The establishment of the 800 to 900 ghettos in Poland, theSoviet Union, and Romania between late 1939

and mid-1942 introduced radical and rapid changes in Jewish communal and individual life, and was a
multifaceted and complicated phenomenon. Those changes and the coping strategies Jews invented in
response can best be examined from three perspectivesphysical space; social welfare; and educational,
cultural, and religious activity.

Physical Space
The confined physical space of the ghettos had a direct impact on the daily routines of the inhabitants and
on their way of coping for survival. Around us are walls, wrote ayim Aharon Kaplan, a resident of
the Warsaw ghetto, in his diary, but such an absolute barrier between the inhabitants of the ghetto and
those outside, which even became a symbol, was present in only a few ghettos, including
Warsaw, Krakw, Tarnw, and Kremenets. Barbed wire and wooden fences bordered the majority of
ghettos in Eastern Europe. There were also open ghettos, as in the Lublindistrict, which allowed for its
inhabitants to leave the enforced living quarters. In Szydowiec and Skrzynno, towns in
the Radom district, where the majority of residents were Jews, the entire town was turned into a ghetto,
except for a small number of streets designated for non-Jews. The so-called Special Sector for Jewish
Residence in Lww was initially open, but within a year the area was reduced and the ghetto enclosed by
a fence.

Except for the d ghetto, which was hermetically sealed and subject to strict border patrols, all walled
ghettos had gates and openings through which Jews could maintain some form of contact with their
neighbors. Though it was often forbidden for Jews to pass through those openings under penalty of death,
the physical border did not stop give-and-take with the locals. Food, medicine, and heating fuel were
regularly smuggled into the ghetto. Trade continued illegally. In Minsk and Baranowicze (Bel.,
Baranovichi), Jews could escape through vulnerable points in the barbed wire fence to the Aryan zone,
enabling them to barter with the non-Jewish population.

Some ghettos were erected as a consequence of the slave labor and productivity policies dictated by the
Germans. In these, legal departure from the ghetto by various work groups became a virtual lifeline, and
the ghetto gateway became the main artery for survival. Jewish physicians from the Shavli (iauliai)
ghetto, who were sent to work in the city daily, smuggled medicines and essential equipment back into the
sealed quarter. In Kaunas andGrodno, the thousands of workers exiting and entering the ghetto on a daily
basis were able to smuggle basic foodstuffs and other staples that made their lives somewhat more
tolerable.

Some ghettos found other avenues of contact with the outside world. In return for hefty fees, the
occupation authorities sometimes allowed ghetto inhabitants to receive letters and packages from outside
the ghetto, even overseas. Besides relieving feelings of isolation, these contacts enabled the receipt of
food as well as important classified information about the fate of Jews in other communities. Still, the
degree of contact with the surroundings did not necessarily have a significant impact on the survival
abilities of the people inside the ghettos, as witnessed by the similarly high mortality from hunger and
disease in the isolated ghetto of d and in Warsaw, where smuggling operations flourished; this points

to the central importance of the policies created by the local governing bodies, the economic importance
and necessity of the ghettos, and the Jewish authorities methods of reaction.

Other factors governing survival rates were location and living conditions inside the ghettos. In many
instances, ghettos were established on the outskirts of cities or towns, in run-down areas with poor
physical infrastructures. Such was the case with the Bauty quarter, where the d ghetto was
established. In part of the Slobodka (Wiliampole) neighborhood, where Jews of the Kaunas ghetto were
lodged, there was no indoor plumbing, and most lodgings consisted of wooden shacks. ousing shortages
and space limitations forced considerable improvisation. In Warsaw, the Jewish hospital Czysta was split
and moved into two buildings within the confines of the ghetto. In the Shavli ghetto, the Judenrat
established a hospital in the ritual purification room that had formerly served the Jewish cemetery. In
Lww, the scarcity of lodgings was accommodated by the institution of two and even three sleep shifts,
while in Lunna and Skidel, near Grodno, Jews built underground living spaces. In contrast, major
institutions sometimes remained within the ghetto: for example, in Vilna, whose two sections were
located in the heart of the city, the ghetto included the Jewish hospital and the Mefitseaskalah library
within its borders, somewhat lessening the feeling of distress caused by the new situation. Still, on the
whole, overcrowding, lack of sanitary infrastructure, and poor building standards took a severe toll upon
the physical state of ghetto residents, and in the ghettos of Warsaw, d, Minsk, and Kielce the death
rates reached unprecedented numbers.

Social Welfare
Welfare institutions became major factors affecting the quality of life of ghetto residents. German policy
turned ghettos into segregated economic entities that, in addition to their isolation and lack of resources
for their own needs, caused rapid impoverishment of most of the populace and a significant increase in
the numbers needing welfare assistance.

Many factors influenced the functioning and effectiveness of the social welfare system in the ghettos. In
the occupied territories of Poland andLithuania, the welfare system was established on the foundations of
the social service apparatus that Jewish communities had maintained before the war. In the part of
occupied Poland known as the Generalgouvernement, a legal Jewish welfare organization, Jdische
Soziale Selbsthilfe (Jewish Self-elp; JSS), united such prewar Jewish organizations as TOZ (a healthcare organization); CENTOS (a center for the care of orphaned and abandoned children); ORT (an
organization for occupational training); CEKABE (a free loan society); JEAS (an organization for
immigrant aid); and TOPOROL (an organization that assisted farmers). The directorate of JSS,
headquartered in Krakw, included representatives from ghettos throughout the Generalgouvernement
and maintained continuous contact with all Jewish communities, including the most remote, as well as
with Jewish prisoners in camps. The financial resources allotted to the organization by the occupying
authoritieswhich were extremely modest compared to their needshelped ghetto inhabitants operate
soup kitchens and warehouses, as well as provide medical aid. In the Lithuanian ghettos established in fall
1941, the prewar communal system served as a significant anchor in troubled times.

Despite harsh economic restrictions and Nazi starvation policies, the contributions of Jewish aid
organizations to public welfare in the Generalgouvernement and Lithuania were notable, especially when
compared to the situation in ghettos established in occupied Soviet territory, where the Soviet government
had already destroyed the prerevolutionary Jewish communal structure. Thus in the Minsk ghetto, which
encompassed a population of more than 80,000, for example, there was not even one functioning Jewish
public assistance organization that could aid the needy; the welfare department of the Judenrat was the
only legal institution that functioned in this area. It established a soup kitchen where Jews could receive a
bowl of soup and a slice of bread in exchange for coupons, but at most it served only about 120 to 130
individuals. A similar reality prevailed in the ghettos of the Russian Republic and Ukraine.

Another factor that influenced the character of social welfare activities in the ghettos was the managerial
methods of the Jewish councils, which evolved in response to German policies. A significant number of
ghettos in eastern Poland and Lithuania were designated to provide a steady supply of forced labor for the
German war effort. The heads of the Judenrte in these ghettos, who understood the economic necessity
of this arrangement, knew how to extract benefits for the entire population. In many instances,
connections that were established with the occupying authorities in order to strengthen the ghetto
workforce brought improved conditions. In Vilna, the local German authorities sent thousands of doses of
vaccines to prevent the spread of a typhus epidemic, and in Grodno, thanks to close connections between
the Judenrat and various German officials, ghetto inhabitants did not suffer severe hunger. In the ghettos
of Lithuania, as well as in Grodno andBiaystok, the heads of the Judenrat were meticulous in maintaining
buildings and public sanitary conditions, assuming that in this way they were improving conditions for
survival. Conversely, the Warsaw Judenrte failed to deal with the many difficulties that befell the
population, and in the Minsk ghetto the inexperience of leaders in Jewish public affairs was felt in their
inability to reduce the extensive poverty.

For all of the harsh economic conditions that prevailed in the ghetto, however, the Nazi regime did not try
actively to destroy the Jewish family unit. The authorities allowed Jews in ghettos to preserve the nuclear
and even the extended family framework, to live together, and to take care of each others needs.
Nevertheless, although official data from the majority of medium-sized and smaller ghettos are not
available, it appears that male-to-female ratios were anomalous. In a significant number of ghettos, the
population was approximately 5560 percent female. The imbalance was greater among Jews of working
age. This phenomenon may be explained by the fact that men were the first victims of mass murders (in
the Soviet Union, Lithuania, and eastern Poland) and the first to be sent to forced labor. Moreover, young
men were more likely to escape from the ghettos. Statistics also reveal that the mortality rate among
ghetto inhabitants was higher for men than for women (in both absolute and relative terms).

Ghettos became places of shelter for Jewish refugees arriving as a result of internal displacement and
from neighboring occupied countries. Together with the skewed sex ratio, the need to absorb
downtrodden and destitute refugee populations harmed and sometimes even destroyed the ability of
ghetto communities to sustain them. In the case of Warsaw, the largest of the ghettos, the fact that onethird of the inhabitants (about 150,000 people) were refugees caused a dramatic change in the
sociodemographic character of the community and in its ability to withstand hardships.

Educational, Cultural, and Religious Activity

Because of various restrictions imposed by the Nazi regime, regular education schedules for Jews were
not maintained anywhere in occupied Eastern Europe. The economic and logistical constraints associated
with the ghettos, including shortages of buildings and teaching aids and growing numbers of needy
unable to pay tuition fees, made educating children even more difficult. Jewish councils tried to maintain
some type of school-year routine, but with the passing of time, the rise in the levels of distress, and the
radicalization of German anti-Jewish policies, studies in schools were suspended. In the Biaystok ghetto,
school facilities housing more than 2,000 pupils were closed at the beginning of 1942. In Lublin, the
troubled Judenrat was so concerned with establishing the ghetto and the large influx of refugees that the
issue of education was neglected. Nevertheless, educational efforts did not stop completely; in most
ghettos attempts were made to find alternative arrangements, and varied educational activities went on in
secret.

Political parties, youth movements, and even certain individuals harnessed themselves to this effort
alongside the Jewish councils and other legal institutions. In the Warsaw ghetto, Jews were permitted to
open schools only after September 1941; those schools functioned until mass transports to Treblinka
began in July 1942. Even earlier, youth movements and political parties had arranged illegal educational
activities. In d, youth movements filled the educational void that resulted from the closing of the
ghetto school in autumn 1941, and professional training workshops for children organized by the Judenrat
in order to save them from extermination also served an educational function. In the medium-sized and
smaller ghettos, the initiative in launching educational activities was taken mostly by teachers, who would
sometimes lead underground study groups in their homes.

In Vilna, the Judenrat established a variegated educational system, enrolling 1,400 pupils in schools of
various types. It also operated two youth clubs. This educational system, which remained in place until
the ghettos final days, was exceptional among ghettos in its scope and vitality. Nevertheless, there were
impressive efforts, rooted in Jewish tradition, to maintain educational frameworks in many ghettos; these
were a sign that Jews continued to hope for the future. In the final analysis, though, the education offered
in the ghettos was limited. In addition to institutional limitations, ghetto children needed most of their
strength for their ongoing battle to survive.

The Nazi regimes total war against the Jewish people made its religious symbols objects of persecution
as well. Although the Nazis had no coherent policy regarding Jewish religious life, religious Jews faced
special difficulties adjusting to the life in the ghettos. Among the first to comment upon the upheavals that
the Nazi occupation wrought upon the religious life of East European Jews was Shimon uberband, a
rabbi and Oyneg Shabes archivist in the Warsaw ghetto. In his studies on this subject, he noted a twofold
reaction pattern: on one hand, efforts by religious Jews to hold on to their religious way of life as much as
possible and to adapt it to the changing circumstances, and on the other hand, instances of heresy and
breakdown of traditional observance. The rabbinical leadership in the Warsaw ghetto undertook to
establish kosher soup kitchens for the Orthodox populace, and provided for ritual slaughter in defiance of
the authorities. In the ghettos where public prayer and celebration of Jewish holidays were forbidden,
prayer quorums met secretly in private homes. The need to celebrate religious rituals was felt in nonOrthodox circles as well. Religious observance reflected a yearning to strengthen Jewish identity that had
been disgraced, as well as fear of the inevitable, and even a kind of spiritual rebellion. In instances where

rabbis needed to make fateful decisions where fulfilling religious commandments might have brought
death, most stood by the principle that the commandments were for living. Some spoke of sanctification
of life as a religious value.

Art provided another way of dealing with the harsh realities of ghetto life. At the same time, it offered
ghetto residents a form of escapism. Cultural activities of all sorts took place in the ghettos of the
Generalgouvernement and Lithuania, in places that already had a previously existing foundation of
autonomous Jewish culture. The activities, organized for the most part by the Judenrte, included musical
and theatrical productions, literary events, painting, and sports. It is difficult, however, to gauge the extent
of participation in these events. Cultural activity in the shadow of mass murder also sometimes aroused
moral qualms. erman Kruk, the chronicler and director of the library in the Vilna ghetto, rebelled against
the very idea of theater in the ghetto. In contrast, the prolific literary works that writers (such as Yeshue
Perle of Warsaw) produced as Jews were being transported to their deaths reflect the passion to create
even amid the hopeless realities of the ghettos.

Much of our information about the ways Jews survived in the ghettos is based on the writings of
contemporary chroniclers. The work of recording what befell the Jews during the period of Nazi
occupation and the collection and storage of these records constitute one of the most amazing episodes in
Jewish historiography. The project of documentation within the ghettos was carried out in secret (except
in d). It was led by Jewish communal bodies aided by segments of the intelligentsia. In the Warsaw
ghetto, historianEmanuel Ringelblum headed the Oyneg Shabes archive. Assisting him were members of
Jewish self-help societies and the underground resistance movement. In Vilna, the staff of YIVO collected
material, while in the Biaystok ghetto, members of the underground movement founded an archive. In
Kaunas, the Judenrat took responsibility for a documentation project. Countless other individuals, charged
with the same fevered sense of purpose, also worked to document the events. Many such efforts went
unnoticed.

In sum, many factors working in combinationlocal policies handed down by different occupation
authorities, circumstances peculiar to specific places and times, the behavior of Jewish leaders,
preexisting communal-organizational foundations, and the sociodemographic structure of ghetto
populationsinfluenced the character of Jewish life in the ghettos of Eastern Europe.