Answer

The halakhic status of Ethiopian Jews and of their Jewish law is a fascinating topic that challenges our halakhic conceptions. Even if one accepts all of their historical claims, they rely on a tradition that predates the Talmuds, and therefore their Jewish law does not contain a significant portion of the Oral Torah. In principle, one could broaden the question and wonder whether, in light of the halakhic tradition of Ethiopian Jews, it is possible to give up the Oral Torah altogether.
 
 
 
As for them themselves, the Talmud truly is not binding, because they were not partners in accepting it as the binding codex. On the other hand, if they want to join the halakhic-Talmudic community, it seems to me that they would have to accept its authority by joining it. They need to “convert” stringently, at least in this sense. Of course, they can choose not to join, and then they can continue their tradition in a completely legitimate way. I think that in the Heavenly Court no claim could be brought against them.
But it seems to me that precisely for that reason, their approach to Rabbi Zeira’s stringency is not relevant. We have accepted the Talmud as the binding halakhic code, and therefore a group that is not bound by the Talmud cannot constitute a halakhic option for us (though from their own standpoint they certainly may conduct themselves that way). One could, after all, go even further and accept the Christian tradition as well, since it too split off from us at some stage.
Commitment to the Talmud means that we do indeed operate within the Talmudic framework. Within that framework one can of course discuss whether Rabbi Zeira’s stringency is binding or not, and that is Dr. Roznak’s topic. But in my opinion, the Ethiopian tradition, which does not operate within that framework, is not relevant to the discussion.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
 
I understood that Rabbi Sharon tried to harmonize the Talmudic Jewish law with the Ethiopian tradition as much as possible (for example, he ruled that saving a life overrides the Sabbath, even though the Ethiopian tradition says the opposite). It seems to me that in places where he saw that we are dealing with decrees or enactments (especially when their rationale has lapsed), he felt freer to rule in accordance with the Ethiopian tradition. Maybe one could see, in the very fact that even after the Ethiopians were exposed to the Talmudic tradition, they still did not accept Rabbi Zeira’s stringency upon themselves (at least according to Rabbi Sharon’s ruling), an opening to cancel the decree. After all, Maimonides said: “If a court decreed a decree, enacted an enactment, or instituted a custom, and the matter spread throughout all Israel, and another court arose after them and sought to annul the earlier matters and uproot that enactment, decree, or custom, it cannot do so unless it is greater than the first in wisdom and number.” But the decree did not spread throughout all Israel, since the Ethiopians did not accept this decree upon themselves—even after they became aware of it. And Maimonides also said: “If they decreed and assumed that it had spread throughout all Israel, and matters remained so for many years, and after a long time another court arose and examined all Israel and saw that that decree had not spread throughout all Israel, it has permission to annul it, even if it was inferior to the first court in wisdom and number.” What do you think of that idea?
 
 
 
 
By the way, it is interesting to note in this context that, similar to the tradition of the Sages, in the Beta Israel tradition as well the counting of the Omer begins after the holiday of Passover—but not after the first festival day; rather after the end of the seventh day of Passover (it is reasonable to assume that Rabbi Sharon aligned himself with Talmudic Jewish law on this point, but I haven’t checked).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
 
With all due respect to Rabbi Sharon (we know each other well), the fact that he is trying to coordinate between the traditions has no significance whatsoever. At this initial stage, everyone can do whatever he wants. Even if one takes their halakhic tradition seriously and treats it like our own tradition, I doubt to what extent he can even permit Sabbath desecration for life-saving. After all, if their tradition forbids it, then this is Sabbath desecration, so who authorized him to permit or forbid? Either their tradition is valid like ours, or it can be played with as we please—and then I too can do so, even though I am not Ethiopian. He has no different status than mine in this matter.
 
 
 
 
Even what I said—that they can continue according to their custom—is itself a novelty, because one could have argued that the Jewish people accepted the Talmud and they need to join it (like an individual who never heard of some enactment; clearly we would not regard him as a separate tradition, and he would be obligated to join what the public accepted). So to take them as proof that the enactment never spread through the whole public is much less plausible. Beyond that, there are lengthy discussions about enactments that spread and later lapsed, or vice versa. But it seems to me there is no need to get into that.
 
 
 
As for annulling enactments and decrees: first, this is a custom, not a decree. Second, the “decree” was made long ago and spread completely. The fact that there is a small community that never heard of it and therefore did not accept it upon themselves has no significance whatsoever.