, New Haven.

The Responsa of Morduch Ziskind Rotenburg (1746), Amsterdam. A fragment of responsa Num.
22 was sited in Katz B. (1898): “On the History of Jews in Russia, Poland and Lithuania XVI-
XVII centuries” ("Из истории евреев в России, Польше и Литве XVI-XVII веков".). Sion
publishing, Saint Petersburg.

Richter W. (1820): “History of Medicine in Russia” (История медицины в России).

Wsewolojsky typography, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2.

Robeck C. (1996): “Mission and the Issue of Proselytism”. International Bulletin of Missionary
Research, Vol. 20. No. 1. New Haven.

Romanova A. (2002): “The Ancient Russian Calendar-Chronological Sources of XV-XVII

centuries” (Древнерусские календарно-хронологические источники XV-XVII вв.). Bulanin
publishing. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 113.

Rosman M. (1993): “A Minority Views the Majority: Jewish Attitudes Towards the Polish
Lithuanian Commonwealth and Interaction with the Poles // From Shtetl to Socialism: Studies
from Polin”. Edited by Polonsky A. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, London.

Rosman M. (2002): “A Prolegomenon to the Study of Jewish Cultural History”. Jewish Studies,
Internet Journal. Ramat Gan. Vol. 1.

Rosman M. (2002). “Innovative Tradition: Jewish Culture in the Polish-Lithuanian

Commonwealth”. In “Cultures of Jews: A New History”. Edited by Biale D. Schocken, New
York.

Rosman M. (2003): “Dubno in the Wake of Khmelnitsky”. Springer publishing, New

York. Jewish History Vol.17 No. 2.

Roth N. (2002): “Conversos, Inqusition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain”. University
of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Ryan W. (1978): “The Old Russian Version of the Pseudo-Aristotelian “Secreta Secretorum"”
The Slavonic and East European Review Vol. 56, No. 2, London.

Ryan W. (1999): “The Bathhouse at Midnight: An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in
Russia”. Penn State University Press, PA.

188

Rybakov B. (1934): “Militant Clerics of XVI Century” (Воинствующие церковники XVI в.).
Anti-religion journal, Moscow. Vol. 3.

Ryvkin H. (1910): “The Jews in Smolensk: The Outline of the History of Jewish Settlements in
Smolensk from the Ancient Times as Related to the Social Status of the Jews in Ancient Ruthenia”
(Еврей в Смоленске: очерк по истории еврейских поселений в Смоленске с древнейших
времен, в связи с общим положением евреев в древней Руси). Typography of S. Bussel, Saint
Petersburg.

Sajkowski A. (1961): “Diary of Samuel Maskiewicz. 17th Century” (Pamiętniki Samueli i

Bogusława Kazimierza Maskiewiczów wiek XVII). Ossolinskich, Wroclaw.

Sakharov I. (1841): “Notes of Medvedev S. // Notes of Russian People. Events of the Epoch of
Peter the Great” (Записки Медведев C. // Записки русских людей. События времен Петра
Великого). Записки Матвеева, Крекшина, Желябужского и Медведева,). Sakharov
typography, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 33.

Schäfer P. (2007): “Jesus in the Talmud”. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Schainker E. (2010): “Imperial Hybrids” Jewish Conversions in Russia in the Nineteenth

Century”. A PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Schapov Y. (1976): “The Status of the Ancient Russian Princes’ in XI-XV centuries”
(Древнерусские княжеские уставы XI–XV вв.). Science. Institute of History of the USSR.
Moscow.

Schneider M. (2014): “The “Judaizers” of Muscovite Russia and Kabbalistic Eschatology”. In

“The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World”. Jews and Slavs, Vol. 24. Bridges of
Culture publishing, Moscow.

Scholem G. (1971): “Redemption Through Sin” // The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other
Essays on Jewish Spirituality”. Schocken Books, New York. Pg. 78-141.

Sedelnikov D. (1932): “A 1490 Report of the Inquisition // The Proceedings of the Commission
on Ancient Russian Literature” (Рассказ 1490 г. об инквизиции // Труды Комиссии по древне-
русской литературе). AN Publishing, Moscow-Leningrad. Vol. 1. Pg. 33-57.

Seebohm T. (1977): “Ratio und Charisma: Ansätze und Ausbildung Eines Philosophischen und
Wissenschaftlichen Weltverständnisses im Moskauer Russland”. Mainzer philosophische
Forschungen, Bd. 17. Bouvier publishing, Bonn.

Sharma A. (2014): “Hinduism and The Concept of A Missionary Religion”. In “The Oxford
Handbook of Religious Conversion”. Edited by Rambo L. and Farhadian C. Orthodox University
Press, New York.

Shmuel Feivish (1655-1658): “Tit ha-Yaven” (Miry Clay). Venice. Edited by Gurland I. Odessa,
1892.

Shubinsky S. (1892): “The First General of the Saint Petersburg Police” (Первый Генерал-
полицмейстер Санкт-Петербурга). Typography of Suvorin A., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 48, Pg.
426-448.

189

Shubinski S. (1893): “Historic Essays and Stories” (Исторические очерки и рассказы).
Typography of Suvorin S., Saint Petersburg. Fourth Edition.

Shugurov M. (1894): “The History of Jews in Russia” (История Евреев в России). Russian
Archive. Book 1. Vol. 1. Pg. 69.

Shulvass M. (1971): “From East to West: The Westward Migration of Jews from Eastern Europe
During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century.” West State University press, Detroit.

Shusberg G. (1651): “The Path to Salvation”. Amsterdam. Hayim Polack addition Budapest-
Krakow. 1903.

Sichinski V. (1992): “Foreigners on Ukraine: A Selection of Narratives About Travels in

Ukraine over 10 Centuries” (Иностранцы об Украине. Выбор из описаний путешествий по
Украине и Других писаний чужаков об Украине за десять веков). Dovira, Kiev.

Skrinnikov R. (1988): “Russia in the Beginning of XVII century: The Times of Trouble” (Россия
в начале XVII в. "Смута"). Thought publishing. Moscow.

Skrinnikov R. (1992): “Tsardom of Terror” (Царство террора). Sciences. Saint Petersburg.

Skrytnikov R. (1991): “The Church and State in XIV-XVI Ruthenia” (Государство и церковь на
Руси XIV - XVI вв.). Sciences. Novosibirk. Pg. 95-110.

Sobolevskii A. (1903): “Translated Literature of Moscow Ruthenia in XIV-XVII Centuries”

(Переводная литература Московской Руси XIV—XVII вв.). Typography of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Pg. 396-428.

Sokolof D. (1899): “Manual of the Orthodox Church’s Divine Services”. Holy Trinity Monastery
(published in 2001). New York.

Solovev S. (2002): “History of Russia From the Ancient Times” (История России с
древнейших времен) // “Rule of Empress Anna Ioannovna” (Царствование императрицы
Анны Иоанновны). AST Folio publishing, Moscow. Vol. 20.

Speranski M. (1907): “The Psalter of the Judaizers in the Translation of Feodor the Jew”
(Псалтырь жидовствующих в переводе Феодора еврея). Readings at the Imperial Society of
Russian History and Antiquity at Moscow University, Moscow. Vol. II.

Speranski M. (2004): “History of Ancient Russian Literature” (История древней русской

литературы). Lan publishing, Saint Petersburg. 4th ed.

Stampfer S. (2003): “What Actually Happened to the Jews of Ukraine in 1648”. Springer
publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol. 17, No 2. Pg. 207-227.

Stock B. (1986): “History, Literature, and Medieval Textuality // Yale French Studies” in
“Images of Power Medieval History/Discourse/Literature”. Yale University Press, New Haven.
No. 70, P. 7-17.

190

Stroev V. (1910): “Bironovshina and the Cabinet of Ministers: Essays on the Internal Politics of
Empress Anna” (Бироновщина и Кабинет министров. Очерк внутренней политики
императрицы Анны). Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Part
2.

Sumarkov A. (1768): “The First and Principal Musketeer Revolt in Moscow in May of 1682”
(Первый и главный стрелецкий бунт бывший в Москве в 1682 году в месяце Мае). Imperial
Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.
http://historydoc.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=13042&ob_no=14572)

Sysyn F. (1990): “The Jewish Factor in the Khmelnytsky Uprising” in “Ukranian-Jewish

Relations in Historical Perspective”. Edited by Aster H. and Potichnjy P. Canadian Institute of
Ukrainian Studies Press, Edmonton.

Tartakoff P. (2015): “Testing Boundaries: Jewish Conversion and Cultural Fluidity in Medieval
Europe, c. 1200–1391”. Speculum Vol. 90, Issue 03. The Medieval Academy of America,
Cambridge. Pg. 728-262.

Tatishchev V. (1847): “Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times” (История
России с древнейших времен). Imperial Moscow University. Book 5, No.4.

Taube M. (1995): “”The "Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of the
Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Cambridge. Vol. XIX. P. 671 -68

Taube M. (1995): “The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers”.
Jews and Slavs Vol. 3. Jerusalem. Pg. 168-175.

Taube M. (2005): “The Fifteenth Century Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy
of the Judaizers: Is There a Connection?”// “Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia
and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages”. Ed. by V. Ivanov. OGI, Moscow. Pg. 185-208.

Taube M. (2010): “Judaizer Heresy and the Translations from Hebrew in Medieval Russia” in
“History of the Jewish People in Russia: From Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period”. Vol. 1.
Bridges of Culture/Gershaim publishing, Moscow.

Taube M. (2010): “Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan”. Aleph:

Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, Vol. 10, issues 2. Indiana University Press. Pg. 315-
353.

Teller A. (2008): “Jewish Literary Responses to the Events of 1648-49 and the Creation of a
Polish-Jewish Consciousness. In: B. Nathans, G. Safran (eds.), Culture Front: Eastern European
Jews and their Culture. University of Pennsylvania press, Philadelphia.

The Temporary Commission for the Analysis of Ancient Acts (1852-1914): “Archive of South-
Western Ruthenia”. Kiev.

Teter M. (2003): “Jewish Conversions to Catholicism in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of

the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”. Springer publishing, New York. Jewish History. Vol.
17, No 3. Pg. 257-283.

191

Teter M. (2005): “The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reassurance”. AJS Review
No. 29:2. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 237-263.

Teter M. (2006): “Jews and Heretics in Catholic Poland: A Beleaguered Church in the Post-
Reformation Era”. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Teter M., Fram E. (2006): “Apostasy, Fraud, and the Beginnings of Hebrew Printing in Cracow”.
AJS Review Vol. 30:1. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 31-66.

Tikhomirov M. (1975): “Ancient Ruthenia” (Древняя Русь). Sciences, Moscow.

Tikhonyuk I. (1986): “Easter Computus of Metropolitan Zosima of Moscow” (Изложение

пасхалии московского митрополита Зосимы) // “Research on the Sources of History of the
USSR XIII – XVIII centuries” (Исследования по источниковедению истории СССР XIII-XVIII
в) Sciences, Moscow.

Tikhonyuk I. (1992): “The Mystery of Archimandrite Evfimij: the Origins of the Conflict Between
Joseph Volotsky and Metropolitan Zosima” (Загадка архим. Евфимия: К истокам конфликта
Иосифа Волоцкого и митр. Зосимы). In “Problems of National History and Culture of the
Period of Feudalism” (Проблемы отечественной истории и культуры периода
феодализма). Readings in memory of V. Kobrin. Moscow.

Toporov V. (1995): “The Jewish Element of Kiev Rus” (Еврейский элемент в Киевской Руси) //
“Slavs and Their Neighbors” (Славяне и их соседи.). The Jewish Population in Central, Eastern
and South-Eastern Europe: From the Middle Ages to the Beginning of the Modern Times”
(Еврейское население Центральной, Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы: Средние века –
начало Нового времени). Collection of Thesis of the XII reading in the memory of V. D.
Korolyuk, Moscow. Pg. 28-43.

Trubin S. (1872): “Nestlings of Peter the Great. 1701-1725. Materials” (Птенцы Петра
Великого. 1701—1725). Russian Antiquity, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 5, No.6, Pg. 903-951.

Tsvetkov M. (2003): “The Letter of Archbishop Gennady to Bishop Prokhor Sarsky in the
Context of Novgorod Heresy at the End of XV – Beginning of XVI Centuries” (Послание
архиепископа Геннадия Новгородского епископу Прохору. Сарскому в контексте с
правилами новгородских кормчих конца XV—начала XVI вв.). Historical Collection of
Novgorod. Saint Petersburg. Pg. 189.

Turilov A, Chernezov A. (1989): “To the Cultural-Historical Characteristic of the “Judaizer”

Heresy” (К культурно-исторической характеристике ереси "жидовствующих" //
Hermeneutics Ancient Russian Literature” (Герменевтика древнерусской литературы).
Institute of World Literature named after I. M. Gorkiy, Moscow. Vol. 1, Pg. 410-411.

Turilov A. (2004): “The Answers of Georgiy, Mertopolitan of Kiev, to the Questions of Hegumen
German” (Ответы Георгия, митрополита Киевского, на вопросы игумена Германа). In
“The Slavic World Between Rome and Constantinople” (Славянский мир между Римом и
Константинополем). Vol. 11, Moscow.

192

Turilov A., Moshkova L. (1999): “The Life of Cyril Constantine” (Житие Константина-
Кирилл) // “Library of the Literature of Ancient Ruthenia” (Библиотека литературы Древней
Руси). Sciences, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2. http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=2163.

Twardowski S. (1681): “A Civil War with the Cossacks and Tatars, Muscovy, and then with the
Swedes and Hungarians” (Wojna domowa z Kozaki i Tatary, Moskwa, potya Szwedami i z-
Wegry). Kalisz.

Vasenko P. (1913): “The Book of Degrees of the Royal Genealogy” (Книга Степенная царского
родословия). The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Typography of Alexandrov A., Saint Petersburg. Vol. 21. Part 2.

Varadinov N. (1858): “History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs” (История Министерства

внутренних дел). Typography of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 2, part 1.

Vereshchagin E. (2001): “The Church Slavonic Book Culture in Russia. Lingual-Textual

Investigations” (Церковнославянская книжность на Руси. Лингвотекстологические
разыскания). Indric publishing, Moscow, Pg. 174-193.

Vernadsky G. (1933): “The Heresy of the Judaizers and the Policies of Ivan III of Moscow”.
Speculum, Vol. 8, No. 4. Medieval Academy of America. Cambridge.

Veselovski S. (1975): “Deacons and Clerks of VV-XVII centuries” (Дьяки и подъячие XV-XVII
вв.). Sciences, Moscow.

Volkov L. (1999): “The Office of Secret Investigations in Moscow” (Канцелярии тайных

розыскных дел в Москве). // Statehood in Russia (End of 15th Century-February 1917):
Vocabulary-Directory” (Государственность России (конец XV в. — февраль 1917 г.) :
Словарь-справочник). Home of Books Publishing, Moscow. Book 2.

Volkov V. (2004): “The Wars and Forces of the Moscow State (End of XV – First Half of XVII)”
(Войны и войска Московского государства (конец XV– первая половина XVII в.)). Young
Guard publishing, Moscow. Pg. 238.

Volok. No. 5 (1494). A Manuscript collection of the Russian State Library. Pg. 377-483 and 484-
563.

Volotsky J. (1490-1504): “The Enlightener” (Просветитель). In “The Enlightener, or the

Condemnation of the Judaizers Heresy” (Просветитель или Осуждение ереси
жидовствующих). Typography of the Imperial University. Kazan. 1903.

Washofsky M. (2001): “Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice”. University

of American Hebrew Congregations publishing, New York. Revised Ed.

Węgrzynek H. (2005): “Was the Catholic Church in Poland Afraid of Conversion to Judaism in
the Early 16th Century?”. Institute of Jewish History, Warsaw. Jewish History Quarterly, No. 1,
Pg. 7-15.

Weinreich M. (1927): “Shturemvint: Bilder fun der Yiddisher Geshikhte in 17tn Yorhundert”
(‫ שטורעמווינט‬: ‫ אין געשיכטע יידישער דער פון בילדער‬17‫)יארהונדערט טן‬. Tomor, Vilnius.

193

Weinryb B. (1973): “The Jews of Poland: A Social and Economic History of the Jewish
Community in Poland from 1100 to 1800”. The Jewish Publication Society of America,
Philadelphia.

Wells M. (2002): “Parallelism: A Handbook of Social Analysis. The Study of Revolution &
Hegemonic War”. Xlibris publishing, Bloomington.

White D. (1982):“T he Patriarch and the Prince. The Letter of Patriarch Phoitos of
Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria”. Holy Cross Publishing, Brookline, Mass.

Wisner H. (2002): “Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of Vasa The Times of Sigismund III and
Władysław IV”. Volume 1. Pan History Institute, Warsaw.

Yakovenko N. (2002): “A Parallel World. Research on the History of Imagery and Ideas in
Ukraine XVI-XVII” (Параллельный мир. Исследование по истории представлений и идей на
Украине XVI—XVII). Kritika, Kiev. Pg. 192-208.

Yanin V. (2004): “Monasteries of Medieval Novgorod in the Structure of Governmental

Institutions” (Монастыри средневекового Новгорода в структуре государственных
институтовстатья) // “Medieval Novgorod: Traces of Archeology and History”
(Средневековый Новгород: Очерки археологии и истории). High school. Moscow. Pg. 238-
240.

Yuval. I. (2002):“They Tell Lies: You Ate the Man”: Jewish Reactions to the Ritual Murder
Accusations. In “Religious Violence Between Christians and the Jews. Medieval Roots and
Modern Perspectives”. Edited by Abulafia A. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Zaborowsky L. (1998): “Catholics, Orthodox, Uniates: The Issues of Religion in Russian-Polish-

Ukrainian Relations in 1640s-1680s. Documents” (Католики, православные, униаты.
Проблемы религии в русско-польско-украинских отношениях конца 40-х — 80-х гг.).
Institute of Slavonic Studies, Moscow.

Zanemonec A. (2004): “The Case of Hionios: to the History of the Byzantine Judaic Sect” (Дело
Хиония: к истории византийских “жидовствующих). Byzantine Vremennik, Moscow. Vol.
63 (88), pg. 317-323.

Zanomenec A. (2003): “The Renunciation from Judaism in Byzantine Culture” (Отречение от

иудаизма в византийской культуре”// “Ours or Foreign? Jews and Slavs in the Eyes of Each
Other” (Свой или чужой? Евреи и славяне глазами друг друга). Sefer publishing, Moscow.

Zimin A. (1982): “Russia at the Turn of XV-XVI centuries: Traces of Socio-Political History”
(Россия на рубеже XV–XVI столетий (Очерки социально-политической истории). Thought
publishing. Moscow.

Zimin A., Lurie Y. (1959): “The Epistles of Joseph Volotsky” (Послания Иосифа Волоцкого).
Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad.

Zinberg I. (1929): “The History of Jewish Literature” (История еврейской литературы).

Tomor, Vilno. Vol. 3.

194

Zombart V. (1912): “Baptism of the Jews” (Крещение евреев). Foreword by S. Vermel. Stolyar
publishing, Saint Petersburg.

“The 500th anniversary of the defeat of the Judaizing Heresy” (500 лет разоблачения ереси
жидовствующих) (2004). “Word of Savvinsk”, newspaper of Savvino-Storozhesk Stauropegial
Monastery. (http://archiv.kiev1.org/page-969.html).

Primary Sources

“A Chronicle Compilation Referred to as Tver Chronicle” (Летописный сборник, именуемый

Тверской летописью). “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” (Полное собрание
русских летописей). Vol. 15. Part 1. The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy
of Sciences. Saint Petersburg.

“Chronicles of Novgorod and Pskov” // “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”. Vol.
4. (Летопись Новгорода и Пскова). The Archaeographical Expedition of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.

“Chronicle of Joachim Jerlicz” (J. Jerlicz, Letopisiec albo kroniczka). Edited by Wojcicki K.
(1853). Wienhoeber, Warsaw. Vol. 1.

“The Chronicle of the Witness” (1670s) (Літопис Самовидця). Prepared for publishing by Dzira
Y. 1971. Scholarly Thought, Kiev.

“Chronicle of Vladimir” (Владимирская Летопись) (1965) in “The Complete Collection of

Russian Chronicles” (Полное собрание русских летописей). Vol. 30. Sciences. Moscow Pg.
213.

“Chronicle of Vologda-Perm” (1959) (Вологодско-Пермская летопись) in “The Complete

Collection of Russian Chronicles” (Полное собрание русских летописей). Vol. 26. Sciences.
Moscow-Leningrad.

“Ioasafovskaya Chronicle” (Иоасафовская Летопись) (1967) in “The Complete Collection of

Russian Chronicles” (Полное собрание русских летописей). Vol. 6, 2nd Ed. Sciences. Moscow-
Leningrad.

“Letters of F. Prokopovich, Written During the Reign of Peter the Great (Письма Ф.
Прокоповича, писанные в царствование Петра Великого)” (1865). Works of Kiev
Theological Academy, Kiev. No. 1.

“The Materials of the Biography of the Reverend Simon Todorski, Archbishop of Pskov”
(Материалы к биографии преосвященного Симона Тодорского, архиепископа псковского)
(1872). Saint Petersburg Theological Seminary, Saint Petersburg. Spiritual Conversations No. 24.

“Novgorodian Codex” (Новгородский кодекс) (2000) // “The Complete Collection of Russian

Chronicles” (Полное собрание русских летописей). Russian Literature, Moscow. Vol. 3.

“Patericon of Volokolamsk” (Патерик Волоколамский). In “Ancient Russian Patericons”

(Древнерусские патерики) (1999). Edited by Olishevskaya L. and Travnikov S. Published by
the Joseph Volotsky Monastery. Moscow.

195

 “Reunification of Ukraine and Russia. Documents and Materials in Three Volumes”
(Воссоединение Украины с Россией. Документы и материалы в 3-х томах) (1953).
Publishing house of the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad. Vol 2, No. 1447.

“The Rite of Joining From the Infidels to the Orthodox Eastern Church” (Чинопоследование
соеди- няемых из иноверных к православной кафолической восточной церкви) (1757).
Synodal Typography, Moscow.

“The Rules of St. Basil the Great” (Правила Святого Василия Великог), In “The Rules of the
Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church with Interpretations of Bishop Nicodemus (Milos)”
(Правила Святых Отцов Православной Церкви с толкованиями Епископа Никодим
(Милоша)) (2004). The Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission.

“Sofiskaya Chronicle” (Софийская Летопись) (2000) // “The Complete Collection of Russian

Chronicles” (Полное собрание русских летописей). Vol. 6, 1st Ed. Language of Russian
Literature, Moscow.

“The Trebnik of Metropolitan Peter Mogila” (Требник митрополита Петра Могилы) (1646),
Kiev. Reprint, 1996. Liturgical Literature, Kiev.

“Trebnik” (1736) (Требник). Typography of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Kiev.

“Trebnik” (1754) (Требник). Typography of Troisk-Ilinsk monastery, Chernigov.

“Trebnik” (Требник) (1659). Moscow Print Yard, Moscow. Reprint 2008. Publishing house of
the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow.

Acts Collected in Libraries and Archives of the Russian Archeological Expedition of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences (1836) (Акты, собранные в библиотеках и архивах Российской империи
археографической экспедицией императорской академии наук). Vol. 1. Typography of Her
Imperial Majesty, Saint Petersburg.

Acts of the Moscow state (Акты Московского государства) (1894). Vol. 2. Typography of the
Imperial Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.

Acts published by the Vilnius Archeographic Commission (Акты, издаваемые Вильнюсской

археографической комиссией) (1902). Vol. 28 (Acts about Jews) (Акты о евреях). Vilnius.

The Archive of South-Western Ruthenia (Архив Юго-Западной России) (1911). Volume 3.

(Materials for the history of Orthodoxy in Western Ukraine in the XVIII century.) (Материалы
для истории православия в Западной Украине в XVIII ст.) Pg. 227.

The Archive of South-Western Ruthenia (Архив Юго-Западной России )(1912). Volume 4

(Acts of Union and the state of the Orthodox Church in South-West Russia in the 2nd half of the
XVII and XVIII centuries. (1648 – 1798) (Акты об унии и состоянии православной церкви в
Юго-Западной России во 2-й половине XVII и в XVIII ст. (1648 — 1798 гг.). Kiev. Pg. 214-
215.

The Archive of the Russian National Library. (Архив Российской национальной библиотеки.)
“Records of Jews coming to the Christian faith” (Записи о евреях перешедших в
христианскую веру). Fond II. 119, beginning of XV century. Pg. 16.

196

The Archive of the Russian National Library (Архив Российской национальной библиотеки).
Main collection of manuscripts (Основная коллекция рукописей). Q.I. 1380. St. Petersburg. Pg.
98

The Archive of the Russian National Library (Архив Российской национальной библиотеки).
Main collection of manuscripts (Основная коллекция рукописей). Volok. No. 5 (1494). Pg.
377-483 and 484-563.

Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 107a

Babylonian Talmud: “Tractate Yevamoth” (“Levirate marriage”), 41a.

Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin (“The Order of Damages)”, Tractate Gerim 1,7

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Avodah Zarah (“Foreign Worship”), 54a.

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Hullin (“Profane”), 41a.

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yevamoth 47b.

“The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, from 1649” (1830) (Полное собрание
законов Российской империи, с 1649). First edition, Saint Petersburg. http://www.nlr.ru/e-
res/law_r/content.html

Documents of Bohdan Khmelnitsky 1648-1657 (Документы Богдана Хмельницького. (1648—

1657). Prepared by Kripyatkevich I. and Butich I. Scholarly Thought, Kiev. 1961.

Documents on the War of Liberation of the Ukrainian People 1648-1654 (1965) (Документы об
Освободительной войне украинского народа 1648—1654). Scientific Thought, Kiev. No. 96.

Library of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergious (Библиотека Свято-Троицкой Сергеевой лавры,).
“Sinodal Kormchaya of Novgorod” (Новгородская Синодальная Кормчая) (1653). No. 132.
http://old.stsl.ru/manuscripts/staropechatnye-knigi/9-1

Monuments of Diplomatic Relations of Muscovy with Asian Peoples: Crimean Horde, Kazan,
Nogaics and Turkey. Part 1 (from 1474 to 1505). (1884) (Памятники дипломатических
сношений Московского государства с азиатскими народами: Крымом, Казанью,
Ногайцами и Турцией) Часть 1-ая (годы с 1474 по 1505). Collection of the Russian Imperial
Historical Society, Saint Petersburg. Vol. 41.

Monuments of the Diplomatic Relations of Muscovy with Polish-Lithuanian State. Part II (1987)
(Памятники дипломатических сношений Московского государства с Польско-Литовским
государством). Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, Saint Petersburg. Vol.
LIX., Ch 21.

197

Archival Material

The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts:

Fund 27. Order of Secret Matters (Приказ тайных дел) Case 140, chapter 8, Pg. 238-251. Case
267, Pg. 215-237.

Fund 141. Clerical Orders of Old Years (Приказные дела старых лет). Pushkarsky Order.
(Пушкарский приказ). Case 135, Pg. 1-7. Case 273, Pg. 1-2.

Fund 210. Catergorical Order (Разрядный приказ). Desyatni Cases (Дела десятен). Case 276,
pg. 46, Case 278, 279. Pg. 112-118, 132.

Fund 210. Categorical Order (Разрядный приказ). Orders of the Belgorod table (Столбцы
Белгородского стола). Section 61, Pg. 36-40, 373; Column 158, Pg. 44-56.

Fund 210. Categorical Order (Разрядный приказ). Orders of the Clerical table (Столбцы
Приказного стола). Column 562, Pg. 311-322.

Fund 210. Categorical Order (Разрядный приказ). Books of the Moscow table (Записные книги
Московского стола). Book 36, chapter 1, Pg. 856.

Fund 248. The Senate and its Institutions (Сенат и его учреждения). Anagraph 113, Case 169:
“Of the Sect of Judaizers in Kazan” (О секте жидовствующих в Казани).

Fund 265. Saint Petersburg Printing Office (Петербургская печатная контора). Book 1, Cases
30, 38, 187.

Fund 1183. The Moscow Bureau of the Synod. (Московская Контора Синода) Book 1, case 86.
Pg. 1-42.

The Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine. Fund 127, Inventory 167, Case 95, Pg. 20

Vienna, Imperial Library. Codex 183 in Schwarz 1925 Catalogue. Table IX, item m.

198

I declare that I have referenced all resources and aids that were used and assure that the
paper is authored independently on this basis.

Mikhail Beider

199