Attitude towards Ethiopian Jewish tradition

שו”ת › Category: general › Attitude towards Ethiopian Jewish tradition

asked 9 years ago

I understand that the ruling of Ethiopian Jews (in Rabbi Shalom Sharon’s book From Sinai to Ethiopia) leniently addresses the issue of Zira’s rabbis. Could this ruling constitute a halakhic precedent that would contribute to the voices of non-Ethiopian Jews on the subject?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

The halachic status of Ethiopian Jews and their halakha is a fascinating issue that challenges our halachic perceptions. Even if we accept their full historical claims, they rely on a tradition that predates the Talmud, and therefore their halakha does not contain a significant portion of the Oral Torah. In principle, one could expand the question and wonder whether it is possible to dispense with the Toshabap altogether in light of the halachic tradition of Ethiopian Jews. For them, the Talmud is truly not binding because they were not part of its acceptance as a binding codex. On the other hand, if they want to join the halakhic-Talmudic community, I think they will have to accept its authority by joining it. They need to “convert” to Humra, at least in this sense. Of course, they can choose not to join, and then they can, of course, continue their tradition in a completely legitimate way. I think that the Ma’ale Rabbinate will not be able to come to them with any argument. But I think that is precisely why their approach to Rabbi Zira’s severity is irrelevant. We have accepted the Talmud as the binding halachic code, and therefore a group that is not committed to the Talmud cannot constitute a halachic option for us (although in their opinion they can certainly do so). After all, it is possible to go even further and accept Christian morality, which also split from us at some point. The commitment to the Talmud means that we do operate within the Talmudic framework. Within this framework, we can of course discuss whether Rabbi Zira’s severity is binding or not, and that is Dr. Rosenk’s topic. But in my opinion, the Ethiopian tradition, which does not operate within this framework, is irrelevant to the discussion. —————————————————————————————— Asks: I understood that Rabbi Sharon tried to unite Talmudic law with Ethiopian tradition as much as possible (for example, he ruled that Pikuach Nefesh rejects Shabbat, even though Ethiopian tradition says the opposite). It seems to me that in places where he saw that it was a matter of decrees or regulations (and especially that they were null and void) he felt freer to rule in accordance with Ethiopian tradition. Perhaps we can see in the fact that even after the Ethiopians were exposed to Talmudic tradition, they still did not accept (at least according to Rabbi Sharon’s ruling) the severity of the Zira rabbis upon themselves, we can see this as an opening for annulling the decree, for the Rambam said: “A court that has issued a decree or established a regulation and introduced a custom and spread it throughout Israel, and another court has followed them and sought to annul the first things and to uproot that regulation and that decree and that custom cannot do so until it is greater than the first in wisdom and in number.” And the decree did not apply to all of Israel (after all, the Ethiopians did not accept this decree – even after they became aware of it). Rambam also said: “They issued a decree and imagined that it applied to all of Israel, and the matter remained that way for many years. After a long time, another court stood and examined all of Israel and saw that the same decree did not apply to all of Israel. It has the authority to annul it, even if it was less wise and just than the first court.” What do you think about this idea? Incidentally, it is interesting to note in this context that, similar to the tradition of the Sages, in the Beta Israel tradition, the counting of the Omer begins on the eve of Passover, but not on the eve of the first holiday but on the seventh eve of Passover (it is likely that Rabbi Sharon adhered to Talmudic law in this context, but I have not checked). —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: With all due respect to Rabbi Sharon (we know him well), the fact that he is trying to coordinate the traditions has no meaning. At this initial stage, anyone can do whatever they want. Even if they take their halakhic tradition seriously and treat it like our tradition, then I doubt to what extent he can even permit the desecration of Shabbat for the sake of the Pikoun. After all, if their tradition prohibits it, there is desecration of Shabbat here, and who is there to permit or prohibit it? What do you care? Or is their tradition as valid as ours or can be played with as we wish, and then I can do it too, even though I am not Ethiopian. He has no different status than I do in this matter. Even my saying that they can continue as they have is an innovation, as there was room to say that the people of Israel accepted the Talmud and they should join it (like an individual who has not heard of any regulation that we clearly will not treat as a separate tradition and will be obligated to join what the public has accepted). So taking them as a basis for saying that the regulation has not been simplified by the public at large is much less likely. Beyond that, there are lengthy discussions of regulations that have been simplified and then repealed or vice versa. But I don’t think there’s any need to get to that point. Regarding the repeal of regulations and decrees, firstly, it is a custom and not a decree. Secondly, the “decree” was issued a long time ago and has completely become obsolete. It makes no sense that there is a small community that has not heard of it and therefore has not accepted it upon itself.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ננ replied 9 years ago

The question arises even earlier with the Karaites. Then the problem is stronger because they are Jews who did not accept the Talmud, so it is impossible to say that "all" of Israel accepted it (according to some scholars, even at the time of the formation of the Talmud, there were sects among the people of Israel who did not accept the Talmud, mainly in Persia, the Karaites, whose "official" origin was later, actually "dressed up" as these groups).

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

If you identify with them, you need them. For me, what was determined collectively is not that. The Karaites are an esotericism that came and went. When you talk about something that a collective decided, it was always done from some perspective. There are always groups and individuals who do not share in it. Collective language always ignores marginal phenomena. That is why the expression “all of Israel” does not include them.
Of course, a question about secularists is now expected, but that is irrelevant. They are not part of the tradition and do not make an interpretive claim about the tradition, and therefore they are not in the field.