Back To Journal

Box-Tax Paperwork Records

As a source of information about the life of Jewish communities and their personal structure
By Anatolij Chayesh, June 2003

Translated by Leonid Bogatin

In doing Jewish research about local community history, genealogy, and the history of families it is important to enlarge the scope of the utilized sources.

In accordance with such an approach, the goal of this article is to bring attention to the archival documents with box tax related material which are kept in the Russian State Historical Archives (RSHA) in fond 1287 of the Economic Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD).

General Data about the Box Tax and Its Record Keeping

The history of the origin and evolution of the box tax has been researched quite thoroughly in detail. That research was handled by a Commission On Handling Jewish Wellbeing Affairs ("Komissiya po ustroistvu byta evreev") during the years 1872-1881 and by our famous historians, S. Dubnow and Yu. Gessen.1

According to Gessen, "Box or cup tax was a term used long ago, as it seems, to refer to the taxes that were levied upon the entire Jewish population not levied individually for each soul (per person or for possessions based upon assessed valuation), but rather it was an indirect levy. This box tax was applied to items of primary necessity which one cannot do without as well as upon some types of economic activity, and also upon religious articles and religious/civil ceremonial records such as marriage, birth, and death records2."

"Originally the goal of the box tax was to be used to help to pay off the debts of the Jewish community to the Catholic clergy. Those debts came about in two ways: on one hand, the Catholic clergy levied monetary fees on the Jews, by employing various pretexts (such as after religious disputes, that they forced upon the Jews), on the other hand, the Jewish communities, not having enough funds to pay off excessive state and land levies, had to borrow from the Catholic clergy."3

The first recorded documentation about the box tax in Litva or Lithuania is found in the documents of the Lithuanian Vaad in 1647.4

In Russia in 1839 there was a decree issued known as "About the Box Tax on Jews." Due to the liquidation of the institution of Kahals, it was later replaced by another decree with the identical same name which was adopted Dec. 19, 1844. This later decree, without any significant changes, was in force through 1917.5 This decree regulated two kinds of levies: general and supplementary.

’8. Paragraph 8. Subject to the General Levy: (1) Kosher Ritual Slaughter of Animals (on each cow, sheep). (2) Ritual Slaughter of Poultry (for each bird). (3) Sale of kosher meat (per each pound). (4) Fees, penalties, and other levies for not following the box tax regulations.

’10 Paragraph 10. Subject to Supplementary Levy: (1) A certain percentage from the rental profits of Jewish owned houses, stores, and cellars or warehouses. (2) A certain percentage from Jewish manufacturing activities’ (3) A certain percentage from the estate of deceased Jews. (4) A fee for wearing Jewish ritual clothing, both male and female. (5) Fees, penalties, and other levies for not following the provisions of this paragraph."

As opposed to the research of the history of the box tax, the record keeping side of the box tax was, up until recently, hardly ever the subject of the researcher’s attention.6

The general approach to the box tax implementation was as follows:

The Civil Municipal Departments handling Jewish affairs, (dumas, ratushas, magistrates), first "by conducting meetings with local and well-to-do Jewish communal representatives" formulated the fee schedule based upon the financial needs of the community and the specific items subject to the box tax as well as the approximate rate for each item.

Then auctions were held for the box tax farmers "for a four year term which always ran from January first throughout the entire gubernia although for each community separately." Specific tax districts were established for each individual box tax farmer (otkupschik) where he had the right to exact box tax payment for his own benefit. After the contract was signed, lists were created of all the Jewish settlements in the districts given to each box tax farmer. The result of this activity ’- the schedules of the levied items, the rate of taxation, the expense schedules, and the agreed upon price of the farmer’s contract ’ the governors reported it all to the general government and the Minister of Internal Affairs.7

The dumas and ratushas accepted payments from the tax farmers, then they issued receipts to them, and these amounts were recorded in the bound libers. Those payments that came for local taxes were sent to the Uyezd Treasury. The surplus figures were included in the fee schedules. As a result of that every year there remained some additional excess funds. These extra funds were to be transferred from the dumas and ratushas to the state bank and some institutions for the poor (such as homes for adults or asylums for the indigent some of which were allowed to borrow funds) in order to earn interest. As those surpluses were accumulating, the money from these funds could be borrowed for Jewish communal use.8 The difficulty confronting the Jewish communal representatives was that these additional funds that had accumulated and were being held in reserve were under the control of the local administration which was not against the idea of "playing with" and basically holding on to the money themselves, or just simply dipping their own hands into what were really Jewish pockets.

The government, which was well aware of this financial abuse by the local bureaucrats, also remembered the shortcomings of the Jewish leaders under the former Kahal system, and therefore set up difficult and complicated procedures for both sides to get hold of the surplus moneys. The procedure was as follows:

First, the representatives of the community, a minimum of two thirds, the so called "five court delegates" had to assemble in a local Mes’chanski or in another type of a local civil government office (the Jews were never in charge of this type of bureaucratic setting) and they had to discuss the proposed expenditure. If such expenditure was considered necessary by this required two-thirds majority of those present, then a request was drawn up. The head of this Mes’chanski precinct and several of its members notarized this request by affixing a seal and together with its own report of the proceedings everything was then sent on to the next level of government for the guberniya (however, if the discussed matter had to do with the local town or a lesser governmental level, then it was directed to the appropriate office).

The Gubernia office usually asked the Uyezd Police Commissioner (uezdny ispravnik) what his opinion was as to the soundness and the financial standing of the communities that had submitted a request. He would report on the total community population, and how many of them might be indigent. When the disbursement was for a debt incurred for caring for its sick members in an out of town hospital then the supervisor was asked to provide information about the financial state of those specific patients.9 If the matter being considered involved helping victims of a fire, then the supervisor would confirm the facts of the fire and its detrimental consequences.

If the matter involved repairs or erection of communal structures then the Supervisor would describe the condition of the current buildings and provide his opinion as to whether or not the repairs and/or new constructions were necessary. Any construction or maintenance task had to be documented by providing some drawings and budget papers. These documents were checked both for technical and financial prudence by the guberina’s building department. At the same time the Finance Department provided the government with information about any debts, tax payments, fees, box tax balances, etc. that might be listed as outstanding on the requestor’s accounts.

After the approval of all of these checks by the gubernia’s government the case was submitted to the civil governor. He would write up a memo as to whether or not there are any obstacles to the proposed budget and quite often he would cut the scope of the project significantly. Then the case was submitted to the Governor General who would write a request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. From the General Reception Office of the Ministry the request would then be forwarded to the Ministry’s Economic Department.

If the Governor-General of the area was against the expense, the request would be denied outright. But if the Governor-General did not find any obstacles, then the Ministry’s Economic Department would ask for the Finance Minister’s opinion. When the subject of the request had to do with educational matters (the building of vocational schools, adding some extra parallel classes, help for some private schools, etc.) then even before the case file would be submitted to the Finance Minister’s Office, it would first be submitted to the Education Ministry’s Office. Only when all of the required approvals were obtained, was permission then granted to the Jewish communal organization to utilize its Box Tax Account to disburse monies for the approved expenditure. It is important to note that this money was not borrowed, but actually always belonged to the Jewish community, although it still needed governmental permission to use it.

These described procedures resulted in huge paperwork.The fees for such applications were based on the number of paper sheets used and the clerks were writing quite extensively. By the way, up to 1851, the additional filing fees were also paid from the same Tax Box account.

To simplify the paperwork, on Aug. 25, 1900, the Minister of Internal Affairs issued circular #2560 which allowed local "Governors, upon consulting with the local Finance Departments, to grant expenditures from the Tax Box Accounts sums without limits towards the following: a) temporary, incidental needs of Jewish groups/associations/organizations11 ’b) setting up and maintaining matters of fire safety, as well as public health, and the general welfare of towns and settlements with a high percentage of Jewish population; c) assistance to Jews hurt by a fire, flood, and other general disasters." 12 Because of this change, the more recent paper records about Box Tax expenditures that are kept in Fond 1287 are less informative.

Private Information about the Box Tax from Fond 1287,
Relevant to Kovno Gubernia.

Description of Sources

Fond 1287 of the Economic Department of the Internal Affairs Ministry contains 107,641 files for the period of 1797 through 1904.In the "opis" or sections 13, 21, 22, 23, 38, 39, 42, 43, and 44 we encountered and recorded hundreds of Box Tax related cases. They contain concrete data about life in the Jewish communities: their population, the number of well-to-do and indigent families, about incomes and expenses of the communities, their debts to the Church and to private individuals, about economic conditions during specific years, about disasters, epidemics, fires, floods, droughts, hail storms, about the construction and repair of public structures, about payments to health facilities for Jewish patients, about payments to the Jewish volunteers who would "sell" themselves to become Army conscripts on behalf of the community, about support to some private schools, as well as many other details. Based upon the record of the number of individuals who have accessed these files, these files have practically never been researched.

Let’s look at some of the files relating to Kovno Gubernia. In Fond 1287 for 1845-1904 there are 74 Kovno {Kaunas} files: 34 are at the gubernia level (about many towns and settlements in the gubernia) (see Table 1), and 40 are at a local level. One of these is shown in Tables 2 and 2a.

Table 1. Gubernia Files involving Box Taxes in Opis numbered 39, 42, 43, 44

(File Number/Year)

Opis 39

Opis 42

Opis 43

Opis 44

 

571/1848

 

363/1846

 

97/1866

 

2/1897

1497/1853

416/1847

153/1867

58/1898

1886/1860

 

358/1870

115/1899

2017/1861

 

409/1871

878/1903

2089/1862

 

475/1872

956/1904

2535/1865

 

522/1873

 

 

 

590/1874

 

 

 

641/1875

 

 

 

794/1877

 

 

 

828/1878

 

 

 

1035/1886

 

 

 

1074/1887

 

 

 

1094/1888

 

 

 

1158/1890

 

 

 

1198/1891

 

 

 

1216/1891

 

 

 

1235/1892

 

 

 

1284/1893

 

 

 

1331/1894

 

 

 

1360/1895

 

 

 

1423/1896

 


Table 2. Local Files Involving Box Taxes in Opis numbered 13, 21, 22, 23

(File Number/Year)

 

Locality

 

Opis 13

 

Opis 21

 

Opis 22

 

Opis 23

Vidzy {Vidzy, Belarus}

 

 

859/1858

 

Kovno {Kaunas}

966/1852

 

 

 

Shavli {Siauliai}

 

15/1847

 

885/1874


Table 2a. Local Files Involving Box Taxes in Opis numbered 38, 39, 42, 43

(File Number/Year)

Locality

Opis 38

Opis 39

Opis 42

Opis 43

Vidzy {Vidzy, Belarus}

 

1556/1853

 

 

Vilkomir {Ukmerge, Lithuania}

 

 

292/1845

 

New Zhagory {New Zagare, Lithuania}

 

 

365/1846

 

Keidany {Kedainiai, Lithuania}

 

1819/1858

 

 

Kovno {Kaunas, Lithuania}

 

1406/1852

1497/1853

2265/1863

269/1845

568/1873

687/1875

783/1877

1141/1889

1444/1896

Kretingen {Kretinga, Lithuania}

 

1579/1854

 

 

Kupishki {Kupiskis, Lithuania}

 

 

 

174/1867

Novo Alexandrovsk {Zarasai, Lithuania}

 

1195/1851

1761/1858

307/1846

 

Rossieny {Raseiniai, Lithuania}

2153/1852

1749/1858

243/1845

1203/1843

Plugyany {Plunge, Lithuania}

 

1806/1858

2529/1865

254/1845

 

Ponevezh {Panevezys, Lithuania}

   

336/1846

 

Taurogen {Taurage, Lithuania}

 

459/1847

1264/1851

1698/1857

   

Telshi {Telsiai, Lithuania}

   

193/1845

217/1845

 

Utzyani {Utena, Lithuania}

 

1881/1860

   

Shavli {Siauliai, Lithuania}

     

571/1873

Shadow {Seduva, Lithuania}

 

1538/1853

   

Shilele {Silale, Lithuania}

     

543/1873

Shlkudi {Skuodas, Lithuania}

   

252/1845

 

Working with the above cases we registered all documents containing information about towns, settlements, and Jewish names.

Without showing this information in full, let’s take a look at these samples and tables:

Early Documents Relating to the Box Tax Paperwork

The first mentions of the tax box auctions appeared in the newspaper "Kovenskie guberskie vedomesti" in May-August 1844, that is to say before the new regulations concerning the box taxes and liquidation of the institution of kahals:

The Kovno guberniya announces that under government auspices an auction for the right to collect box taxes for four years starting with Jan. 1, 1845 will take place on the 20th of September’ The annual income was calculated for these localities: from Ponevezh {Panevezys, Lithuania} 2125 rubles, from Novomeiski {Novoye Mesto in Ponevez Uezd} 100 rubles, from Krakinov {Krekenava, Lithuania} 432 rubles, from Remigol {Ramygala, Lithuania} 432 rubles, from Pokroi {Pakrojis, Lithuania} 230, from Linkovo {Linkuva, Lithuania} 345, from Zeimel {Zeimelis, Lithuania} 215, from Joniskis {Joniskis, Lithuania} 130, from Posvol {Pasvalys, Lithuania} 534, from Pusholat {Pusalotas, Lithuania} 250, from Pompyani {Pumpenai, Lithuania} 420, from Birzhai {Birzai, Lithuania} 810, from Vobolni {Vabalninkas, Lithuania} 420."

The new situation as well as the liquidation of the institution of the kahals forced the administration to shift the starting date for the proposed leasing period to Jan 1, 1846. At the same time smaller communities were attached for the purposes of tax collection to a bigger ones. From the above listed communities ’ Novomeskoe {Novoye Mesto} (with 84 people) was attached to Ponevezh {Panevezys} region, Remigolskoe (with 89 people) was attached to Krakinovsk, Yoganishelskoe (76 people) to Posvolskoe, and Pusholat {Pusalotas} (200 people) was combined with Pompyan {Pumpenai}.16

This decision of Nov. 14, 1845 to combine the different areas was immediately contested by the elders in the Ponevezh {Panevezys} area ’ Yosel Davidovich Meller and Michel Kasrelovich Smukler. They wrote: "There is no financial deficit for the kahal of Ponevezh {Panevezys}. On the other hand, the Novomeiski kahal is 5,000 rubles behind. By combining both kahals, the Ponevezh Jews would be liable for a substantial debt’ The Jews in Novomeisk are indeed in a dire position. As they are being pressed by their local landlord, most of them have already left the place and have dispersed through the world."17 The elders asked that they not be combined them with the Novomeski kahal.

The implementation of the new regulations was not easy because the tax amounts established by the administration were too high to make tax farming attractive enough. The Kovno governor reported to the Internal Affairs Minister on Oct. 25, 1846 that there were no one in attendance for the opening of the box tax auctions for eight kahals in his gubernia: "Braslav {Braslav, Byelorus} and Komaiski {Kamajai} in Novoalexandrovski {Zarasai} uezd, and Pompyan {Pompenai}, Birzh {Birzai}, Linkov {Linkuva}, Pokroiski {Pakruojis}, Zhemel {Zeimelis} and Krakinov {Krekenava} kahals in Ponevezh uezd. Therefore, the Gubernia forced the tax collection upon the local administrations for now, and ordered them to announce new auctions."18

After the new auctions, on Nov. 15, 1846, the tax amounts were significantly reduced: for Pompyani {Pompenai} kahal ’ 318 rubles, for Linkov {Linkuva} ’ 220 rubles, for Pokroiski {Pakruojis} ’ 175 rubles, Zheimel {Zeimelis} ’ 70 rubles, Krakinov {Krekenava} ’ 209 rubles. Then, after the third auction, in Jan 1847, for Birzh ’ 440 rubles, and for Komaiski {Kamajai} ’ 110 rubles a year. Even so, new auctions were required for the Braslav kahal.19

Statistical Data for 1846.

Let’s look at the case titled "As reported by the manager of Kovno gubernia, about the box tax on Kovno Gubernia Jews for 1846-1852, with attached tables, rates, and budgets"20 This case is one of the most detailed ones amongst the other similar cases, possibly, because in this instance the gubernia clerks were paid by the collected tax itself. This case allows one to compile the population roll of communities, indicate individual class and real ("not listed") census of males in each. Also, it shows the groups by indigent and non-indigent class (see Table 3). The tax for indigents were paid from the general box tax account.21

Table 3. Jewish Community of Kovno {Kaunas} Gubernia in 1846.

Male Count by Class, and Status. 22

 

 

Community

Class

of Value

 

Indigents

 

Community

Class/

Indigent

Non indigent

Beisagol {Baisogala, Lithuania}

3

176

52

Onikshtin {Anyksciai, Lithuania}

1

376

299

Birzhani {Birzai}

2

713

146

Plungyani {Plunge, Lithuania}

1

682

423

Braslov

4

181

131

Pozelvyani {Zelva, Lithuania}

3

106

42

Vevirzhani {Veivirzenai, Lithuania}

2

323

62

Pokroisk {Pakrojis, Lithuania}

2

267

92

Vekshnyani {Vieksniai, Lithuania}

2

371

211

Pompyani {Pumpenai, Lithuania}

1

372

184

Vendzyagol {Vandziogala, Lithuania}

2

186

68

Ponevezhesk {Panevezys}

1

487

320

Vidzsk {Vidiskiai, Lithuania}

2

763

240

Ponedelsk {Pandelys, Lithuania}

1

349

124

Viduklev {Vidukle, Lithuania}

2

80

31

Posvolskoe {Pasvalys, Lithuania}

1

324

155

Vilkomir {Ukmerge, Lithuania}

1

560

1197

Rakish {Rokiskis, Lithuanai}

1

206

120

Vilkisk {Vilkija, Lithuania}

3

224

94

Retovsk {Rietavas, Lithuania}

2

354

118

Villiampol {Vilijampole, Lithuania}

1

864

473

Rogov {Raguva, Lithuania}

2

224

149

Vobolnitzk

3

214

91

Rossienny {Raseiniai, Lithuania}

1

772

532

Vornensk {Varniai, Lithuania}

2

416

118

Rumshishi {Rumsiskes, Lithuania}

2

75

52

Gordzhov {Gargzdai, Lithuania}

2

193

120

Salantsk

{Salantai, Lithuania}

2

327

138

Dyatnov {Dotnuva, Lithuania}

4

113

29

Skavdvil {Skaudvile, Lithuania}

4

149

19

Dusyatsk {Dusetos, Lithuania}

2

182

31

Skopish {Skapiskis, Lithuania}

3

96

50

Zheimeli {Zeimelis, Lithuania}

3

354

50

Soloksk {Salakas, Lithuania}

2

137

52

Zheimensk {Zeimiai, Lithuania}

4

114

30

Srednitzk {Seredzius, Lithuania}

3

299

153

Zhidikovsk {Zidikai, Lithuania}

4

492

193

Starozhagorsk {Old Zagare, Lithuania}

2

436

196

Keidani {Kedainiai, Lithuania}

1

1029

463

Syad {Seda, Lithuania}

3

606

213

Kelmen {Kelme, Lithuania}

3

361

141

Taurogensk {Taurage, Lithuania}

1

265

104

Klikolsk {Klykoliai, Lithuania}

3

312

85

Telshev {Telsiai, Lithuania}

1

434

628

Kovarsk {Kavarskas, Lithuania}

4

119

50

Utzyansk {Utena, Lithuania}

1

485

602

Kovna {Kaunas}

1

513

324

Ushpol {Uzpaliai, Lithuania}

3

151

103

Komaysk {Kamajai, Lithuania}

1

94

44

Chveidan {Kvedarna, Lithuania}

3

83

26

Krakinov {Krekenava, Lithuania}

4

331

104

Shavel {Siauliai} Lithuania}

1

544

799

Kretingovsk {Kretinga, Lithuania}

1

532

338

Shavkyani {Saukenai, Lithuania}

4

212

49

Krok {Krakes, Lithuania}

2

143

41

Shavlyani {Siaulenai, Lithuania}

3

221

43

Krozhsk {Kraziai,Lithuania}

4

293

28

Shadov {Seduva, Lithuania}

2

455

154

Kupishsk {Kupiskis, Lithuania}

2

470

146

Shat {Seta, Lithuania}

2

200

133

Linkov {Linkuva, Lithuania}

2

329

89

Shidlov {Siluva, Lithuania}

2

90

28

Luknitzk {Luoke, Lithuania}

3

325

165

Shkud {Skuodas, Lithuania}

3

734

201

Nemoksht {Nemaksciai, Lithuania}

2

218

63

Eiragol {Ariogala, Lithuania}

2

293

257

Novoalexandrovsk {Zarasai, Lithuania}

1

66

95

Jurburg {Jurbarkas, Lithuania}

1

751

559

Novozhagor {New Zagare, Lithuania}

1

665

377

Yanishsk {Joniskis, Lithuania}

1

240

192

Novomeisk

2

569

112

Yanov {Jonava, Lithuania}

1

207

150

Okmyan {Akmene, Siauliai}

4

275

54

Total:

 

25172

13545

The Class of the kahal23 characterizes the rate of general box tax as determined by table 4.

Later these rolls could be somewhat adjusted. For instance, "by the Kovno Finance Department’s decision of Sept 28, 1870, the Dorbyany {Darbenai} community was separated from the community of Kretingen {Kretinga}. The Ponevezh {Panevezys} Duma submitted a tax roll for the Remigol {Ramygala} community that was separate from the community of Krakinov {Krekenava} because the Remigol community was constructed on state land, and for the purposes of public duties is being treated separately." 24 {If the stetl was constructed on the ground of the landowner, it was referred to as privately owned (vladel’cheskoe mestechko) from a word (vladelets). If the shtetl was constructed on the state ground, it was referred to as state (kazennoe mestechko), from a word for treasury (kazna).}

Table 4. Taxable Items for General Box Tax Collection
for Jewish Communities of Different Classes for 1846-185225

Tax Items

Community Tax Rates

 

1st class

2nd class

3rd class

4th class

а) For each animal schected or kosher-slaughtered {This refers to the tax due on the process (schecting) for instance, 70 kopecks per cow schected.}

       

    Ox

1 р.75 к.

1 р. 50 к.

1 р.

80 к.

    Cow

1 р.50 к.

1 р. 30 к.

90 к.

70 к.

    2 year old ox or cow

1 р.

ruble

80 к.

kopeck

60 к.

40 к.

    Calf

25 к.

20 к.

16 к.

15 к.

    Ram or Sheep

18 к.

16 к.

12 к.

10 к.

    Goats

18 к.

16 к.

12 к.

10 к.

b) Poultry birds

       

    Chicken

3 к.

2 к.

11/2 к.

1 к.

    Couple of Chicks

3 к.

2 к.

11/2 к.

1 к.

    Goose

8 к.

3 к.

5 к.

4 к.

    Duck

4 к.

3 к.

2 к.

11/2 к.

    Turkey ’male

12 к.

10 к.

8 к.

6 к.

    Turkey ’ female

8 к.

6 к.

6 к.

5 к.

c) Each pound of kosher meat

21/2 к.

2 к.

11/2 к.

1 к.

     h

about the author
Anatolij Chayesh

ARTICLES BY ANATOLIJ CHAYESH IN THE LITVAKSIG  ONLINE JOURNAL

Anatolij Chayesh has been a scientific researcher since 1991 at the St. Petersburg Jewish University, where his area of interest is searching for materials and documents on the Jews of Imperial Russia in the libraries and archives in St. Petersburg. 

JEWISH CRAFTSMEN IN KAUNAS GUBERNIA, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GENEALOGY AND LOCAL HISTORY (ACCORDING TO MATERIALS IN THE SAINT PETERSBURG ARCHIVES).    Translated by Gordon McDaniel.  

BOX-TAX PAPERWORK RECORDS AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE LIFE OF JEWISH COMMUNITIES AND THEIR PERSONAL STRUCTURE.    Translated by Leonard Bogatin.

WHAT CENSUS RECORDS TELL US ABOUT JEWISH FAMILIES OF 19TH CENTURY LITHUANIA, A CASE STUDY: THE SHTETL ZEIMELIS 1816-1853.    Translated by Sonia Kovitz.

LISTS OF URBAN VOTERS FOR THE STATE DUMA ELECTIONS 1905-1912: AN ANALYSIS OF THE VOTING QUALIFICATION RESTRICTIONS AND TERMINOLOGY FOCUSING ON THE JEWS OF THE SHTETL OF ZHEYMELI (ZEIMELIS).    Translated by Eugenia Sheinman.

THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM LITHUANIA IN THE SPRING OF 1915. THE CASE OF ZEIMELIS.  Translated by Gordon McDaniel.

ON THE FRONT LINE IN LITHUANIA, 1915: STORIES OF JEWISH EYEWITNESSES. [Part 1.].  Translated by Gordon McDaniel. 

ON THE FRONT LINE IN LITHUANIA IN 1915: NARRATIVES OF JEWISH EYEWITNESSES. Part 2. Translated by Gordon McDaniel.