(Beta Yisrael)

Our=

Common

Struggle

“Ethiopia shall soon s= tretch out her hands unto God.”

&n= bsp; Psalm 68:31

At first glance one might incorrectly assume that the = only thing Ethiopian Jews, who call themselves Beta Yisrael (The House of Israel), hav= e in common with black Jews in other parts of the world is that their ancestors = once lived on the same continent. While not entire true, this small fact is significant because Africa—whether we acknowle= dge it or not—is a crucial link that historically unites all Jews. Those whose African connection is more obvious because of race share this, too, a= s a bond for better or worse.

Actually, our similarities are more than skin deep. The direct connections between the Beta Israel and my community of black Jews in the United States antedates the recent public fascination with the African tribe by at least sixty years. The existence of all of our communities raise important questi= ons about the ancient history, current composition, and future of Judaism. This essay covers the ancient history, culture and tradition of the Beta Yisrael. My analysis of their current status in Israel is covered on a separate page devoted to black Jews in = Israel today.

History

The Beta Yisrael are perhaps the best known bl= ack Jewish sect in the world. Despite their ancient and well-documented history, they, like all black communities, have had their historical connections to Judaism challenged, the validity of their religious practice scrutinized, a= nd their acceptance within the white Jewish world hindered. When the Ethiopians left the cultural isolation of their remote villages, they entered a world prefigured by race. They soon learned that their Jewish heritage was not the only thing that made them “Falasha,” (outsiders). For the black Jews of America, the existence of Ethiopian Jews was living proof that black people have a connection to Judaism that is as old as any claimed by Europe= ans.

They called themselves Beta Yisrael because for centur= ies they believed that they were the last remnant of the ancient Israelites. In fact, in the nineteenth century when a French linguist named Joseph Halevy reached one of their villages on a mission fro= m the Alliance Israelite Universelle, they did not believe= that he, the European, could be a Jew. As Halevy des= cribed it, the Ethiopians said “What!…You a Falah= sa! A white Falasha! You are laughing at us. Are there any white Falashas?”[1] Imagine the irony of that moment: black Jews questioning the Jewishness of white Jews; and the white Jew trying to convince them of his authenticity. The levity of that scene is surpassed by= a far more serious point: when different Jewish communities come together, one will usually occupy the superior position; the one of dominance, authority,= and control. Not surprisingly, the dominant group is in a position to judge the subordinate. That is an exercise of power, and power underlies all of these relationships.

Dominance or power in this context is established by a combination of any or all of these factors: (1) numeric superiority, (2) ac= cess to wealth, (3) primo-occupancy; i.e. the act of being there first, (4) high= er social status (this could be based on a privilege afforded one Jewish group= by a Christian or Muslim authority that is more power than either Jewish group= (5) racial or ethnic superiority (this would be true in ra= cialized societies of the West and was evident in the interaction of Ashkenazim and Sephardim in Europe and Israel= ).

The Beta Israel maintain that their ancestors were des= cended from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. That union produced a child calle= d Menileck (in Hebrew Mem <= span class=3DSpellE>Meleck literally means “from king). This child = was then trained by the wise men of Solomon’s court. They further assert = that when Menileck left Jerusal= em with a large retinue of Israelite nobles for Ethiopia they took with them the Ark of the Covenant that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Ethiopian claim is b= ased on oral history that has been passed down from generation to generation by their elders, scholars called Dabtaras, = and their priests, called Kahens (an Amharic= word linguistically similar to the Hebrew word for priest, = Kohen).= = [2] The written account of ancient Ethiopian history is known as the Kebra Nagast and it corroborates in even greater detail what the Beta Israel have always affirm= ed. Moreover, the Biblical record tends to substantiate their claim. It vividly describes the Queen of Sheba arriving in Jerusalem with a large entourage shortly after the completion of the temple. She is granted an audience with the king, they engage in a colloquy in which the q= ueen is impressed with his Solomonic wisdom to the p= oint where there was “no more spirit left in her….And King Solomon g= ave the queen of Sheba all she desired, whatever she asked, in addition to all = that he gave her of his royal bounty.”[3]

Meeting of Solomon and Sheba=
Piero della Franc= esca, c. 1452

King Solomon and the Queen of Sheaba
Illustrated by Avi Katz

Notice how the 15^{th<=
/sup>
century painter whose work is shown of the left depicted King Solomon and t=
he
Queen of Sheba as being white, archetypal Europeans. The Israeli artist who=
se
work is shown on the right presents a more realistic depiction showing Makeda as the African queen that she was. These confl=
icting
images reflect the old presumption of whiteness that was traditionally appl=
ied
to all Biblical characters and the new multicultural realism that acknowled=
ges
the Eastern and African origins of Biblical figures respectively. Such real=
ism
is to be embraced and celebrated rather than denied and discouraged.}

Rudolph R. Windsor examined the validity of this claim= in his book From Babylon to Timbuktu. There he argued that the queen who visited King Solomon in 1012 B.C. was indeed an Ethiopian queen known vario= usly as Makeda or Bilkis= . Her dominion at that time included a province on the Arabian peninsula called <= st1:country-region>Sheba; hence the title Queen of Sheba. That area would be in the region of Yemen today. Geographically, the Arabian peninsula is a peninsula of the African continent.[4] Yemen and t= he ancient boundaries of Ethiopia are adjacent points, separated only by a very thin isthmus. Further, the renowned Jewish historian Flavius Josephus identified the ruler of Sheba as a “queen of Egypt and Ethiopia.”= = [5] Not only does this comport with the view that Sheba was a vassal state of Ethiopia, but as Windsor contends, lends credence to the view that the people of this region were black—since = Upper Egypt, the area once ruled by E= thiopia, is today called the Sudan and the indigenous people there are very dark. [6]

If the Beta Israel are the product of King Solomon and= the Queen of Sheba, then they have been in Ethio= pia since the 10^th Century B.C. That is twelve centuries before the = writing of the Mishnah and sixteen centuries before the codification of the Talmud. The first European traveler did not stumble into their village until the 9^th Century A.D. His name was Eldad Ha-Dani (which in H= ebrew means Eldad of the tribe of Dan). He reported t= hat he discovered Jews in the mountains of northern Abyssinia. Moreover, he believed that these Jews were also of the tribe of Dan.= = [7] He saw that they were Jews and assumed that they had to be of the tribe of = Dan, like him, “because of the tradition among Sephardic Jews that members= of that tribe had emigrated when the Kingdom of Solomon split after his deat= h, and they did not want to be ruled by Jerobaom i= n the northern sector known as Israel<= /st1:country-region>.”= = [8] Other travlers such as Benjamin of Tudela, Solomon of Vienna (the first Ashkenazi Jew to= reach them in 1626), and the apostate James Bruce in the 18^th Century. Their intermittent l= ogs created the lore about black Jews in Ethiopi= a that the aforementioned Joseph Ha Levy came to investigate.

“And when the Queen of She= ba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the Name of the Lord, she came to prove him with hard questions. She communed with him of all that was in h= er heart. And Solomon answered her all her questions: there was not any thin= g hid from the King, which he told her not.”
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; I Kings 10:1-3

Beliefs and Practices

How Jewish were the Beta Israel? Dr. Wolf Leslau spent ten months in 1947 living among the Beta Israel. He primarily studied the most urban of their isolated villages in <= st1:City>Gondar, which is near Lake Tana and the Blue Nile<= /st1:place>. The influential book he published from his journals, Falasha Anthology, has become the source of much of the secondary literature on this subject. = He observed that every Friday all work in the village stopped early in the afternoon so that the cooking, cleaning, and baking needed for the Sabbath could be completed before sunset. Their synagogues were humble, austere structures having at best a Star of David on display. Inside, the rooms were divided into two sections: the outer chamber for laymen who faced east towa= rd Jerusalem while saying their prayers and the inner chamber—representing the “holy of holies” of the Mosaic Tabernacle—into which only= the priests could enter.[9]

Priests of the Beta Israel pray seven time a day. Like= the Levitical Priest of old, they sacrificed kosher anima= ls on small alters built in front of their synagogues. Unlike the Levites, howeve= r, their positions were not hereditary; aspiring clerics had to study, apprent= ice, and live exemplary lives in order to be selected for the office. Once initiated, the priests wore a white cotton headdress that distinguished the= m from other Ethiopians. Their Torah, written in the Ge’= ;ez language on parchment, contained all the books of the Old Testament and some from the Apocrypha, but none of the New Testament and no references to Jesu= s at all. Some devotees have attempted to lead lives of solitude and quiet contemplation as nuns and monks.[10]

Judaism for them was not just an act of faith, it was = a way of life governing almost every activity. All marriages were arranged by par= ents and elders. Individuals who married outside the group and women who were not virgins at the time of marriage could be banished. Their diet prohibited the eating of foods deemed “unclean”—including beef slaughtered by non-Jews or be= ef that has not had the sinew removed. They used a solar calendar for secular activities and a lunar calend= ar to calculate all Biblical festivals such as Passover, = Shavuot, and the Day of Atonement. For example, the Feast of Tabernacle was celebrat= ed in the seventh month with palm branches and weeping willows.= [11]

Circumcision was performed on male children eight days= after birth as the Torah proscribed. However, some have adopted the practice of female circumcision from their neighbors.[12] Burials were performed on the same day of death, if possible. Special bless= ings were said before and after eating and performing other rituals. In fact, the Beta Israel went to such great lengths to avoid spiritual defilement that locale gentiles referred to them as the people who “smell of water= 221; because of their frequent baths and the “touch-me-nots” because= of their aversion to physical contact with non-Jews.[13]

In his book, Acts of Faith: A Journey to the Fringe= s of Jewish Identity, Dan Ross described how the Beta Israel literally appli= ed purity laws by building “blood huts” as temporary housing for w= omen during menstruation:[14]

Like Samaritans, Falashas do not touch women during menstruation or after childbirth. But unlike Samaritans, Falasha women spend their menstrual periods in separate huts. Circles of stones mark a perimeter around those tukuls beyond which men may not pa= ss. Additional huts are built for women to live in during their forty or eighty days of impurity after childbirth; these are burned afterwards.”= [15]

Dr. Leslau describ= ed the Judaism of the Beta Israel as being “primitive” because these people were not aware of all the rabbinic changes that have taken place sin= ce the redaction of the Talmud in the sixth century. From his perspective in t= he twentieth century, the menstrual huts and animal sacrifices must seem barba= ric and a sure sign of ignorance. What he fails to recognize—or perhaps is ashamed to acknowledge—is that the customs of the Beta Israel today a= re a reflection of what the ancient Israelite must have looked like when they offered burnt offerings, incense, and libation to the same God that we as J= ews worship today. Perhaps on some level this is unsettling. It is not often th= at a people can be confronted with their past in the present. Or, because Judaism outside of Ethiopia has changed so much over the centuries, those without the proper historical reference may not recognize their roots when the see them. Primitive, after all, is something associated with those “uncivilized” black tri= bes of Africa. Well, if that is true, then that is who, where, and how our Judaism evolved. I argue that rather than accept these possibilities, many scholars have blinded their eyes to these implications = and have attempted to distance and disassociate themselves from the Beta Israel= by discrediting their culture.

Despite all the evidence that has been adduced about t= he history and origins of the Beta Israel, there has been a profound, and often irrational, reluctance to accept that their claim is plausible. Scholars who are quite adept at understanding that the Bible may not always state the literal and unbiased “truth” of events, may yet remain an impor= tant tool in understanding how a people explained and preserved their culture. Nonetheless, many of these scholars seem incapable or unwilling to apply the same standards to their examination of the Beta Israel. Dr. Leslau in particular, seemed intent on dismissing the very evidence he presented. = For example, he asserted that “from all historical evidence it would seem that the Falasha never have been a Hebrew-speaking people.”= [16] Yet, before his eyes and throughout his text Hebrew words and names of mont= hs frequently appear. The fact that only a few Hebrew words have survived over= the millennia does not mean they “never” had a working knowl= edge of the language. After all, Hebrew had ceased to be the lingua franqua of Israel long before the destruction of the Temple<= /st1:City> in 70 A.D. Would a traveler in the Holy Land at that time be correct in assuming that those Greek-speaking Jews never spoke Hebr= ew? Subsequent scholars have looked at words such as masia= (“messiah”), mizvat (“charity”). Sanbat (“Sabbath”), Saitan (“Satan”), which bear remarkable similarity to Hebrew words but could derived from Amharic, another semetic language and the offical= language of Ethiopia. However, the following words only appear in Falasha texts: “safur (shofar), gadol (great), El Shaddai (Almighty God), goyyim (gentile) and Torah.= [17] It seems perfectly logical that if one finds Hebrew words among people who claim to be descended from Hebrews, then the Hebrews are a likely source for how the words got there. It also does not require a great leap of faith to assume that if they know these words now, then they probably knew more word= s in the past—since the tendency is for words to be lost over generations.=

In the following passage, Dr. Les= lau not only states his candid opinion of the Beta Israel, but he shares his insights into what many of his colleagues in the historical profession beli= eve as well:

Very few of the western scholars who have dealt with t= he problem of the Falashas are of the opinion that they are ethnically Jews. Most of them think that they are a segment of the indigenous Agau population which was converted to Judaism. How a= nd when they were converted is a problem for which historical evidence is lack= ing.= [18]

It is extremely instructive for scholars looking anew = at the Beta Israel to comprehend what Dr. Leslau admit= ted. Despite all the information he had in his possession, in the end, the Beta Israel did not look “ethnically” Jewish and because of that he = and his colleagues were never able to overcome their doubt. Therefore, they concluded that the Beta Israel must have been converted—even though “historical evidence is lacking” to support such a position. Wh= at effrontery. To dismiss a body of evidence that points in one direction in f= avor of another position for which there is no evidence.

Dr. Yosef Ben-Jocannan took issue with Dr. Leslau dubious reference to ethnic Jews. “For Professor Leslau to have reached the conclusion that the Falashas are not ethnically Jews, he must h= ave produced for public scrutiny at least one of his own “Ethnic JewsR= 21; from any part of the European and European-American communities where they still allegedly exist. But he must have started with the theory that there = are such persons of “Ethnic Jewish Origin” dating back to the allegorical and mythical “Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden” to validate his classification.” [19]

What exactly is an “ethnic Jew?” This is t= he question that Dr. Ben-Jochannan and others have raised. Those who use this term assume that we know what it is. They can sp= ot one when they see one and they know who looks Jewish and who does not. However, we need to examine more c= losely what is meant by these terms and how they are used. Naomi Zack defined and clarified terms such as this in her recent book, Thinking About Race. She argues that race and ethnicity are nebulous concepts into which and out= of which a host of meanings can be put in order to socially construct an ident= ity. As such, neither of these constitutes a fixed, universal, or objective real= ity; i.e. they mean whatever the society that uses them wants them to mean at the time. She points out that what masquerades today as the building blocks of ethnic identity (language, common origin, shared culture, etc.) are the same things that social scientist used prior to about 1920 when Jews, Poles, Italians, Germans, and others were classified as races.= [20] What has changed since that time—particularly in this era of political correctness—is that “the word ethnicity is often used as a euph= emism for race when speakers want to refer to race without causing offense to div= erse listeners or readers.”[21] Hence, all the groups previously mentioned have been transformed into ethnic groups, while people of African descent remain a race. This is not because physical characteristics are not a part of ethnicity; they often are, inste= ad it seems that whiteness helps to make one ethnic.

Karen Brodkin has chronicl= ed this process in her book, How Jews Became White Folks. Although she focus= ed on explaining this phenomenon within the United States, I argue that how one defines American Jews, who are essentially European Jews transplanted, is t= o a large extent the standard against which all other Jews will be judged—since Americans Jews are the largest, wealthiest, and most influential group of Jews in the world. And these American Jews have, despi= te rigorous resistance, become white folks.[22] Like Dr. Zack, Dr. Brodkin recognizes this raci= al dimension to how Jews are perceived and how they often perceive themselves.= She actually prefers the term “ethnoracial,&#= 8221; but uses it inconsistently.[23] Nonetheless, their works help us to decode the hidden racial messages embed= ded in terms like ethnicity.

There are many who would argue that Jewishness does not conform to the ethnoracial paradigm th= at defines other groups. They might argue that Judaism is a religion that peop= le of all ethnoracial backgrounds can and do pract= ice. Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin have tried to carve= out just such an exception. Their tact is a very interesting one. Rather than simply positing that Judaism is a religion of peace and love for all people—which it is for many—they concede that there are popular conceptions of Judaism that “promulgate racist or quasi-racist notion= s of Jewishness.”[24] They further concede that the beli= ef in a distinct Jewish genealogy and the belief that there is something indefina= ble and found only in Jewish women (not Jewish men) that make their children Jewish, strongly implies that there is a biological component to being Jewi= sh. All the forgoing not withstanding, they argue that conversion to Judaism not only changes ones religion, it miraculously changes ones genealogy as well.= In the case of male converts, circumcision alters them physically so that they= now look like other Jews. In other words, by this process a convert is not some= one of another ethnoracial group who has chosen to practice Judaism, he is in fact and genealogy as Jew. [The implied differen= ce between practicing Judaism and being Jewish will become important to our discussion later.]

More revealingly, however, the convert's name is chang= ed to 'ben Avraham" = or "bas Avraham," son or daughter of Abr= aham. The convert is adopted into the family and assigned a new "genealogical" identity, but because Abraham is the first convert= in Jewish tradition, converts are his descendants in that sense as well. There= is thus a sense in which the convert becomes the ideal type of the Jew.= = [25]

The denouement of the Boyarin theory is not that Judaism can never be thought of as a kind of race, but that any= one who joins the religion simultaneously becomes a member of the same race. We= ll, that certainly would make being Jewish different from being black, white, or Asian—if it were true. However, if the Boyarins<= /span> mean that all Jews are members of the same Jewish race in the eyes of God, = then it would not help us to see how Jews view each other—particularly tho= se who started out as members of other races.

In the 1930s, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan advocated another = way of thinking about Judaism. His movement led to a new denomination of Judaism in the United States called Reconstructionist Jews. One basic tenet = of Reconstructionism is that Judaism is not necessarily a race, religion, or an ethnic group, but can be experienced as part of a “civilization.” Here the emphasis is on “Jewish culture” rather than any particular Jewish practices or beliefs.= [26] If Judaism is a culture, as Reconstructionist h= old, does that culture have any bearing on race?

Walter Benn Michaels has s= tudied the relationship between cultural groups and race. He began by looking at h= ow social critics and historians such as Mellville= J. Herskovits attempted to define black people in America in purely cultural terms. Herskovits was intere= sted in understanding what role, if any, African cultures and American culture h= ad on the development of what might be called African-American culture. This included such things as art, music, literature, speech—anything except race. Michaels, who deplores racial classifications or distinctions, found = that most groups that define themselves as a culture rely on things that are inherently racial in nature for defining membership in their culture. Therefore, the term culture may sound race neutral, but often it is not. In= the case of African-Americans, it was fairly easy to prove, at least rhetorical= ly, that most of the cultural connections that were being made between people in one place and people in other place were based on the premise that both peo= ples were of the same race; i.e. black. Michaels noticed that the racial underpinnings of group cultures were not always as obvious as the example, = but they were usually present. As he explained:

It is only t= he appeal to race that makes culture an object of affect and that gives notions like losing our culture, preserving it, stealing someone else’s cultu= re, restoring people's culture to them, and so on, their pathos. Our race identifies the culture to which we have a right, a right that may be violat= ed or defended, repudiated or recovered. Race transforms people who learn to do what we do into thieves of our culture and people who teach us to do what t= hey do into the destroyers of our culture; it makes assimilation into a kind of betrayal and the refusal to assimilate into a form of heroism. Without race, losing our culture can mean no more than doing things differently from the = way we now do them--the melodrama of assimilation disappears.= [27]

Michaels thesis is directly on point. His argument is = not about what constitutes a culture, he is concerned about what constitutes th= e our in “our culture,” or the their in “their culture.” That is where the racial element is to be found if it exist= s. When people refer to “Jewish” culture or “Jewish” civilization the things they point to may be racially innocuous; e.g. cooki= ng or music, but, when pressed to explain what is Jewish about it or what conn= ects them to it and each other, and the user of the cultural term soon finds him= self in a morass of racial euphemisms. The racial elements are what usually allow members of the group to explain why this is mine and that is yours. If we a= re all participants in something then that thing is de facto a part of = our shared culture. We are what we do. Race allows us to claim or deny connecti= ons based on who we are, not what we do. Like African-American culture, Jewish culture implies that this Jew and that Jew have something in common = that goes much deeper than the matzo balls. “The question which culture we belong to is relevant only if culture is anchored in race.”= [28]

To be “ethnically Jewish” is to be Jewish according to white European or American standards. It was obvious and undeniable that the Beta Israel were doing Jewish things. By Michaels non-racial standards, people who do the same things share the shame culture unless a racial claim in made; ergo Beta Isr= ael are part of Jewish culture unless white folk say there not. However, we rec= all that the Boyarins asserted that Jews are people= who are Jewish by birth or conversion and who do Jewish things. Therefor= e, by the latter racialized definition, people who= are not recognized as being Jewish first, can do all the Jewish things they want for as long as they can and it will not make them Jewish—it can only = make them persistent, exhausted, and ultimately frustrated Jewish imitators.

Beta Israel, and black Jews in other areas, are discovering that neither who they are nor what they do guarantees their membership or acceptance within a racial cont= ext.

European Contact with Beth Yisrael

In 1904, Dr. Jacques Faitlovitch (1880-1955) was given= a grant by Baron Edmond de Rothschild and the blessings of the Chief Rabbi of Paris, Zadok Kahn, to go to Africa and investigate persistent rumors of there being black Jews in Ethiopia. He returned to France the following year to report that the people he saw “are really Jews.” By 1906, Dr. Faitlovitch was trying to convince the rabbis of = Europe that the black Jews of Ethiopia were “our flesh and blood.”= [29] This announcement by a prominent Jewish scholar was soon followed by photographs, articles, and speaking engagements. Unlike his predecessors, D= r. Faitlovitch was steadfastly committed to winning recognition for the Beta Israel. For the rest of his life he worked tirelessly on three continents a= nd through two world wars to remedy the plight of black Jews in Ethiopia. Although his methods and actions are open to scrutiny, his sincerity and dedication are not.

The first major victory that Faitlovitch won for the B= eta Israel came in 1906. He persuaded forty-four eminent rabbis to sign a letter addressed to the Beta Israel that referred to them as “our brethren, = sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…our flesh and blood.” The signers included: Herman Adler (Chief Rabbi of London), Raphael Meir Panigel (Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Jersusal= em / Palestine) and Jacob Reines of Russia (head of the Mizrachi movement) and others.= [30] For a moment, it looked as if the world Jewish community was going to come = to the immediate and unconditional aide of their fellow Jews in Ethiopia. But, the following year a Turkish rabbi named Haim Nahoum made his own journey to Ethiopia and upon his return he reported that “It does not seem to me desirable that anything should be done.”[31]

Thus would begin a cruel pattern of expressio= ns of enthusiastic support and solidarity followed by long periods of inactivity and indiffere= nce. Because the Beta Israel were frequently forgotten, they have been repeatedly rediscovered—most recently again during the dramatic airlift of fifty thousand Ethiopians to Israel in the 1980s. However, individuals like Faitlovitch consistently tried to k= eep the Ethiopian issue on the agendas of major Jewish organizations. In March = of 1914, just prior to the outbreak of World War One, Faitlovitch established = the Pro-Falasha Committee as a lobbying group solely dedicated to this cause. T= hey had officers in several European countries and one in = New York City.[32] The Alliance Israelite Universelle, whic= h had been an early sponsor, thought the best way to help the Ethiopians was thro= ugh vocational training. Faitlovitch favored classical academic training. In ma= ny ways, their disagreement over the best way to help the Ethiopians parallels= the debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois<= /span> over the best way to help black people in the United States—Washington favoring vocational and DuBois, liberal arts—though in both cases the differences should not be exaggerated. Where they are similar, however, is that vocational training is an approach usually applied to the masses, while university training is usually directe= d at an educated elite.

Here we begin to see a troubling side to Dr. = Faitlovitch’s advocacy of the Beta Israel. Dr. = Simon Messing, who knew and interviewed Dr. Faitlovitch, explained that many peop= le of that period believed that Africans lacked the intellect to acquire a classical education. So, Faitlovitch “demonstrated Falasha mental capacity by a test that was accepted in the ethnocentric Europe<= /st1:place> of the time: One of his students had been brought to Switzerland where he had learned to speak fluent German!”= [33] After this student, Faitlovitch created about six Ethiopian protégés who often accompanied him on speaking and fund raisi= ng tours. He arranged for their educations, attempted to direct their careers, reshaped their religious views, and tried to control their political activities. Dr. Faitlovitch fervently fought for the advancement of Ethiopi= an Jews, but he defined progress by his ability to make Ethiopian Jews = more like European Jews. Tragically, his program began to resemble a Jewish vers= ion of the “White Mans Burden;” i.e. it was the moral duty of Europ= ean Jews to save and civilize the Jews of Africa.

He was determined to rescue the Falashas and to bring = them into rabbinic Judaism, the pattern known in Western Europe as ‘Torah im Derkh-E= retz’ (lit. Bible together with the Way of the Land), which signified strict religious Orthodoxy together with modern behavior in manner, clothing, shel= ter, fine arts and careers.[34]

When the first of FaitlovitchR= 17;s students, Getye Jeremias, returned to his Ethiopian village “dressed in a European jacket and h= igh leather riding boots,” he was an envied model of what others should become. He next student, who would become the well-known Professor Taamrat Emmanuel and have an important interaction with the black Jews of Harlem, w= as literally rescued from a Chrisitan mission that= had already converted his parents. Faitlovitch was greatly impressed with the y= oung man who was fluent in Italian, Tigrinya (a local dialect), and his native Amharic. Faitlovitch took him to Paris where he lear= ned French, then to Italy where he studied at the Collegio Rabbinico, and finally to Jerusalem where = he was entrusted to the supervision of Herr Goldschmidt. Like Getye before him, Taamrat was installed as= the headmaster of one of the village Hebrew schools that Faitlovitch had created back in Ethiopia. Faitlovitch understood that he was making leaders; his students were being trained to lead their people out of darkness.[35] However, Taamrat and some of his peers had their own ideas on how best to u= se their talents. They had also come to the attention of the Emperor Menilek a= nd his Regent in Addis Ababa, Ras Tafari Makonnen—who would later himself become the Emperor Haile Selassie I.= [36]

What Faitlovitch did not realize at first and = then later strongly discouraged, was that his prized students were not only black Jews, but black Ethiopians as well. As they traveled and read they became a= ware of how the Western world viewed them and how their own leaders treated them. Faitlovitch opposed the development of any race consciousness or nationalist sentiments other than his brand of religious Zionism. When Taamrat, Yonah Boggale, and Mequria Segay temporarily= left their posts in the village Hebrew schools for government positions in Haile Selassie’s administration, Faitlovitch saw this as a personal betrayal and an abandonment of the missions for which they were trained. They were expected to shed their black identity and their Ethiopian identity; they we= re to master and emulate what they were taught; and, when enough of them had d= one this successfully, they would be accepted back into the Jewish fold. By tak= ing these jobs his students were not merely motivated by a personal desire for greater wealth and status—although those were, no doubt, factors—but, more importantly they were also sincere idealists who we= re swept up in the hope and optimism of creating a new Ethiopia and a new Africa. The significance of Haile Selassie’s rise to power in 1930 and the struggle for Ethiopian independence against Italian aggression, profoundly affected black people a= ll over the world—particularly black people in America and the Caribbean. Faitlovitch<= /span> was less sanguine about these events. He returned to Ethiopia after WWII from Israel, his new home, and in “his forceful manner” cajoled Yonah to leave his post—which was dangerous sin= ce the Emperor had not agreed to release him. Taamrat retired from his position as “Cultural Attaché” at the Ethiopian Embassy in Paris in 1952, disillusioned by the slow rate of democratization and land reform.= He, too, immigrated to Israel but continued to march to the beat of his own drum until his death in 1968.= In many ways, Taamrat’s journey literally and symbolically adumbrated the physical, political, intellectual, and emotional journey of the thousands of black Jews who would follow him.

As a poltical activist, Ta= amrat regarded Faitlovitch as an antiquarian who was stern in his condemnation of Falasha “wrong practices” and insufficiently respectful of Falahsa pride in their long independence. Taamrat vie= wed the future of the Falashas as largely bound up with the modernization of Ethiopia. Only modern education of the general population could finally free the Fala= shas from being victimized by accusations of lycanthropy as “were-hyenas”. Neither did he think that Rabbinic Orthodoxy should be imposed on them to qualify them as Jews.[37]

Taamrat Emmanuel’s struggle to find a balance be= tween preserving a healthy respect for the traditions of the Beta Israel, while at the same time trying to forge a meaningful relationship with European Jewry, proved to be illusory. Though well intentioned, Faitlovitch and those that followed him made what has become a classic liberal mistake: they setout to remake those they helped in their own image. This often has the consequence= of saving the people, but destroying their culture. Complete cultural assimila= tion unintentionally leads to the cultural annihilation of the dependent group. = The Nobel laureate, Chinua Ach= ebe, described in his fictional novel, Things Fall Apart, how the stable social fabric of a pre-colonial Nigerian village began to unravel before the juggernaut of Western conformity. In this context, European Jewry is the juggernaut that black Jewish communities fear, admire, resent, and need.
In December of 1930, Taamrat ignored the urging of his handlers at the Pro-Falsha Committee in New York and journeyed uptown to Harlem were he met with Chief Rabbi Matthew and addressed the Commandment Keepers Congregation. Shortly thereafter, dozens of black Jews left the United States to establish a colony in Ethiopia that lasted until the Italian invasion and the death of Rabbi Arnold Ford in 1935.= [38] During the years that followed, individuals from both communities would seek each other out whenever possib= le, but neither has been in a position to significantly help the other. Yet, the cry of Ethiopia continues to loom large in the hearts of black Jews all over the world for = we share a common struggle.

Emperor Haile Selassie gre= eting Rabbi Hailu Paris, an Ethiopian-born leader and teacher in our community = at a gathering in New York City in which he and Chief Rabbi W. A. Matthew went= to meet the “Lion of Judah,” a direct descendent of King Solomon= and the Queen of Sheba.

= = [1] Dan Ross, Acts of Faith: A Journey to the Fringe of Jewish Identity = (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), p.155.

= = [2] Ross, p. 150.

= = [3] I kings 10:1-10. Some scholars cavil about the meaning of the euphemism is = the cited passage; however, I think it is clear that Solomon’s material gifts w= ere “in addition” to satisfying her desire. Also, the Ethiopian explanation for the disappearance of the Ark, assuming of course that one existed, is as credible as other theories conce= rning its whereabouts.

= = [4] Ali A. Mazrui, The Africans: A Triple Herita= ge (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986) pp.27-37. Mazrui argues that for political reasons European cartographers associate the Sinai Peninsula with Asia or the newer classi= fication “Middle East” even though it is geologic= ally a peninsula of the African continent. And, since the first Hebrews entered Egypt as a family and left 400 years later a nation of people, Judaism could be thought of as an African religion—or at least, a religion with deep African roots.

= = [5] Flavius Josephus, The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. Wil= liam Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston ), p.252.

= = [6] Rudolph R. Windsor, From Babylon to Timbuktu r= evised ed., (Philadelphia: Windsor’s Golden Series Publications, 1988= ), p.38-39. Windsor also takes the controversial position that the Arabs who occupy these areas today are much lighter in complexion because of centuries of intermarriage = with Europeans.

[7] Simon D. Messing, The Story of the Falashas: “Black Jews” of Ethiopia ( Hamden, CT: Balshon Printing, 1982), pp.15-16.

&= nbsp;

[8] Ibid.

&nbs= p;

[9] Wolf Leslau, Falasha Anthology (New Haven: Yale Univ= ersity Press, 1951), pp.xii-xliii; Dan Ross, Acts of Faith: A Journey to the Fringes of Jewish Identity ( New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982) pp.143-166.

= [10] Ibid.

= [11] Ibid.

= [12] Although female circumcision is admittedly not Jewish in origin, the fact that they practice it just proves that despite their isolation their culture has not been impervious to outsi= de influences—no Jewish community has.

= [13] Ibid.

= [14] Although the separation of women during menstruation may seem quite severe,= it is actually based on Leviticus 12. Orthodox Jews have a set of laws called = Niddah that govern the activities of Jewish women dur= ing menstruation as well. Theirs is a modification of Biblical practices.

= [15] Ross, p. 147.

= [16] Leslau, p.xx.

= [17] The above examples were taken from= a lengthy description of the Beta Israel community from the CD ROM version of= the Encyclopedia Judaica, c.v. “Beta <= st1:country-region>Israel (Falasha).”

= [18] Leslau, p.xliii; Pr= ofessor Ross was even more emphatic by asserting: “Ruling out some of the more fanciful theories is the easiest thing to do. It is not very likely that Falashas are descendants of Moses's followers w= ho turned right out of Egypt instead of left, ending up in Ethiopia instead of Palestine. Nor is it likely that they are descendants of the lost tribe of Dan (as Israel's chief rabbis claim), or of Jewish soldiers posted in upper Egypt by the Per= sian emperors (as President Ben-Zvi believed) , or of refugees from the destruction of one Jerusalem Temple or the other. = In fact, it is not very likely that Falashas are descendants of Jews at all. Most historians now belie= ve that the ancestor of Falashas were Ethiopians, who adopted their Judaism lo= ng ago. What they are less sure of is when, and how." If these so-called scholars neithe= r know “when” nor “how,” then how can they be so sure of t= heir conclusions. And, how can they be so brazen as to make such an assertion and then admit that they lack the evidence to substantiate it?

= [19] Yosef Ben-Jochannan= , We The Black Jews Vol I and II (New York: Yosef Ben-Jochannan), p.21,

= [20] Naomi Zack, Thinking About Race (New York: Wadsworth Publishing Compnay, 1998) p.32.

= [21] Ibid. p.30.

= [22] Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks &= amp; What That Says About Race in America<= /i> (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1998).

= [23] Ibid. p. 189 footnote 1. She explains that “Both terms [race and ethnicity] have had a variety of definitions attached to them in the schola= rly and popular literatures in play at any given time. ‘Ethnicity’ = is a relatively new word, coming into use mainly after World War II. It replaced ‘people’ and ‘nation’ and served as an alternative = to ‘race,’ which was associated with biology, eugenics, and other theories of scientific racism…Because the meanings of each term have varied, and because both have been used to describe socially salient identi= ties and identifications, I also put them together as ‘ethnoracial’ or ‘racialethnic.”

= [24] Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin, “Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity,” in Identities, ed. Kwame Anthony Appiah and Henry Louis Gates. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 305-33= 7. [Daniel is the Taubman Professor of Talmudic Cu= lture at the University of California. Jonathan is a lawyer who had written several books on Jewish history and culture.

= [25] Ibid.

= [26] Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, What is a Jew? revised ed.(New York: Touchstone Book, 1993), p.15.

= [27] Walter Benn Michaels, “Race into Culture:= A Critical Genealogy of Cultural Identity” in Identities, ed. Kwame Anthony Appiah and = Henry Louis Gates. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 32-62.

= [28] Ibid.

= [29] Messing, p.55; Leslau, p.x= . Faitlovitch had, in fact, been a young, energetic student of Professor Halevy.

= [30] Louis Rapoport, Redemption Song: The Story of Operation Moses (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986), p.39; E= ncyclopedia Judaica, C.V. “Beta Israel” CD ROM.

= [31] Ross, p. 156.

= [32] Ross, pp. 156-157.

= [33] Messing, p.58.

= [34] Ibid. p.55. In his youth Dr. Faitlovitch pursued secular studies at the Sorbonne, but he became a very devote Orthodox Jew who practiced a religious Zionism. Rabbinic law is often referred to Halackha, which literally means “the way.” For Faitlovitch it was the only way.

= [35] There is no doubt that these students were brilliant and worked hard, but Faitlovitch was overbearing, controlling, and a cultural chauvinist. They rarely confronted Faitlovitch about his attitudes, by Dr. Messing ,who has = met some of them and had access to their correspondence, reports that their let= ters often complained of his criticism and his belief that their practices were “ignorant.” Messing, p. 104, footnote #62.

= [36] Messing, pp.57-65.

= [37] Messing, p. 67.

= [38] Schomburg Center. Rabbi Wentworth A. Matthew Collection. “Minutes of Taamrat Emanuel’s address to the Commandment Keepers Congregation. 23 December 1931.


Meeting of Solomon and Sheba= Piero della Franc= esca, c. 1452	King Solomon and the Queen of Sheaba Illustrated by Avi Katz