Pruning the Super Family Tree

Pruning the Super Family Tree.
September, 2008
Chaim Freedman

(Click on documents and photos to enlarge)

When I began to research the history of the Super family in the mid-1970’s to trace the family tree, the contemporary generations of the family living in Australia and England were the only members of the family known to me. Whilst I knew that there were many relatives in South Africa and some in Canada, there had been no contact with them for many years. Indeed, even when contact was re-established, the diverse branches of the family were not aware of the exact relationships between them.

In the mid 1980’s Norman Super, living in Melbourne and originally from South Africa, sent me a family tree compiled by elderly relatives in South Africa whilst attending a family celebration, probably in the early 1970's. This clarified many connections and as each new source came to light, the family tree began to take shape. The various branches were assumed to belong to a common trunk, with a common ancestor named Shmuel. At the time archival records in the Former Soviet Union were not available to confirm this theoretical tree, based on oral history. With the fall of that State valuable and relevant material pertaining to the family was discovered in Latvia.

Shmuel

The above is a condensed version of the tree.
This tree shows five siblings as the children of Shmuel Super. One of the siblings is indicated by a blank space above the name of “Samuel m Daphnie”. These were supposed to be the parents of Rabbi Yitskhak Yaakov Super of Melbourne. “Daphnie” was not his mother’s name; it was Khaya Minna. Apparently the elders of the family in South Africa who put together this tree did not know the name of this presumed sibling of the ancestors of their respective branches of the family.

Rabbi Yitskhak Yaakov Super, Evercreech, England c.1912

The earliest name known to the Australian Supers was Shmuel, the father of Rabbi Yitskhak-Yaakov. He and his wife Khaya-Minna lived in the small town of Korsovka now called Karsava, in Latvia. The region was until the Russian Revolution of 1917 part of the Russian Empire in the eastern part of Vitebsk Gubernia (government) known as Latgale (or Lettland). Since Yitskhak Yaakov had left his parents' home in Korsovka at the age of twenty-one and settled in England, he had little opportunity to hear from his father information about his family's origins, nor did he get to know his many relatives who lived in the neighbouring town Lutzin, where in fact he had been born. Such was also the case for his brother Yosef who also settled in England at an early age.

Khaya-Minna, Fruma and Shmuel Super c.1905, Korsovka, Latvia.

In a letter (in Hebrew) written in 1960 Yitskhak-Yaakov Super answers his son Rabbi Dr. Arthur Saul Super, then living in South Africa, who asks him about the relationships among the family Arthur met in South Africa. Yitskhak Yaakov explains that he left his home town as a young teenager in order to study and then worked as a Shokhet in a number of towns until he left Latvia aged twenty-one:




It is nearly fifty-nine years since I left Korsovka and how can I remember the Supers, but you can tell them that all the family who you met or who you will meet are not only relatives, but are flesh and blood to us. About Mr. Benjamin who is close to seventy three years old, if his name in Hebrew is Benyamin son of Reb Shmuel Sholem, he would be our second cousin.”
At the time of my original research I did not know who this person was and so made no use of this information until 2003 when I received photographs of many of the tombstones in the Jewish cemetery in Korsovka, including that of Shmuel-Sholem.

One earlier generation of the Australian and English branch was available, derived from the Korsovka tombstone inscription of Shmuel Super, Yitskhak-Yaakov’s father. A photograph of the grave was sent to Australia by Shmuel's son Khatzkel (his full name was Yekhezkel and he also appears in the picture) taken after the death of Shmuel in Korsovka in 1928. Since Hebrew names appearing on a tombstone also include the father's name, it was established that Shmuel's father was called Yosef-Yehoash. The name Yehoash is very rarely used, although its Biblical origin stems from the righteous King of Judah, Yehoash who repaired and rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem.



Rabbi Arthur-Saul Super (Avraham-Shaul) told me of an oral tradition that there was an earlier ancestor, Rabbi Tuviah (Teviah) Super who he had heard had lived in Lutzin in the early nineteenth century. He had also been told that his ancestors had been Soferim (scribes) for many generations. This was in fact the origin of their surname, Super being a Russian corruption of the term Sofer, or it's Aramaic version Safra, being the usual designation of the official town scribe: `Safra Demata'.

Yet another item of oral history told to Arthur by relatives in South Africa was that an ancestor had written a Sefer Torah, which he had presented to the Baron Ginzburg who was in fact his cousin!

These sparse oral traditions formed the basis for extrapolating theoretical lines of descent. Firstly a record was found of one Teviah Super who held the position of Gabbai of the Great Synagogue in Lutzin. He was listed as one of the notables of Lutzin in “Yahadut Latvia” (Israel 1953), “Tevi Super, Gabbai of the Great Synagogue”.



This reference did not indicate when “Tevi” lived. However Magistrate records from 1897 found by Latvian researcher Aleksanders Feigmanis refer to a dispute involving Teviah Super Gabbai of the Alt Shule Mankov”. So the above reference to “Tevi Super” did not refer to an early ancestor of the entire Super family, mentioned by Rabbi Arthur Super according to family oral history in South Africa.

A connection with Tuviah/Tevi was thought to have been discovered in a book that had belonged to Yitskhak-Yaakov Super, thought to have been passed from earlier generations. This book was presented to me by my mother-in-law Edna Berliner (daughter of Yitskhak-Yaakov), but the significance of the inscriptions inside the front and rear covers eluded me for many years.

On the inside front cover is a faded inscription in Hebrew that is barely decipherable as a person's name written in Hebrew. Also in Latin characters appears the surname `Lichtenstein'. I thought that it was possible that there was a relationship with the rabbinic Lichtenstein family that flourished for several generations in Latvia.

On the inside back cover is an inscription in Yiddish and Hebrew:
"I was born on the 29th of Sivan in the year 5561”, the Hebrew year corresponding to 1801.
Above this inscription appear two words in very faded Russian script. The pages were photocopied and thereby it was possible to adjust the intensity of light and magnification so as to highlight the inscriptions. Whilst not all the letters were discernable, the missing one could be interpolated. The Russian script was a name: “Toviah Davidovich



I thought that this was the Tuviah Super referred to by Arthur Super. Not only had his birth date been established, 1801, but his Russian patronymic provided the name of his father: David.

Based on this information, which in hindsight was tenuous, given that the book may not have belonged to the Super family at all, but had simply passed into their hands, I theorized that the sequence of the generations could be put together. Since Shmuel was born about 1850, his father Yosef-Yehoash would have been born about 1825. Since “Toviah Davidovich” was born in 1801, I thought he must have been the father of Yosef-Yehoash. This should then make David the common ancestor of the various siblings shown on Norman Super’s tree.

I then sought earlier ancestors. Once again family tradition gave clues in this direction: Firstly the origin of the surname having been derived from the function of a number of ancestors as Soferim (scribes); secondly the supposed relationship with the family of the Baron Ginzburg.

A history of the Ginzburg family (Toldot Mishpakhat Ginzburg, David Maggid, St.Petersburg 1899) traces many families either descended from or related to the Ginzburgs. Study of the relatives of the first Baron Ginzburg, namely Baron Yosef Ginzburg (1812-1878) reveals the family of his paternal grandmother Tybel She was a daughter of Rabbi Uri Sofer of Vilna (according to the 1784 Vilna census Tybel /Touba was Uri’s wife), who held the position of official scribe to that community, bearing the title ‘Safra Demata'. Such a functionary was skilled in handwriting Torah scrolls, Mezuzot, wedding and divorce certificates, and any other official documents required by the Jewish civil governing body, the Kahal. Rabbi Uri Sofer's father Rabbi Yaakov-Gavriel also held this position, as had his father Rabbi Tuviah Sofer and several earlier generations.


There is a recurrence in the above family of the names Uri, Tuviah and David.

Tuviah and David struck a bell in relation to the inscription “Toviah Davidovich”. Tuviah was also prevalent amongst the Super family of Lutzin. Bearing in mind that Baron Yosef Ginzburg and Yosef-Yehoash Super were, according to their birth dates, of the contemporary generation, and since they were reputed to be cousins (according to that oral tradition telling of the presentation of a Sefer Torah to the Baron), I thought that the familial link was through Rabbi Uri Sofer of Vilna. The common occupation as scribes in both families also correlates between them. Whilst specific records establishing this link were not found, an extensive study of the Ginzburg family tends to preclude any other explanation for the cousin relationship, if it was true. Bearing in mind the dates of each successive generation, appeared that the Super-Sofer-Ginzburg connection was that David Super (whose name was derived from the patronymic “Davidovich”) was a son of Uri Sofer of Vilna. This would have made the Baron Yosef Ginzburg and Yosef-Yehoash Super second cousins. Other sources that include information about the family of Soferim in Vilna are “Kiriah Neemanah” (Finn, Vilna 1860); “Ir Vilna” (Steinshneider, Vilna 1900) and Toldot Hakehilah Haivrit Bevilna (Klausner, Vilna 1935). The information in each of this is more or less consistent. However, in 2003 I acquired copies of the census taken in Vilna in 1765 and in 1784 and discovered that each of these books includes errors in the identities of some of the “Sofer” family.

When the political changes in the former Soviet Union led to the dissolution of that Union, archives were opened to the public and much material about Jewish families was found. A Jewish researcher living in Riga, Aleksanders Feigmanis, was commissioned by a descendant of the Super family, Robert Heyman, to trace records of the family. Feigmanis found a treasure of documents, in particular the “Revizsky Skaza” (Revision Lists, meaning census) for the years 1874 and 1897 for the town of Lutzin and the list from 1897 for Korsovka. The 1874 list from Korsovka appears to have been lost. Many family groups including several hundred members of the Super family appeared, allowing the compilation of the family tree.




The following is the census entry for “Super Yankel Shmuilov” and his family, including his Falkov grandchildren. This person was the “Yanchiel Havies” who appeared on Norman Super’s chart.


His tombstone in Korsovka confirms his full name and father’s name:


Here is interred
Our father the ………….
An honourable man
The dear, our teacher and Rabbi
Reb Yaakov Yehoash
Son of Reb Shmuel
Super

The nickname “Havis” or “Heibish” was a derivative of the Hebrew name “Yehoash”. Since the grandfather of Rabbi Yitskhak Yaakov Super was found from his tombstone to be Yosef-Yehoash, it became apparent that Yaakov-Yehoash and Yosef-Yehoash could not have been brothers as they bore the same name. Jerusalem genealogist the late Rabbi Shmuel Gorr shared his expertise in Jewish name derivatives thereby making a valuable contribute to the unraveling of the mysteries of the Super family tree. (See a joint article we wrote in “Search” Volume 8, #4, 1988). Likewise “Guta” and “Tevia” who appeared as brothers in the above tree also bore variations of the same Hebrew name “Tuviah” and therefore could not have been brothers. “Tuviah” is derived from the Hebrew for “good” so a Yiddish derivation was “Guta” or “Guttman” and Teviah is another derivative. As there were a number of Supers in Lutzin who bore the Hebrew name Tuviah, they were each known by variations or nicknames.
The 1874 and 1897 census from Lutzin showed that Guta or Guttman Super was a brother of Yankel-Heibish, sons of Shmuel, while Tevia was a son of Leib Super, another of Shmuel’s sons.

These family groups stemmed from four Supers who lived in Lutzin in the early nineteenth century: Shmuel, Yitskhak, Kivka and Leib Super. Three of these were found by Feigmanis in Magistrate records of Lutzin in the year 1837:

“February 3, 1837 citizens of Lutzin who trade in alcoholic drinks deposed the plaint to the city council of Lyutzin, where they complained of the abuses in taxation of the tax official Glinka. Among the names of the alcohol tradesmen mentioned were Shmuila Super, Leiba Super and Itzik Super”[1]

A list from 1863 of merchants in the towns of Vitebsk Province includes in Lutzin “Leibe Super”, without a patronymic.


Unfortunately this record does not include the patronymic of these three Supers. On the tree compiled in South Africa and sent to me by Norman Super, it was shown that Shmuel was the primogenitor of all the branches. No record has been found of a “Toviah Davidovich” Super in any documents. Not has his supposed son Yosef-Yehoash been located in the records of Lutzin or Korsovka, although his son “Shmuel Yoselov” (son of Yosef) appears in the 1897 Korsovka census:

click to enlarge
Feigmanis’ translation of the original Russian census in Korsovka in 1897.

Yitskhak-Yaakov Super does not appear among the children of Shmuel, either because he was away from home studying, or because he was liable for military service as the second born son.

My original assumption was that Tuviah (supposed father of Yosef-Yehoash) was another brother to Shmuel, Yitskhak (Itzik) and Leib, and that since Tuviah’s patronymic was “David” then David was the primogenitor of the family. Furthermore I proposed that the theoretic connection between the Supers of Lutzin and the Sofers of Vilna was that “David” was a son of Uri. This theoretical relationship seemed further strengthened since both Shmuel and Leib had sons called Tuviah, a named repeated in the Vilna family of Soferim.

It must be stated that at the time of the extraction of the Latvian archival material, no evidence was found for the existence of either Tuviah or David. Nor was there documentation that David was a son of Uri Sofer of Vilna. Yet it seemed to me reasonable that the relationships were as above.

In 2003 I acquired the census of the Jewish community in Vilna for the years 1765 and 1784 from David and Sonia Hoffman, founders of the Jewish Family History Foundation. In the 1784 census I identified Uri Sofer as “Uryasz Gabrylowicz” living with his wife Touba (not Leah as claimed by Ginzburg family sources) and a servant Chasia. At that time they had no children.


A mathematical calculation shows clearly that if Uri did subsequently have a son David, even if it was in the period immediately following the census in 1784, such a theoretical David could not have fathered sons Shmuel, Yitskhak and Leib, born in the 1790’s or the ubiquitous Tuviah born in 1801. Whilst the dates of birth of all of the four Supers “branch heads” has not been found, they were all dead by the time of the 1874 Lutzin census, Shmuel’s wife Elka was still alive in 1874 aged eighty. Assuming that Shmuel was at least as old as his wife, he was probably born not later than 1794, when his supposed father David could have been no more than ten years old!

Had the Vilna and Lutzin census been available at the time of writing in 1992 of my book “The Pen and the Blade, Super family”, David as a son of Uri, could not have been proposed as the family patriarch.

The problem of locating Yosef-Yehoash Super, so as to establish the identity of his father, is complicated by the fact that he apparently did not lived in Lutzin at the time of the 1874 census, although his son Shmuel was born there in 1855. Family tradition conveyed by Rabbi Arthur Saul Super and by his cousin Arthur Super (London) relates that their great-grandfather managed an estate for a local Latvian nobleman. If the location of that estate could be established, records of Yosef-Yehoash might be found. It is possible that he lived in Korsovka until his death that had to be before 1884 when his grandson and namesake Yosef, the son of Shmuel was born. Since the 1874 census of Korsovka is missing, this cannot be verified.

Not only has Yosef-Yehoash not appeared in documentation, aside from his name on his son Shmuel’s tombstone, no theoretical siblings bearing the relevant patronymic indicating their father was called Tuviah, have been found. At this stage it appears that the book containing the signature “Toviah Davidovich” was a red herring and that the these names may have nothing to do with the Super family, although there may have been such a relative.

From the available evidence is seems that Yosef-Yehoash was a son of Yitskhak Super, one of the three alcohol traders mentioned in the 1837 litigation in Lutzin. My reason is based on the naming patterns. My wife’s grandfather Rabbi Yitskhak-Yaakov Super was given the name Yaakov after his maternal great-grandfather Yaakov Dobrin. It seems likely that the name Yitskhak was given to him after his paternal great-grandfather Yitskhak Super.

In 2003 I ordered further research from Aleksanders Feigmanis in Latvia. He traveled to Karsava (Korsovka) and took about three hundred photographs of the now accessible tombstones in the Jewish cemetery. There are large areas covered in weeds that may hide other family tombstones.


One of the tombstones, that of Yankel Heibish Super, is shown above. The Ohel (mausoleum) of Shmuel, the son of Yosef-Yehoash Super still stands but the tablet inscribed with the name has been removed, perhaps by the locals in this village where there are no longer any Jews or perhaps during the Nazi invasion in 1941 when nearly all the Jews were killed. Fortunately most of the cemetery survived.



Korsovka, 2003 Korsovka, 1929 with Khatzkel Super
Photographed by Feigmanis

One of the tombstones correlates with Rabbi Yitskhak Yaakov Super’s reference to relatives in the letter above:



The man Shmuel Sholem
Son of Reb Moshe Simkha Super
Died 10th Tevet, 5688
[1927]

These names appear in various Latvian census records: “Shmuel son of Moshe” Super, born 1846 (lived in Korsovka) appears in a list of people living in 1889 in the rural areas of Lutzin district. This lists states that Shmuel Moshev (son of Moshe) came from Lutzin to Korsovka in 1877. His father Moshe son of Yitskhak born 1829 in Lutzin, moved to Korsovka in 1876. Shmuel’s son Benyamin Yitskhak, born 1873, appears in the 1897 census in Korsovka. It appears that “Mr. Benjamin Super” referred to in Rabbi Super’s letter to his son Arthur, as “Benyamin son of Shmuel-Sholem” was the son of Shmuel-Sholem whose tombstone appears above. Since Rabbi Super states that the relationship was of second cousins, it can be established that Benyamin Super’s grandfather Moshe-Simkha was a brother of Rabbi Yitskhak-Yaakov’s grandfather Yosef-Yehoash Super. This supports my theory that Rabbi Yitskhak-Yaakov’s great-grandfather was Yitskhak Super, one of the four family heads mentioned above.

A key source for the early nineteenth century relationships of the Supers is the census recorded in 1816. This is held by the Belarus State Historical Archive in Minsk. This anomaly is due to the political border changes whereby Lutzin was located in Vitebsk Province under Tsarist government, which province is now part of Belarus. Therefore some records for Lutzin (now Ludza) are held in Riga and some in Minsk.

The following are the key entries. See also attached chart and full family tree.

1816 census:
Fond 2640-1-617-55-55
Family number 28.

Shmuel Gevushevich* Super aged 31 in 1811; 35 in 1816.
Shmuel Gevushevich’s sons:
Itsik aged 9 in 1811; 13 in 1816.
Mark aged 2 in 1811; died in 1813.
Leib newborn in 1811; aged 3 in 1816.
Shmuel’s son-in-law Yankel Kufman Sholomovich, absent in 1811, 18 in 1816.
Shmuel Gevushevich’s wife Brokha aged 35 in 1816.
Itsik Shmuelovich’s wife Fruma aged 17 in 1816.
Yankel Kufman’s wife Paika aged 18 in 1816.

*Shmuel’s patronymic Gevushevich is the Russification of the Yiddish name Heibish, equivalent to the Hebrew name Yehoash.

1834 census
Fond 2640-1-617-155-156
Family number 58

Shmuel Gevushevich Super aged 35 in 1816, 53 in 1834.
From Shmuel Gevushevich’s first wife, sons:
1. Itsik aged 13 in 1816; separated to family number 59 in 1834 list.
2. Mordkha not written in 1816, moved to family number 259 in 1826.
3. Leib aged 4 in 1816; 20 in 1834.

From Shmuel’s second wife [Elka] from latter sources sons:
Yankel newborn in 1834; 3 in 1834.
Shmuel’s son-in-law Kifka Sholomovich 18 in 1816, moved to family number 259 in 1824.

Family number 59:
Itsik Shmuelovich Super previously family number 58.
Aged 31 in 1834.
Itsik’s son Mordukh newborn in 1816; 14 in 1834.
Itsik’s second son Livsha [should be Moshe] Simkha aged 5 in 1834.
Itsik’s wife Fruma aged 32 in 1834.
Mordukh’s wife Touba aged 16 in 1834.

Since Shmuel’s son Tuviah (Gutta) and Itsik’s son Yosef-Yehoash do not appear in the 1834 census, they must have been born after this date.

From the above it can be seen that the head of the family in 1816 was Shmuel Super, born 1781. His father’s name was “Gevush” or Heibish/Yehoash, born probably about 1760.
Shmuel was married twice
and the configuration of his sons therefore differs from the original family tree compiled by Norman Super.

click to enlarge

Given that two of Shmuel Super’s grandsons were named Tuviah, it would seem that they were named after an earlier ancestor who bore that name. The Riga archive holds lists of Jews living in Lutzin in the 1780’s and 1790’s. Feigmanis has provided his transcription of these lists, containing about 500 people, the entire Jewish population of Lutzin at the time. Since these lists precede the adoption of surnames that took place in the early nineteenth century, they can only be interpreted by the presence of personal names in an otherwise known family configuration.

The eighteenth century Lutzin list does include two families descended from someone name Toviah:


Movsha Tobiashevich aged 49 in 1786. (Amongst his sons were Itzik and Leib).
Khaim Tobiashevich aged 49 in 1794.
Since Movsha was born in 1739, his father “Tobiash” (Tuviah) may have been born about 1710 and could have been an ancestor of the Lutzin Super family.

As a result of the above re-examination of the Super family tree, the first chapter of my book “The Pen and the Blade - Super family” (Petah Tikvah, Israel 1992), entitled “Tracing the Family Tree” pages 2-31 should be deleted. The detailed family tree pages 116-184 has been considerably updated and is available in a separate file.

[1] Latvian State Historical Archive, Riga. Reference 755-1-370-142. Extracted by Aleksanders Feigmanis, Riga, Latvia, 1997

Family Heirloom - Tefilin

My Tefilin

Chaim Freedman, Petah Tikvah, September 2008.

They aren’t particularly beautiful, now that they have had to be retired. Simple black cases, like tired old wood. Actually they’re parchment, petrified like wood after 165 years of constant, loving dedication. What simple beauty is encased in these old relics.

Heirlooms?

I would call them heirlooms, though they lack the monetary value usually thought to go with that term. But their value to me is greater than diamonds. Their value lies in not what they are, but whose they were.

I received the Tefilin in 1960 when I reached Barmitzvah age. My mother gave them to me telling me that I should treasure them as they belonged to her father, my grandfather Shlomo Zalman Komesaroff (Komisaruk, 1886-1958). Not only that, but they belonged to his grandfather before him, Rabbi Pinkhas Komisaruk (1830-1897), a revered figure in family lore.



Perhaps they were even older.

My grandfather died when I was eleven and his grandfather died when grandfather was eleven. In fact Rabbi Pinkhas’s grandfather, Rabbi Dov Ber Komisaruk (1776-1843) died when Pinkhas was thirteen and maybe the Tefilin originated that far back. What is certain is that they came from Lithuania when the Komisaruk family migrated from the town of Raseiniai to settle on the Jewish agricultural colony Grafskoy (now Proletarsky), Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukraine in 1847.

As I think back over the history of my ancestors, the events they were involved in, the trials and tribulations and the joyous occasions, I imagine that the Tefilin were silent witnesses to those events. I imagine how they were lovingly packed with Pinkhas’s belonging when the family set off in 1847 in a small group of eleven families, some in wagons and some walking for the arduous journey that took months until they reached the Ukraine.

I imagine how Pinkhas took the Tefilin with him when he was conscripted into the Russian army during the Crimean War and took care of the needs of Jewish troops by slaughtering animals to provide for kosher food, he was a Shokhet, and by performing funerals for the Jewish casualties.

I imagine how Pinkhas took his Tefilin with him when he jumped onto his horse whenever he heard of a pogrom in 1880’s and rode off to help and comfort the victims.

I imagine how Pinkhas wore the Tefilin when he attended Morning Prayer with the families of babies for who he performed circumcision, he was a Mohel.

I imagine Pinkhas teaching his grandson Shlomo Zalman how to put on Tefilin in preparation for his Barmitzvah, an occasion Pinkhas was not to live long enough to attend.

Some of my fondest memories of my grandfather are intimately bound up with religious occasions: sitting in the synagogue next to him or on his knee as he showed me the place in the Siddur. Listening as he made Kiddush on Shabbat or conducted the Seder on Pesach. After his death and my attainment of Barmitzvah, I was proud to wear the Tefilin which carried with them so many memories, both personal and historical.

Just as my grandfather brought them from Russian to Australia in 1913, so I brought them from Australia to Israel when we made Aliyah in 1977. I wore them daily for about forty years. From time to time they were inspected by a Sofer to make sure that the inscription on the parchment had not been damaged. Winding the straps around the boxes after use gradually took its toll on the shape of the Tefilin as they became warped.

Finally about the year 2000, they became unusable. I was inconsolable; I had to buy new tefilin. They would never be the same.

My Heirloom is now a museum piece. The Tefilin sit in a show case in our living room on a small bag embroidered specially for them by my grandmother, along with my grandfather’s white Kippah that he wore on festivals, They look lonely and tired, but still proud after so much that they have witnessed.

Genetic testing as an aid for genealogical research – personal experience of Chaim Freedman

Lecture given by Chaim Freedman to the Jewish Family Research Association, Petah Tikvah, Israel, May 2008.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and are based on a genealogical approach. The author claims no scientific expertise in Genetics.

In October 2006 I received the results of my genetic testing from Family Tree DNA. I had ordered a test of twelve markers on the Y chromosome, my paternal ancestry. (For technical explanations see Family Tree DNA site http://www.familytreedna.com/ ).

Initially I matched exactly with seven families who had tested with FTDNA. Over the course of the following year four more families tested and matched at the 12 marker level.

The families corresponded and exchanged information about their known ancestry in the male line with respect to the dates of their earliest known ancestors and their place of origin.

Subsequently most of the families updated their test to 25 markers and then 37 markers in order to establish more accurately possible common ancestry.

While 11 families matched my markers exactly on 12 markers, only 4 matched exactly on 25 markers while the other families differed on one or more markers. None of the families matched me exactly on 37 markers, but showed a variation of non-matching markers such that the probability of a common ancestor within a reasonable genealogical time frame lessened as a greater numbers of markers were tested.

The following is a list of the families, the date of birth of their earliest known ancestor and their place of origin.

(In the interests of privacy only the initial of the family surname is shown).

C; 1830; Dombroveni, Ukraine (Romania).
F; 1840; Rumania
H; 1850; Slavuta and Starakonstntinovka, Ukraine.
K; 1858; Starakonstantinovka, Ukraine.
L; 1875; Odessa, Ukraine.
Le; no response
Lo; Jugoslavia.
S; 1735; Orinin, Ukraine.
Sa; 1825; Alsace.
Si; 1825, Zinkov, Ukraine.
Z; 1860; Miastovka and Dombroveny, Ukraine.

Freedman; 1780, Zakroczym, Poland.


The Jewish Pale of Settlement in Russia, 1835-1917
from "The Jews of Russia, Their History in maps and photographs"
Martin Gilbert, 1976
Click to enlarge


Podolia, Volynia, Bessarabia, Ukraine - origins of the getetically matching families
Click to enlarge
It is possible for each of the matching families to calculate the number of generations, and thereby years, to the Most Recent Common Ancestor by using that facility on each family’s home pages. Next to each name (in the 37 marker section) is an icon which leads to this facility. It gives a chart showing the percentage probability to our MRCA. BUT we should carry out the second stage of this calculation, which is also provided, by entering the number of generations we know that we are not related. For example, my earliest known ancestor Yaakov Frydman was born about 1780. He was not the ancestor of any of this group. I am fifth generation after him. So I add a factor of five to the calculation. This pushes any MRCA further back. It is up to each of us to then decide what % probability we choose to consider significant for a relationship between us. I adjusted the calculation of the distance to our Most Recent Common Ancestor to 75% probability taking into account that we have no known common ancestor within 5 generations.

Family Tree DNA provides a statistical guide for Most Recent Common Ancestor for 12 identical markers:
7 generations, 50% probability
23 generations, 90% probability
29 generations, 95% probability.

For instance, my closest match is with Z and Si with a genetic difference of 2. That alone does not tell me how far back we may relate. Going to the FTDNA site and entering the above factors for each of Z and Si, I find that at a level of 75% probability our MRCA was 11 generations ago, or about 275 years. If I had not factored in the known non-relationship of 5 generations, I would have reached an incorrect level of relationship of about 9 generations or 225 years.We should also consider geographic proximity (which cannot be factored in mathematically) . For instance H and K both originate in the Slavuta area, Z and C have relatives in the same town Dombroven. This despite the level of DNA match.

In my opinion, based on our experience whereby the more markers we test, the further away from each other we move, for those who have not tested 37 markers the calculations are not worth doing.
Although my family lived in Zakroczym near Warsaw my DNA matches come from Volynia and Podolia.
My great-grandfather Jacob- Bendyt Frydman was born in 1852 in Zakroczym just northwest of Warsaw. His father Zyndel Frydman died there in 1855 and on his death record is written "parentage and birthplace not recorded" although he is called "Zyndel Jakubowicz".
One explanation for the missing information on Zyndel Frydman's death record, may be that he was abducted to serve in the army at an early age,from somewhere in the region of my DNA matches came from (Volynia/Podolia) . I am only surmising his military service, but since he was born in 1808 and had his apparently only son (plus two daughters) not until 1852, the military service may account for his absence. Of course we all know how Jewish young boys were kidnapped at a young age and served for 25 years in the army.
A Russian army fortress, Modlin, was constructed in 1823 near Zakroczym. The scenario I see is that Zyndel Frydman may have been released there about 1852 (when he was nearly aged 25), married a girl from a Zakroczym family (Chanah Gro) and settled there. Since he was kidnapped young, he may not have known anything about his origins, hence the lack of such information on his death.

It is interesting that over the last year since the original matching families have been in contact only three additional people has been discovered, even with a minimal twelve marker match. We await the details of these additional families.
The progress of our updating from 12 markers to 37 markers has demonstrated that it is not worth making assumptions about any possible relationships until at least 37 markers are tested. As we tested more markers, our original supposed exact match on 12 markers moved further and further away, such that none of us now match within a reasonable genealogical time period. But we can be encouraged that our data is within the FTDNA system and can only hope that their testing sample grows significantly.

Significance of ethnicity.

The above group of matching Jewish families are classified by their markers in one or other of the subgroups of I Haplogroup. According to the scientific research papers this haplogroup is not typically Jewish.

I sought a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon.

The statistical distribution of this haplogroup is predominantly Scandinavia, North Germany, France, Britain. A very small number of the recorded/tested families were Jewish.

Yet the common geographic origin of the matching Jewish families may be explained by the introduction of a non-Jewish primogenitor-father in the Ukraine. Given the marital ban on marriages between Jews and Christians, and the Church ban on Christians converting to Judaism, and given that the matching families above are all Jewish in the male line, it could be assumed that the non-Jewish Ukrainian primogenitor raped the female primogenitor during a pogrom in the Ukraine.

Events which may have provided the circumstances for rape:

Crusades in Germany and France 11th century – about 900 years/ 36 generations, which is much earlier than the probability for 12 exactly matching markers.

Pogrom in Kiev 1113 – unlikely source as above.

Black death massacres in Germany late 14th century. May have introduced haplogroup I close to its geographic origin.

Cossack massacres (Khemelnitsky) in the Ukraine 1648-1655. If the son of a Jewish woman raped by a Cossack was born about 1650, given an average family size of 12 children, of whom about 30% died in childhood, and if the survivors were 50% males, then the natural increase per generation was a factor of 4. The child of the rape union may have had 4 sons, 16 grandsons, 64 great-grandsons, 256 great-great-grandsons, and 1024 great-great-great-grandsons.
Ukraine - region of Cossack massacres 1648-1655
Click to enlarge

Given the large number of these hypothetical descendants of the Cossack/Jewish union, one should expect to find many more matches than the eleven families. The reason for such a small number of matches may be due to the small number of families who underwent DNA testing. A search for matches on the Ysearch site http://www.ysearch.org/ yields only a small number of families with the haplogroup I, few of which are Jewish. No Ukrainians appear in this list.
Conversly, no non-Jewish matches were found for the Jewish group. This may indicate that for some reason the group is unique.

It may be concluded that the sample size is too small or that Ukrainians were not tested, such that the above conclusion as to how the matching families are of I haplogroup may lack sufficient evidence.

Until a large sample of Ukrainians have been tested and only if they exhibit significantly I haplogroup, the Cossack rape cause cannot be judged.

Swedish War with Russia and Poland 1655-1658 although evidence (Dubnov) shows that the Swedes were not antagonistic towards the Jews, isolated incidents of rape may have occurred. This could explain the introduction of haplogroup I to a small group of families, perhaps a generation later than that proposed for a Cossack source. Furthermore, being of Scandinavian origin, such a source is in keeping with one of the most prevalent regions of haplogroup I origin.

Source: Simon Dubnov, “The Jews In Russia and Poland”, Philadelphia 1916
Dubnov describes the cruel treatment of the Jews in 1648 by the Cossacks in Podolia and Volynia in such places as Nemirov, Tulchin, Ostropol, Zaslav, Ostrog, Constantinov, Narol, Kreenetz, Bar and many others. The second wave of pogroms in 1655 moved further north into Belarus and Lithuania and Poland.

“The most terrible cruelty, however, was shown towards the Jews. They were destined to utter annihilation. The Cossacks, in conjunction with the local Russian inhabitants, fell upon the Jews and massacred them; the women and girls were violated. The young Jewish women were frequently allowed to live, the Cossacks and the peasants forcing them into baptism and taking them as wives.

After the cessation of the pogroms “Those of them who, at the point of death, had embraced the Greek Orthodox faith, were permitted by King John Casimir to return to their old creed. The Jewish women who had been forcibly baptized fled in large numbers from their Cossack husbands and returned to their families. The losses during the decade 1648-1658 varies between 100,000 and 500,000.”

Further records of the social effect of the pogroms is found in writings of Rabbi Avraham Horowitz, Natan Hannover and the will of Rabbi Sheftel Horowitz “Yesh Nokhlin, 5461/1701: “In all the places where killings were carried out hundreds of small youths, were annihilated, and small babies who were converted were taken by force by the Jews from the Gentiles, and for each was written an amulet from which family he was, by investigation. These amulets were hung on their necks. There was a great mixture and what the wise men of that generation could correct they did, and that which was not possible, remained in the mixture, and it is feared that in the course of years people will cast doubts on their holiness. Therefore it is worthwhile that everyone who was at that time should make a “Seder Yukhsin” (family tree) for his seed and his seed’s seed as a sign and safekeeping”

Reservations about the significance of testing to date:

Of a database of about 134,000 tests done by FTDNA, only 54,000 have been transfered to YSearch . Of these about 4,200 are I haplogroup. Of these only about 170 were tested in Eastern Europe, where most of our families originate. (Figures for YSearch taken in early 2008).Theories as to the significance of ethnic origins of I haplogroup, are, in my opinion, premature.
The significance of Haplogroup to ethnic origins is very controversial.I personally am not impressed with much of what has been published regarding the meaning of Haplogroups to Jewish origins since I do not believe that the samples of Jews are large enough. For instance a sample of about 1400 Jews was taken for a particular experiment. The scope and makeup of the sample was restricted to people from synagogues in the USA.
I feel that there are 5.5 million Jews living in Israel from whom a sample of several hundred thousand could be taken. The problem is the cost. I invested about $500 for my and my wife's tests. I don't think many people are prepared to do that.
There are many opinions there which you can all study and come to your own conclusions. Some have vested interests, religious, political, etc.

Female ancestry

My wife and I tested for our maternal genetic matches. The results, based on Mitochondrial DNA are far less accurate than paternal Y chromosome testing and do not give a clear statistical estimate of the number of generations to a common ancestor. Neverthless, geographic proximaty of matching families does indicate some relationship.

My tests resulted in 132 matches at Low Resolution and only five at High Resolution. Of these five one refused to share their results but two share with me geographic origins in Lithuania.

My wife received 53 Low Resolution matches and 5 High Resolution. Some of her matches originated, like her female ancestry in the Vitebsk area of Belarus.

Scientific papers and Internet sites:

See “Frequently Asked Questions” provided by Family Tree DNA http://www.familytreedna.com/faq.html

Behar, Doron. Skorecki, Karl and others, Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European population Human Genetics (2004) 114: 354-365.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf

In the later paper haplogroup diversity of Ashkenazi Jews from various regions was compared with non-Jews. 55 Ukrainian Jews appear in the sample, yet no Ukrainian non-Jews were included.

Behar, Doron. Skorecki, Karl and others “Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries. American Journal of Human Genetics 73:768-779, 2003.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Behar-AJHG-03.pdf

Nordtvelt, Ken Population Varities within Y-Haplogroup I and their extended Modal Haplogroups.
http://www.northwestanalysis.net/

Coffman-Levy, Ellen “A Mosaic of People: the Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence” Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-13, 2005.
http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_mystery_of_ashkenazic_origins/

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_doron.pdf
http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=2864
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/links3.shtml
http://www.isogg.org/tree/index.html
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_mystery_of_ashkenazic_origins/

A useful layman’s source for the understanding of Jewish genetic testing is “Jacob’s Legacy, A Genetic View of Jewish History”, David B. Goldstein, Yale University Press, 2008.

A Google search for Jewish Genetics will yield a vast number of sources.