From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 1997 6:13 PM
To: Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup
Subject: Diaspora - Part 10: Ethiopian Jews
From: JUICE Administration <juice@virtual.co.il>
To: diaspora@virtual.co.il
Subject: JUICE Diaspora 10
==============================================================
World Zionist Organization
Student and Academics Department
Jewish University in CyberspacE
juice@wzo.org.il birnbaum@wzo.org.il
http://www.wzo.org.il
==============================================================
Course: Actors on the World's Stage: Jewish Life in the Diaspora
Lecture: 10/12
Lecturer: Rabbi Zvi Berger
Shalom all! Today we're going to take a brief look at the origins of one of
the most fascinating Diaspora communities, that of Ethiopian Jewry, also
known as the "Beta Israel", or the "Falashas". I must admit that I approach
this particular subject with a fair amount of trepidation. For as we shall
soon see, the question of the origins of this particular community is an
extremely complex matter, and I certainly do not claim to be a scholar
working in the field of the history of this community. Therefore, I
certainly do not have the right or capability to reach any definitive
conclusions concerning the history of this community. But despite these
serious hesitations and justifiable hesitations, I've decided to go ahead
with it anyway, for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that there is a great
deal of interest in this community, which was "rediscovered" by the Jewish
world in the 19th Century. This popular interest was certainly heightened
by the successful operations organized by the Israeli government (Operation
Moses in 1984-85 and Operation Solomon in 1990-91), which brought over
30,000 of the Ethiopian Jews to Israel. My second reason for wishing to
deal with this community relates to a much larger question, namely, the
connection between historical research and knowledge, and "historical
consciousness". This is a fundamental issue which is worth considering, and
in order to deal with it, I'll use the fascinating example of Ethiopian
Jewry as a contemporary example of the importance of historical
consciousness. But more on that later on.
Before we get into the issue of the origins of this community, let me
provide a brief note concerning the religious life of the community.
Today's Ethiopian Jewry descend from a community which lived a religious
life based upon the commandments of the Torah, but which was unaware of the
rabbinic oral tradition which had found expression in the Mishnah, Talmud,
and later works of halakhah. Thus, while Shabbat and many holidays (such as
Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover) were meticulously observed, many
mitzvot such as the wearing of tefillin, the placing of mezuzot on door
frames, etc. were not practiced, as the details concerning the observance of
these commandments were established in the rabbinic oral tradition. The
community has a variety of sacred literature, (written in the Ethiopian
language of Ge'ez), including the Orit (the Torah), and the Teezaza Sanbat,
a book dealing with the laws of Shabbat. Daily prayers were conducted in
the mesgid, or synagogue, and while the liturgy is uniquely Ethiopian, many
of the prayers show clear similarity to traditional prayers known throughout
the Jewish world. The community also has its own unique types of ritual
observance. Ritual sacrifices were offered, (based of course, on explicit
biblical commandments). Today, the only sacrifice still offered is the
Pesach (or Paschal) offering. For more information concerning the general
nature of Ethiopian Jewish religious life, I refer you to Rabbi Menachem
Waldman's excellent introduction, published as "The Jews of Ethiopia: The
Beta Israel Community". Happily, this book is easily accessible on the
excellent Website of the National Council for Ethiopian Jewry,
(www.cais.com/nacoej/), which I highly recommend that you check out! For
now, however, I'm going to move on to the specific issue which I've chosen
to focus in on, namely, the origins of Ethiopian Jewry.
So what makes the origins of this people so complex and confusing?! Well,
start with the fact that there is debate even concerning their name. Today,
the standard approach is to refer to the community as Ethiopian Jews.
Today, this is the term preferred by the members of the community itself,
and since both the Israeli government and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel have
officially recognized the Jewishness of the community, it would seem to be
appropriate to simply refer to them as Ethiopian Jews and to go on to more
substantive matters! Historically, however, use of this term is
problematic, since the members of this community did not refer to themselves
as "Ethiopian Jews" while they were living in Ethiopia, and the use of this
term is of very recent origin. Even as late as the 1970's, the most
commonly used term in secondary historical literature was the "Falashas", a
term which is rarely used today. The meaning of the term is also subject to
debate, but the most accepted theory claims that the term stems from the
word falasa in the Ge'ez language, (which is the language of the sacred
literature of both Ethiopian Christianity and of the Ethiopian Jews),
meaning "to separate", "emigrate", or "exile", or from falasyan, meaning
"stranger". Many Ethiopian Jews today consider the term to be derogatory
or negative. The term "Beta Israel" (House of Israel), has the advantage of
being one which was often employed by the community itself in Ethiopia.
Ironically, the term "Jew" was not used in Ethiopia to describe the Beta
Israel at all, but was used among Ethiopian Christians to describe those
Christians who were suspected of adhering to strongly to "Old Testament"
practices! What a mess...isn't this confusing?! But it's worth thinking
about, since names tell us a great deal about national or communal
"self-perceptions". Take the modern Zionist halutzim (pioneers) who
returned to Eretz Yisrael in order to rebuild the land and revive their
people. It's no coincidence that many of these pioneers spurned the term
"Jews", (which they associated with the galut), and adapted the term
"Hebrews", which was more directly connected with the Zionist effort and
with the land of Israel. Similarly, we saw that many Reform Jews in France
in the 19th Century referred to themselves as "Frenchmen of the Mosaic
Persuasion". Here as well, "Jew" was a term reserved for the earlier type
of pre-modern, pre-Emancipation Jew, living within the framework of his own
community. So bearing this in mind, let's go back to the Beta Israel, the
ancestors of today's Ethiopian Jewish community.
In the book, "The Evolution of the Ethiopian Jews: A History of the Beta
Israel (Falasha) to 1920", the American historian James Quirin describes
three prevailing theories concerning the origins of this community. The
first theory is what Quirin calls the "Lost Tribe" explanation. This view
sees the Ethiopian Jews as the descendants of one of the Ten Lost Tribes,
(the tribes exiled by the Assyrians from the kingdom of Israel in 722
B.C.E., who subsequently assimilated among the local population).
Specifically, they are identified with the tribe of Dan, who supposedly
emigrated southward to Ethiopia in ancient times. Opinions vary concerning
the specific nature of this migration, with the two contending views being
a) a migration southward from Egypt, and b) a westward movement from South
Arabia or Yemen. This view often admits that through the centuries some
conversion of local Ethiopian tribes may also have taken place, but the
fundamental source is nonetheless viewed as the tribe of Dan. This view has
more or less become the "official" version of the Israeli government and
religious authorities, as well as the prevailing view among Ethiopian Jews
themselves in Israel. It is also a view which is described in a number of
important Jewish sources, (these sources, however, were not written in
Ethiopia itself), dating as far back as the 9th Century C.E.
The second approach is the "Convert" theory. This approach is similar to
the "Lost Tribe" theory, but rather than assume a large scale migration of
Jews into Ethiopia, it posits that a small number of Jews settled in
Ethiopia and intermarried with members of a local population known as the
Agaw. Many of these Agaw adopted various Jewish or Israelite practices, and
gradually, the followers of the Israelite traditions bacame known as the
Beta Israel. The third theory is what Quirin describes as the "Rebel" view,
which sees the Beta Israel as being a group which broke away from the
prevailing Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. This view is based largely on
the numerous and well-documented similarities between the religious
practices of the Beta Israel and those of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity,
which is itself heavily influenced by Old Testament practices.
Well, if you're expecting me to reveal which of these views is the "correct"
one, sorry, "it ain't in the cards"! Because, quite frankly, we have a
problem with our sources. The fact is, there are no historical records
whatsoever from Ethiopia which speak specifically of the Beta Israel (or the
Falasha or any of the other names by which they were known), until the 14th
Century C.E.! This fact makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint the
specific nature of the origins of the community with any degree of
certainty. In fact, from a historical point of view, there may never be a
conclusive answer to this question!
It may be worthwhile to briefly describe a few basic facts of Ethiopian
history, which should help us to gain a clearer picture, (at the very least
in regard to the complexity of the historical problem of the origins of the
Ethiopian Jewish community). The kingdom which ruled over most of northern
Ethiopia from about 500 B.C.E. onward was known as the state of Aksum. In
the fourth century, the Aksumite king Ezana converted to Christianity. In
the words of the historian Steven Kaplan, Ezana's conversion "completely
transformed the cultural basis of the Ethiopian monarchy". From this time
on, Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity was to dominate Ethiopian life. What's
so interesting about this Christianity for our purposes, however, is that it
has such a strong Israelite, or "Old Testament" basis. Many Israelite
customs based on mitzvot of the Torah (the "Old Testament") became part of
Ethiopian Orthodox religious life, including circumcision eight days after
birth, dietary laws surprisingly similar to those described in the Torah,
and for centuries the Sabbath was observed on Saturday. Moreover, the
Ethiopian national literary epic, the Kebra Nagast, (The glory of kings), is
the source of the well known Ethiopian tradition which views the Ethiopian
rulers as the direct descendants of Menelik I, the supposed son of King
Solomon of Israel and the Queen of Sheba! (Many of you probably remember
reading about the late Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, whose official
title was the "Lion of Judah"). At any rate, in this account, the Queen of
Sheba was actually an Ethiopian monarch from Aksum named Makeda, who was not
only impressed by Solomon's wisdom, but was also tricked into having sexual
relations with him! As a result, Menelik was born...Later on, he went to
visit his father in Jerusalem, and Solomon commanded that the first-born
sons of the priests and the elders of Israel accompany him back to Aksum.
On the way back, Menelik also took with him the Ark of the Covenant from the
Beit Hamikdash in Jerusalem. I recently saw a documentary on television
describing this traditional epic, in particular the tradition concerning the
Ark of the Covenant being brought to Ethiopia. The legend lives on to this
day. Needless to say, the story has no parallels in the Tanakh or in later
Jewish literature. But the fact that it became the basis for Ethiopian
monarchical legitimacy shows how deeply the Biblical basis of Ethiopian
Christian identity truly is. Interestingly, Kaplan claims that up until a
decade or so ago, the Beta Israel had also often claimed to accept this
Ethiopian national myth as the basis of their origins as well, a factor
which would stress the Ethiopian context of the development of their unique
identity. Recently, however, the community has rejected this Ethiopian
legendary association. It seems to me that this is hardly coincidental. It
probably reflects the desire, (perhaps even a subconscious desire) to
emphasize the separateness of the Ethiopian Jews from other Ethiopians, a
factor which is particularly important in this time, when the community has
almost entirely left Ethiopia, and is dealing with all of the difficulties
of adjusting to the realities of Ethiopian Jewish life in Israel.
Historically speaking, however, Kaplan claims that "there would appear to be
no basis for accepting the Solomon and Sheba legend as an historical
explanation for either the Jewish elements in Ethiopian culture or the
origins of the Beta Israel..." (Steven Kaplan, The Beta Israel (Falasha) in
Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the 20th Century, p. 24) One historical
problem, for example, is that the reign of King Solomon is dated to the 10th
C. B.C.E., which is at least 500 years before the very beginnings of the
Ethiopian Aksumite civilization. We seem to be dealing with the remnants of
an ancient legendary account which definitely reflects an ancient tradition,
but is not necessarily based on any historically verifiable evidence.
Kaplan also deals at length with the claim concerning the origins of the
Ethiopian Jews from the tribe of Dan. He cites a number of interesting
medieval sources which clearly show that this tradition was well
established, (though not universally accepted) in the Jewish world for
hundreds of years. One source is the 9th Century account of Eldad the
Danite. Eldad was a mysterious figure who claimed to be from the tribe of
Dan, who he describes as having settled (along with the tribe of Naftali,
Asher, Gad, and the "sons of Moses") in the Biblical land of Cush, an area
traditionally identified with Ethiopia. Though many scholars are skeptical
concerning the historical credibility of this account, it nonetheless played
an important role in cementing the rabbinic tradition concerning the Danite
origins of the Ethiopian Jews, a claim which found expression in a well
known Halakhic responsum of the Radbaz (Rabbi David Ben Abi Zimra) of Egypt
in the 16th Century, as well as in the contemporary Halakhic ruling of
Israeli Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in 1973, which affirmed the
Jewishness of the Ethiopian Jews. The problem of course, is that there is
no external historical evidence supporting the claim of Danite settlement in
Ethiopia. While it clearly reflects a long standing ancient tradition, it
may not have a basis in historical fact. Kaplan concludes, "Both the Danite
and Solomon-Sheba accounts must be viewed primarily as mythic or legendary
tales of greater interest for their symbolic meaning than for the direct
insight they offer into these historical problems" (Kaplan, p. 26).
Clearly, we're not going to solve this complex historical problem of the
origins of the Ethiopian Jewish community in the context of this lecture.
As I've already mentioned, not only do I not know the answer to this
question, it appears to me that given our source limitations, we may never
have a definitive historically verifiable answer to this question. But what
is clear is that the "historical consciousness" or the "collective memory"
of the Ethiopian Jewish community bases itself, (in particular at this
critical juncture in their history), on this Danitic claim. Again, I wish
to quote from Kaplan:
"particularly in the period since World War II, the Beta Israel's image of
themselves has changed dramatically. In contrast to earlier times, today
they prefer to largely disassociate themselves from their Ethiopian past and
environment... Increasingly, their accounts of their past and their
religious traditions are shaped to stress the similarities, in some cases
even the total identity, with those of other Jewish communities. Doubtless,
all of these changes are in some way necessary both for the Beta Israel to
feel at home and for their acceptance in their new environment. They
should, however, be appreciated for what they are - fascinating examples of
a people's redefinition of its identity...long before their encounter with
World Jewry, the Beta Israel worshipped and created, struggled and fought,
all within the context of the wider stream of Ethiopian history. As the
focus of their history and the center of their communal life now move to a
new context, it is to be hoped that the fascinating story of their emergence
and survival in Ethiopia will continue to be cherished in all its richness
and complexity".
The fundamental difficulty with which we all have to contend is really a
very simple one. The conclusions of modern academic historical research
(which admittedly are usually tentative at best), may occasionally conflict
with the views of past events which are deeply imbedded in the "historical
consciousness" of a particular group or people. We'll consider a number of
examples from Jewish tradition and Jewish history to exemplify this point.
But first, a general observation. As the noted Jewish historian Yosef Haim
Yerushalmi has observed in his seminal work, Zachor (meaning "remember"),
Judaism is a religious tradition which has placed an awareness of history at
its center. Jewish faith is based on large measure on remembering the brit,
the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and later with all of Am
Yisrael at Mt. Sinai with the giving of the Torah. Similarly, the three
major holidays of Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, while originally serving as
agricultural festivals associated with different stages of the harvest, all
assumed profound historical meanings. Pesach, of course, became the holiday
commemorating the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage.
Yet despite the centrality of historical consciousness in traditional Jewish
belief, the study of history per se has never been part of traditional
Jewish study. And while a few ancient and medieval Jewish histories or
chronicles were written, (the primary example being the works of Josephus
Flavius in the Roman period), historical writing never became a central
focus of traditional Jewish literature. And even where it does exist, you
certainly don't find anything resembling modern historiography, which is
based on the critical analysis and evaluation of a variety of sources
reflecting different points of view. Bear this n mind as we consider a
number of examples.
Certainly the account of the slavery and liberation from Egypt, and the
subsequent giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai are two of the most important
foci of Jewish belief. Yet there is no clear external Egyptian evidence
confirming the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, nor is there historically
verifiable evidence concerning the Exodus. Does this mean that these events
did not take place, that they are mere fabrications? Not necessarily, (in
fact, many Biblical scholars suggest a connection between the Biblical
Hebrews and the "Apiru" or "Habiru", a term known from many parts of the
Ancient Near East, usually used to describe a social class of foreign
wanderers or vagrants. "Apiru" are described as being in Egypt according to
Egyptian sources). But despite these possible connections with the Hebrews,
there is no historically accepted "proof" of the Exodus account. And there
is certainly no objectively verifiable "proof" of the giving of the Torah at
Sinai! Traditional Jewish writers have usually stressed that 600,000
witnesses could not be mistaken. But of course, this assumes the accuracy
of the Biblical account of 600,000 Israelites leaving Egypt, which is
certainly not mentioned in any historical source of the Egyptians or any
other people from the period!
Another often cited example from Jewish tradition concerns the holiday of
Hanukah. Many of us grew up on the story of the cruse of oil which
miraculously burned for eight days. Historians often point out, however,
that this story is first known to us from the Talmud, which was edited some
650 years after the events of Hanukah took place, and that the story may be
a tale designed to place the focus for the miracle of Hanukah on Divine
intervention, rather than on the heroic deeds of the Maccabees themselves!
Modern examples of "mythmaking" are numerous and are no doubt found in every
ideological movement and I would guess in every country as well. The
Zionist view of Jewish history, for example, often tended to deemphasize and
even degrade developments which took place in the Galut, particularly in the
Middle Ages. The truly significant periods of Jewish history were the
Biblical period and the time of the Second Temple, when Jews lived proudly
in their homeland of Eretz Yisrael! Today, of course, this point of view is
much less prevalent. One of the most popular tourist attractions in Israel
today is Beit Hatefutzot, the Diaspora Museum, in Tel Aviv. I'm not
familiar with the details concerning the establishment of the museum, (which
has been around for about 20 years or so), but I do know that there was a
good deal of controversy concerning its name. Should a museum be
established in Israel which stresses the creativity of Jewish life in the
Diaspora, (as opposed to using the term Galut, with all of its negative
implications...)? I even wonder, by the way, if 30 years ago, the World
Zionist Organization would have wished to sponsor a course on "Jewish Life
in the Diaspora"! While the ideological debate concerning the relationship
between Israel and the Diaspora is certainly still very much alive within
the Jewish world and within the Zionist movement, it seems clear that in
many circles, even within Israel, a greater recognition exists today
concerning the centrality of the Diaspora to Jewish history, as well as in
regard to Jewish life today.
Well, have I "succeeded" in totally confusing you?! What happened to
Ethiopian Jewry amidst all of these historical/philosophical ramblings! Let
me sum up a number of points. I believe that we all (or at least most of
us!) need certain "myths", certain fundamental beliefs accepted on faith, in
order to live in this complex and often confusing world we live in. Myths,
however, tend to simplify matters, by giving clear explanations of how
things took place, (e.g. the creation of the world). Modern historical
research, however, usually tends to make things more complex, by stressing
the diversity and uniqueness of historical occurrences and phenomena. Does
history have to undermine religious faith? I don't think so, though it
certainly may undermine faith which is dogmatic and "closed-minded" in
nature. Nor need a broad historical perspective necessarily undermine a
commitment to a particular ideal or ideology, (e.g. Zionism). What it does
suggest is the need to remain open to differing perspectives and to the
(admittedly tentative) conclusions reached concerning our historical
experience. In regard to Ethiopian Jewry, the fact that noted historians
have stressed the complexity of determining the nature of the origins of the
community should in no way influence or detract their legitimate struggle
for acceptance as full fledged Jews and Israeli citizens. The history of
the development of the historical consciousness of this fascinating
community is still being made to this day and no doubt will continue to
develop in future years!
One last item. The exodus of Ethiopian Jewry to Israel was not completed
with Operations Moses and Solomon. Another community, known as the
"Falashmura", have been partially resettled in Israel, but most still
languish in Ethiopia, living in difficult conditions in temporary camps in
Addis Ababa. This is a group who were not originally included in the aliya
operations because they had left the Beta Israel villages, and many of their
ancestors had apparently at one point converted to Christianity, thus making
their Jewishness today suspect. The Falashmura are considered by the
Ethiopian Jews to be part and parcel of their people, and their suffering
and the various obstacles raised to their swift aliya and integration into
Israel have caused members of the community great anguish and consternation.
Ironically, the Chief Rabbinate seems to have shown a greater willingness to
accept the Falashmura as Jews than the Israeli secular authorities. I hope
and pray that all remaining Falashmura left in Ethiopia will be quickly
reunited with their families here in Israel! For more background on this
issue, check out the article on the subject on the Website mentioned earlier.
I hope my historical/philosophical/religious reflections, (inspired by the
origins of Ethiopian Jewry) gave you some food for thought! All the best,
and next week we're off to visit American Jewry. Remember, the last lecture
will deal with "visions of the Jewish future in Diaspora".
************************************************************************