The Beilis affair () was a judicial trial accusing Menahem Mendel Beilis of the ritual murder of 13-year-old Andriy Yushchinskyi, a student at the preparatory class of the Kiev-Sophia Theological School. The murder occurred on March 12, 1911,Dates are given in old style as it was custom in the Russian Empire at the time. and the perpetrator was never identified.
The accusation of ritual murder was initiated by activists of the Black Hundreds and supported by several far-right politicians and officials, including justice minister Ivan Shcheglovitov. Local investigators, who believed the case involved a criminal murder motivated by revenge, were removed from the investigation. Four months after the discovery of Yushchinskyi's body, Beilis, who worked as a clerk at a nearby factory, was arrested as a suspect and spent two years in prison.
The trial took place in Kiev from September 25 to October 28, 1913, and was accompanied, on one hand, by an active antisemitic campaign, and on the other, by nationwide and international public protests. Beilis was acquitted. Researchers believe the true perpetrators were Vera Cheberyak, a fence of stolen goods, and criminals from her home, though this question remains unresolved. The Beilis Case became the most high-profile trial in pre-revolutionary Russia.
Victim
Andriy "Andryusha" Yushchinskyi (1898 – March 12, 1911) was the illegitimate son of Kiev townsman Feodosiy Chirkov and Aleksandra Yushchinskaya, who sold pears, apples, and greens in Kiev. He did not know his father: shortly after his birth, Chirkov abandoned his mother after living with her for only two years and was later drafted into military service. In 1905, Yushchinskaya married Luka Prikhodko, a bookbinder.
The boy grew up without proper supervision, as his stepfather, occupied with his workshop, only came home on Saturdays and Sundays. His upbringing was primarily overseen by his childless and relatively affluent aunt, Natalya Yushchinskaya, who owned a box-making workshop. She also paid for his education: at the age of eight, the boy was enrolled in a "shelter" or "kindergarten" at the in Lukyanovka, and the following year, he entered a teachers' seminary.. See also Andriy was deeply attached to his aunt and, when asked by a friend if he loved his mother and stepfather, replied that he loved his aunt the most.Interrogation protocol of Zhenya Cheberyak The boy expressed a desire to become a priest ("he liked the uniform, he liked the position", explained his tutor, psalmist of the St. Theodorus's Church, Deacon Dmitry Mochugovsky, who worked with the boy for about nine months). In 1910, he enrolled in the at the Saint Sophia Cathedral.
The boy was described as capable, curious, and brave. Because he frequently walked at night and was unafraid of the dark, he earned the nickname domovoy (house spirit); at the same time, he "was reserved, did not get close to anyone, and kept to himself".Expression of E. Bogdanov, Andriy's teacher.
Discovery of the body
Thirteen-year-old Yushchinskyi disappeared on the morning of March 12, 1911, while heading to school. On March 20, his body was discovered by boys playing in one of the small caves in the Lukyanovka suburb, specifically by gymnasium student Yelansky. The body was covered with forty-seven stab wounds inflicted by an awl. The corpse was significantly drained of blood. It was determined that the cave was not the site of the murder.
The cadaver was found in a sitting position, with hands tied, wearing only underwear and a single sock. Nearby were his jacket, sash, cap, and notebooks, rolled into a tube and tucked into a recess in the wall. A piece of pillowcase with traces of semen was found in the pocket of his tunic; it was later determined that this pillowcase had been used to gag the boy during the murder.
The body was identified by inscriptions on the sash and notebooks. An expert analysis of the stomach contents (borscht from breakfast) established that he was killed 3–4 hours after eating, which, based on his mother's statement about the time of his last breakfast, indicated a time of death around 10 a.m. on March 12., see also
Appearance of the "ritual" version
The version about the use of Christian blood by Jews for ritual purposes —the "blood libel"— has existed since ancient times. In the Middle Ages, such an accusation was widespread in Catholic Europe. By the 18th century, it had practically fallen out of use in Western Europe, while similar accusations continued to arise regularly in Eastern Europe. Thus, in the Russian Empire, precisely in the 19th century, a whole series of such cases was initiated. In none of them was such an accusation proven. Nevertheless, it arose again and again and served as a catalyst for antisemitic sentiments.
In the very first days after the discovery of the body, anonymous letters began to arrive to the relatives of the murdered boy, as well as to the prosecutor of the district court, the head of the detective department, and other officials, in which it was claimed that Andriy had been ritually murdered by Jews in order to obtain Christian blood for making matzah. During the boy's funeral, hectographed proclamations were distributed with the following text: "Orthodox Christians! The boy was tortured by kikes, so beat the kikes, drive them out, do not forgive the shedding of Orthodox blood!". With these proclamations, Nikolay Andreyevich Pavlovich, a member of the Black Hundreds' Union of the Russian People, was detained, but the case against him was soon dropped. At the same time, the Black Hundred press first in Kiev, and then in the capitals, began to actively promote the theme of "ritual murder". It was pointed out that the boy was killed on Saturday shortly before Jewish Passover, which that year fell on .
The investigation was conducted by the head of the Kiev detective department Yevgeny Mishchuk; the preliminary investigation was carried out by the investigator for especially important cases of the Kiev District Court Vasily Fenenko, and supervision—by the prosecutor of the Kiev District Court, . Also, to assist the investigation, an official for special assignments, assistant head of the detective department of the capital Mechislav Kuntsevich, was sent from Saint Petersburg for a short time. They did not deny the possibility of the "ritual" nature of the murder, but after checking, they found no confirmation of this. Initially, the main version was mercenary motives: it was assumed that the boy's father, who had separated from his mother, had left a significant sum in Andriy's name, so suspicion fell on the boy's mother, his stepfather Luka Prikhodko, and a whole series of other relatives. Aleksandra Prikhodko was arrested immediately after the initiation of the case, but then released; Luka Prikhodko was arrested twice (the second time—together with his father), but was also released. It also turned out that the evidence against the relatives had been deliberately fabricated, and the confessions of the stepfather and uncle had been beaten out by the investigation. The right-wingers openly declared that the Jews had bribed the police to direct the investigation down a false path.
From the very beginning of the investigation, its course began to be influenced by the opportunistic and amateurish interference of the press, not only reactionary-right, but also democratic-liberal. Thus, the version of the involvement of Yushchinskyi's relatives was voiced by Semyon Barshchevsky, a journalist of the liberal Kievskaya Mysl newspaper. When this version turned out to be unfounded, Kievskaya Mysl tried to accuse gypsies who had camped not far from the crime scene of the murder.
The mention of the "ritual" version in the case appears for the first time only on April 22 in the testimony of Vera Cheberyak, who, regarding the corresponding conversations and proclamations at the funeral, states: "It seems to me now that the Jews probably killed Andryusha, since no one needed Andryusha's death in general. But I cannot provide you with evidence to support my assumption".
Adoption of the ritual version by the investigation
Researchers note that the Beilis case undoubtedly had a strong political background. Thus, Henry Resnik writes that in the conditions of the political crisis of 1911, the Russian right needed a high-profile event to strengthen their positions, and that is why an ordinary criminal murder began to turn into a ritual case. The American historian Hans Rogger believes that the rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia became a pretext for the authorities to put a Jew on the dock as a ritual murderer.At the same time, Rogger notes that, taking into account the political conditions, one should not speak of the government of Stolypin as some whole, but only as a conglomerate of individual ministers, often having direct access to the emperor and pursuing their own political goals
In February 1911, the State Duma for the first time began discussing a bill on the abolition of restrictions on Jews and, first of all, on the abolition of the Pale of Settlement, at the same time a bill on the introduction of the zemstvo in the Western Krai was being considered, under which Jews had no voting rights. The struggle around the issue of Jewish equality was extremely acute at that moment, and the ritual version of Yushchinskyi's murder became a key argument in antisemitic publications.
On April 15, a meeting of the Union of the Russian People (URP) was held in Kiev, at which a decision was made to intensify measures to accuse Jews of murdering Yushchinskyi.