Goudsmit & Goldschmidt -- a geneasequel - Person Sheet
Goudsmit & Goldschmidt -- a geneasequel - Person Sheet
NameAbraham b’ Samuel Drach (Bacharach) z Rost z Drachen 
Birthabt 1615, D, Frankfurt
Death14 Aug 1687, D, Frankfurt
BurialFrankfurt (Battonnstrasse) (ffb-0183)
OccupationMerchant, Banker
FatherShmuel/ Samuel b’ Menachem Bacharach z Knoblauch z Drachen (~1560-1628)
MotherHinlen/ Hanna b’ Jakef mi Bruchsal (~1575-1643)
Spouses
Birthabt 1615, D, ?
Death2 Jun 1639, D, Frankfurt
BurialFrankfurt (Battonnstrasse) (ffb-1369)
Marriage1638, D, ?
Marr MemoET
ChildrenShmul/ Samuel b’ Abraham (~1639-1728)
Birthabt 1625, D, Frankfurt
Death14 Apr 1693, D, Frankfurt
BurialFrankfurt (Battonnstrasse) (ffb-1408)
FatherBeer b’ Liebman Homburg Seulberg z weissen Bär (~1600-1651)
MotherFaiel b’ Jukkel (e2’ Herts b’ Leib Oppenheim) (~1610-1695)
Marriage1641, D, Frankfurt
ChildrenGutle b’ Awrom (~1645-1712)
Chava b’ Awrom (~1645-1679)
Edel b’ Awrom (~1650-1695)
Hindle b’ Awrom (~1655-1721)
Notes for Abraham b’ Samuel Drach (Bacharach) z Rost z Drachen
Parnas — Gove — Shtadlan
House “Rost”, later “Drachen”
children [not certain who is from which marriage]:
# Shmul b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d. 8.7.1728) >>
# Moshe b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d abt 1729), married to Fraidle mi Hamburg — moved to Pressburg
# Beer b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d. 15.4.1683, unmarried)
# Gutle b’ Awrom Drach (d. 30.10.1712) >>
# Chava/Chavve b’ Awrom Drach (d. 27.8.1697) >>
# Edel b’ Awrom Drach (d. 11.5.1695) >>
# Hindle b’ Awrom Drach (d. 23.3.1721) >>
NB — Quotes from website Frankfurt Museum ®41 — [also cf ®26]:
“……He was the most prominent member of the Drach family, one of the richest and most respected Frankfurt Jewish families. Isidor Kracauer, the chronicler of the Frankfurt Jews, described him as follows: "His breadth of vision, his commercial talent and ability to make best use of favourable times, his skill in handling people and issues, and not least his punctilious honesty with its absolute rejection of any unfair profit gained him the absolute confidence of high and low alike in both Jewish and Christian society. His name was highly valued on the Amsterdam and Hamburg exchanges and at the courts of many neighbouring princes whose financial needs he supplied as their court factor."
Drach was frequently given important commissions by the Jewish community and was elected to its highest offices as "master builder" and treasurer. He was appointed plenipotentiary on behalf of the Frankfurt Jews in important negotiations at the imperial court in Vienna.
Despite his services to the community, his influential position was no uncontested. A group of Frankfurt Jews led by Isaak Kann fought a vigorous political battle against him for years, known as the DrachKann disputes” — cf Isaak/Itsek b’ Jakef Kann (Bingen) z bunten Kanne (ca 1635-1700) --
“The DrachKann disputes is the name given to the struggle for dominance within Frankfurt's Jewish community from 1669 to the mid 1680s between Isaak Kann and his supporters and the highlyregarded Abraham Drach. — Through his supporters, who included some people with very bad reputations, such as Amschel Schuh, Kann spread false accusations against Drach. Among other things, he accused him of reconverting Jews who had converted to Christianity, which the Christians of the time regarded as a serious crime. The accusations proved baseless. Kann's supporters succeeded in involving external authorities in the disputes, such as the Church court in Mainz, the emperor, the Frankfurt city council and the imperial court of justice. Many of these institutions were engaged in a struggle for power with each other, and it was possible through bribery in particular to play them off against each other and obtain their support. In this way the Kann faction succeeded in having Drach imprisoned in Mainz for some time. After years the dispute was finally settled in 1684 by the imperial council in favour of Abraham Drach. Both parties suffered: Isaak Kann was sentenced to a fine of 100,000 talers, a huge sum in those days, but Drach's fortune was also severely reduced by the dispute, and he had little success with his claims for damages. Kann on the other hand quickly managed to regain his position as one of the richest men in the Frankfurt Jewish community. The Kann family continued to play a leading role among the Frankfurt Jews. Several decades later, in the mid18th century, the family became involved in another major power struggle within the community, which has gone down in Frankfurt history as the KulpKann dispute.”
“Nach jahrelangem Streit wurde die Angelegenheit 1684 vom Reichshofrat endgültig zugunsten Abraham Drachs entschieden. Schaden trugen beide Kontrahenten davon. Während Isaak Kann zu einer Strafe von 100.000 Talern verurteilt wurde, was damals einem sehr großen Vermögen entsprach, waren auch Drachs Vermögensverhältnise durch den Streit sehr zerrüttet. Die von ihm erhobenen Schadensersatzansprüche konnte er nur in geringem Umfang geltend machen. Kann war es hingegen gelungen, sich bald wieder zu einem der reichsten Männer unter Frankfurts Juden aufzuschwingen….”
House “Rost”, later “Drachen”
children [not certain who is from which marriage]:
# Shmul b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d. 8.7.1728) >>
# Moshe b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d abt 1729), married to Fraidle mi Hamburg — moved to Pressburg
# Beer b’ Awrom Drach z Drachen (d. 15.4.1683, unmarried)
# Gutle b’ Awrom Drach (d. 30.10.1712) >>
# Chava/Chavve b’ Awrom Drach (d. 27.8.1697) >>
# Edel b’ Awrom Drach (d. 11.5.1695) >>
# Hindle b’ Awrom Drach (d. 23.3.1721) >>
NB — Quotes from website Frankfurt Museum ®41 — [also cf ®26]:
“……He was the most prominent member of the Drach family, one of the richest and most respected Frankfurt Jewish families. Isidor Kracauer, the chronicler of the Frankfurt Jews, described him as follows: "His breadth of vision, his commercial talent and ability to make best use of favourable times, his skill in handling people and issues, and not least his punctilious honesty with its absolute rejection of any unfair profit gained him the absolute confidence of high and low alike in both Jewish and Christian society. His name was highly valued on the Amsterdam and Hamburg exchanges and at the courts of many neighbouring princes whose financial needs he supplied as their court factor."
Drach was frequently given important commissions by the Jewish community and was elected to its highest offices as "master builder" and treasurer. He was appointed plenipotentiary on behalf of the Frankfurt Jews in important negotiations at the imperial court in Vienna.
Despite his services to the community, his influential position was no uncontested. A group of Frankfurt Jews led by Isaak Kann fought a vigorous political battle against him for years, known as the DrachKann disputes” — cf Isaak/Itsek b’ Jakef Kann (Bingen) z bunten Kanne (ca 1635-1700) --
“The DrachKann disputes is the name given to the struggle for dominance within Frankfurt's Jewish community from 1669 to the mid 1680s between Isaak Kann and his supporters and the highlyregarded Abraham Drach. — Through his supporters, who included some people with very bad reputations, such as Amschel Schuh, Kann spread false accusations against Drach. Among other things, he accused him of reconverting Jews who had converted to Christianity, which the Christians of the time regarded as a serious crime. The accusations proved baseless. Kann's supporters succeeded in involving external authorities in the disputes, such as the Church court in Mainz, the emperor, the Frankfurt city council and the imperial court of justice. Many of these institutions were engaged in a struggle for power with each other, and it was possible through bribery in particular to play them off against each other and obtain their support. In this way the Kann faction succeeded in having Drach imprisoned in Mainz for some time. After years the dispute was finally settled in 1684 by the imperial council in favour of Abraham Drach. Both parties suffered: Isaak Kann was sentenced to a fine of 100,000 talers, a huge sum in those days, but Drach's fortune was also severely reduced by the dispute, and he had little success with his claims for damages. Kann on the other hand quickly managed to regain his position as one of the richest men in the Frankfurt Jewish community. The Kann family continued to play a leading role among the Frankfurt Jews. Several decades later, in the mid18th century, the family became involved in another major power struggle within the community, which has gone down in Frankfurt history as the KulpKann dispute.”
“Nach jahrelangem Streit wurde die Angelegenheit 1684 vom Reichshofrat endgültig zugunsten Abraham Drachs entschieden. Schaden trugen beide Kontrahenten davon. Während Isaak Kann zu einer Strafe von 100.000 Talern verurteilt wurde, was damals einem sehr großen Vermögen entsprach, waren auch Drachs Vermögensverhältnise durch den Streit sehr zerrüttet. Die von ihm erhobenen Schadensersatzansprüche konnte er nur in geringem Umfang geltend machen. Kann war es hingegen gelungen, sich bald wieder zu einem der reichsten Männer unter Frankfurts Juden aufzuschwingen….”