JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

and 15th centuries the Beta Israel were politically divided and
geographically dispersed.
The recognition of this reality has several important consequences
for the interpretation of Beta Israel history. Firstly,
it serves as a caution against attempts to artificially impose
unity on the sources by treating scattered events in specific
regions as if they affected all Beta Israel. The Christian Emperor
Yeshaq’s (r. 1413–1430) victory over the Beta Israel governor
of Semien and Dambiya was not, for example, a defeat
for all Beta Israel. Some were allies of the Emperor and benefited
from his victory. In a similar fashion, the reported conversion
to Christianity of much of the population of Salamt
province by the 15th-century Christian missionary St. Takla
Hawaryat must be evaluated in its proper geographic context.
His successes in that region left the population of Semien at
least temporarily untouched.
A recognition of the decentralized character of Beta
Israel society during this period is also of crucial importance
to the proper understanding of the dynamics of Beta Israel
political history. If one accepts the existence of an ancient
Beta Israel kingdom with its origins shrouded in the undocumented
past, the rest of Beta Israel history appears almost
automatically to be little more than an account of their decline
from this mythical peak. In fact, the story is much more
complex. According to the extant sources, a centralized relatively
unified political organization existed among the Beta
Israel only from the 16th and early 17th centuries. The effective
military-political structure described in Ethiopian royal
chronicles of this period was not, therefore, an aboriginal
characteristic of Beta Israel society. Rather it developed relatively
late, probably in response to the external threat posed by
the Christian empire. Their history is not accordingly a story
of continuous and unremitting decline but rather a gradual
process of consolidation and unification followed by a series
of catastrophic defeats.
Even when applied solely to the period of the 16th and
17th century the term Beta Israel kingdom should not be applied
too casually. Even those later sources which portray a
far more centralized polity than existed in earlier periods are
far from unanimous as to the precise character of the group’s
political structure. It is, for example, of interest to note that
while many medieval Hebrew sources (none of them eyewitness
accounts) accept the existence of a kingdom as axiomatic,
the first-hand reports of Ethiopian, Portuguese, and Muslim
observers are far more restrained. The claim put forward in
the Chronicle of Emperor Sarsa Dengal that the 16th-century
Beta Israel leader Radai lived from his own labor (“he was a
tiller of the soil, who ate his bread by the sweat of his brow”;
cf. Gen. 3:19) is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a fully
developed monarchy.
Nor should James Bruce’s detailed reports on the Jewish
kings be accepted uncritically. Bruce, it must be remembered,
visited Ethiopia almost a century and a half after Susenyos’
victory over the Beta Israel. He was, therefore, at least in this
case, a recorder of traditions and not an eyewitness. In addi-
beta israel
tion, his claim that a Beta Israel king and queen still ruled at
the time of his visit scarcely enhances his credibility.8
THE RISE OF MONASTICISM. The gradual evolution of a more
centralized political structure was only one of the responses
engendered by the Christian threat to the Beta Israel. During
the same period a major revolution took place within the
structure of Beta Israel religious life. A new form of religious
leadership began to emerge. Faced with increasing political
and military pressure from the Christian Ethiopian emperors,
the Beta Israel adopted the Christian institution of monasticism
as a means of consolidating and developing their unique
communal identity. Beginning with Abba Sabra and Sega Amlak,
who lived in the 15th century and are credited with founding
Beta Israel monasticism, monks played a vital role among
the Jews in Ethiopia.
According to Beta Israel traditions, the introduction of
monasticism was accompanied by a number of other religious
innovations including the introduction of new religious literature,
the composition of prayers, and the adoption of important
laws of ritual segregation and purity. The Beta Israel
monks can thus be justly claimed to have been the chief carriers
of their people’s distinctive religious heritage. It appears
probable that it was they who provided the ideological basis
for the creation of a unified political structure among their
people. Just how successful the monks were in assuming a
central position in Beta Israel society is evidenced not only
by the fact that they survived the demise of the autonomous
political leaders but also by the fact that nearly all the figures
commemorated by the Beta Israel as holy men at various holy
places in Ethiopia were monks.
1632–1860
Any doubts one might have with regard to the finality of the
Beta Israel’s defeat at the hands of Susenyos are resolved by the
decision of his son Fasiledes (1632–67) to build his capital at
Gondar near the heart of Beta Israel territory. The site would
only have been chosen after the local people had been totally
subdued. According to both Christian and Jewish traditions,
Beta Israel soldiers and artisans were speedily incorporated
into the military and economic life of Christian Ethiopia. Although
the Beta Israel no longer ruled themselves, the Gondarine
period (1632–1769) is remembered as a period when the
“(Beta) Israel lived in peace and welfare.” Beginning in 1769,
however, Ethiopia was plunged into an extended period of conflict
and internal struggle. Known as the Zemane Masafent (the
era of the princes or judges), because it resembled the period
of the Old Testament judges when “there was no king in Israel:
every man did that which was right in his eyes,” this period
brought fresh sorrows to the Beta Israel. During a period of
almost 100 years (1769–1855) Ethiopia lacked effective imperial
rule and local rulers vied with each other for supremacy. The
Beta Israel, whose well-being was largely dependent upon royal
patronage and protection, suffered accordingly. Their decline
from independence to imperial appointees to despised artisans
is clearly visible in their changing patterns of leadership.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 501