JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

eta israel
AZMACH AND BEJEROND. Following their loss of independence
in the 17th century, the structure of Beta Israel political
leadership underwent a dramatic change. Autonomous rulers
no longer exercised control over the community or the
regions in which the Beta Israel lived. Political power passed
into the hands of royal-appointed governors, none of whom
was chosen by virtue of their traditional roles among their
own people. Rather they acquired land and titles through
their ability to render services to the Christian Emperors
who resided in Gondar. The principal secular leaders of the
Beta Israel became those who were recognized as such by
the dominant society, rather than those related to their own
previous ruling families. A new elite of soldiers, masons, and
carpenters emerged.
The Beta Israel leaders of the Gondarine period are remembered
as having held two titles: azmach (commander)
and bejerond (treasurer). The former, which was the higher
of the two ranks, was used to refer to military leaders and local
officals. The latter appears to have had connections with
tax collection, although as applied to the Beta Israel it seems
to have referred primarily to the “chief of the workers” – especially
potters, carpenters, masons, and blacksmiths. While
the azmach might exercise leadership over a heterogeneous
community, the bejerond’s authority was confined to the Beta
Israel. One informant stated, “The azmach was government
administrator for many people, but the bejerond was only concerned
with the Beta Israel.”
One of the clearest indications of the deterioration of the
status of the Beta Israel in the late 18th and 19th century is the
gradual disappearance of the azmach. In the Gondarine period
Beta Israel were appointed both azmach and bejerond, by mid-
19th century those few Beta Israel who had any titles at all were
exclusively bejerond. As James Quirin has noted, this transition
was symptomatic of their social-political decline and increasing
identification as a low-status artisan group.
COMMUNAL ORGANIZATION. One immediate consequence
of the Beta Israel’s loss of autonomy was a return to the decentralized
pattern of communal organization which had characterized
their political structure prior to the 16th and 17th century.
While it may be convenient to continue to speak of the
Beta Israel “community,” no evidence exists for the survival
of formal centralized communal institutions. Rather a large
number of scattered communities existed with informal economic,
political, marital, and religious ties. Halévy observed
when he visited Ethiopia in 1867, “Chaque commune est autonomie
et indépendante. C’est seulement dans les cas òu un
grand danger menace la religion qu’on se reunit, afin de repousser
l’ennemie commun” (J. Halevy, in: Bulletin de l’Alliance
israélite universelle (1868), 95).
The Beta Israel’s lack of autonomy and of an effective
political-military leadership also resulted in a sharp decline
in the communities’ coercive power. Abba Yeshaq, one of the
Beta Israel’s outstanding religious leaders of the 19th century,
told the French explorer Antoine d’Abbadie that originally
the Beta Israel would stone to death any member of the community
who ate leavened products on Passover. Following
their loss of independence, however, they were compelled to
change the punishment. “Mais aujourd’hui, comme on n’a pas
de roi juif, on se contente d’infliger une pénitence qui est le
don d’une chèvre d’un an.”
Abba Yeshaq’s words serve as a reminder that however
great the authority of the Beta Israel clergy, neither they nor
any other group in post-independence Beta Israel society
had the power to enforce its will upon the population. On
the whole, the means of coercion in their hands were largely
limited to steps such as ostracism, which depended upon the
support of community opinion. As Halévy wrote, “Chaque
province, chaque ville se soumet volontairement à la decision
de son prêtre et de ses debteras.”
At the heart of the daily functioning of the voluntary
system described by Halévy stood the village elders (shmagilotch).
On their role he observed, “La justice est exercée par
les anciens (chimaguelié). Les plaintes et les différends sont
portes devant eux. Leurs jugements sont toujours respectes
par les deux partis. Personne n’ose s’y opposer ni faire appel
a l’autorité amharique.”
Although Halévy appears to have been the first witness to
mention the role of the elders in Beta Israel society, the phenomenon
he describes was probably of considerable antiquity.
Certainly we can presume that it existed at least from the time
when the Beta Israel lost their independence. More importantly,
it formed an integral part of Beta Israel life throughout
the 19th and 20th centuries, and thus forms a vital element
in any comprehensive picture of their traditional leadership
in the modern era.
Although we possess no specific information of the Beta
Israel clergy during the Gondarine period, it appears likely that
their importance was increased by the decline of the autonomous
political leadership. In particular, the monastic clergy
who became virtually the only leaders not dependent upon
the Christian kings for their position, probably rose in status.
The further decline of the secular leaders during the “era of the
princes” could only have further enhanced their standing.
By the time we begin to receive detailed accounts of Beta
Israel life in the first half of the 19th century, the paramount
position of the monastic clergy is clearly established. Antoine
d’Abbadie, one of the most important of the early European
visitors to Ethiopia wrote, “Bien qu’il n’y ait pas de hierarchie
ecclesiastique, les Falachas reconnaissent pour chef les plus
savent ou le plus habile de leurs moines.” The centrality of the
monastic clergy during this period receives further confirmation
in the Beta Israel’s own sources according to which their
religion survived a severe crisis in the early 19th century due
to the efforts of the monk, Abba Wedaje. Significantly it was
also the monastic clergy who served as communal spokesmen
when the first efforts to communicate with world Jewry were
made. Finally, it was upon the monastic clergy that the main
responsibility fell to defend their people against the temptations
of foreign missionaries.
502 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3