Beta Yisrael

RRR 206-210

Collecting Synagogue Pledges Through the Civil Courts

One of our congregations has used legal processes in collecting delinquent building pledges. Summonses have been issued to defaulting members, placing liens upon their property. Are there any precedents for this action? (From Rabbi Solomon K. Kaplan, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

The very fact that the question is asked reveals a feeling that it is wrong to bring Jewish religious disputes to the secular courts. Of course, it does happen in modern times that such matters have occasionally been brought to the courts in the United States, as, for example, disputes in Orthodox synagogues on the question of mixed seating, or questions of disinterment from Orthodox cemeteries. Nevertheless, whenever such lawsuits do come up, there is a general feeling in the Jewish community that the disputes should never have been brought to the courts—that to have done so was a chillul ha-shem.

This strong feeling against such actions is the product of a long tradition in Jewish law. The Talmud (b. Gittin 88b) denounces the resort to Gentile courts. The Takkanot of the various medieval Jewish communities forbade Jews to resort to Gentile courts. This tradition is recorded in vigorous language in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpot 26 : 1: “Whoever brings his case before the Gentile courts is a wicked man, whose action amounts to blasphemy and violence against the Law of Moses, our teacher.”

Of course that does not mean that Jews in the past never had recourse to the civil courts. There were circumstances when there was no other way to obtain their rights. If, for example, a debtor was influential and stubborn and refused to be sued in the Jewish courts, he could be sued in the civil courts (usually with the creditor getting express permission from the Jewish authorities). (Choshen Mishpot 26 : 2, 4, Isserles.) This procedure, as a last resort, is valid because Gentile courts may (according to Jewish law) deal with matters of business debts. This limited validity is acknowledged by Jewish law because the “children of Noah” are understood to have been commanded to maintain courts dealing with civil law (diney mommonos). (Cf. b. Gittin 9a-b.)

If the building pledges discussed in our question are to be considered merely as notes of debt, then, if there is no other way to collect them, it would be permissible to bring them to the civil courts for collection. But surely they are not precisely of the same nature as a business debt. They are rather what the law calls Sh’tar Matana, a Document of Gift (Choshen Mishpot 68 : 1). Jewish Documents of Gift cannot legally (in the eyes of Jewish law) be dealt with by the non-Jewish courts (Choshen Mishpot 68 : 1).

In Jewish law itself, such pledges as certificates of gift are valid, legal documents. If, for example, Jewish law still had the executive authority which it did possess in past centuries, these pledges could be collected by force. The building pledges are equivalent to charity gifts, in general, and are deemed collectible even if the maker of the pledge changes his mind. The law is that the members of the Jewish community may compel each other to give charity (kofin, Yore Deah 256 : 5).

To give zedakah is considered an inescapable religious obligation (chova) which even the poor must fulfill (Yore Deah 248 : 1). In fact, a promise made to give zedakah has the sacred status of a religious vow (neder, Yore Deah 257 : 3) and, therefore, must be fulfilled without delay.

This serious concern with the legal validity of Jewish charity pledges is exclusively a matter of Jewish law. Non Jewish law can have no relevance to it, unless we say that the pledges are also to be considered analogous to the taxes and imposts which the medieval community imposed upon its members (missim v’amunios). These, too, were collectible by compulsion. In fact, with regard to taxes and imposts, there are indications that occasionally, in some localities, the power of the civil government was called in to enforce payment. This resort to the “secular arm” seems to have been confined to Italy. Joseph Colon (Italy, fifteenth century) says (Responsa, 17) that he sees nothing wrong in asking aid from the government in collecting the taxes imposed by the Jewish community upon its members. In fact, he adds, this has been the custom of many (Italian) communities.

Yet, after all, these taxes were to be paid over to the government, and the Jewish community would be endangered if they were not forthcoming. It was understandable, then, that the Italian communities might, in desperation, call for secular aid in collecting them. But even in the case of taxes, there seems to be no evidence that the resort to government help was made by Jewish communities in other countries. Certainly this practice is not recorded in the general Codes.

The taxes and imposts were by their nature secular and civil. But a gift to the community for the building of a synagogue was a religious gift which was to remain within the Jewish community. Gentile authorities could not and would not be used to enforce an intracommunity religious duty. There is only one exception to this, namely, the situation mentioned in the Mishnah (m. Gittin 9 :8) in the case of a man ordered by the Jewish court to give his wife a divorce. If he refused this, Gentiles might be asked to compel him to obey the mandate of the Jewish court. But even in that case the divorce is not a fully valid divorce (cf. Tur and Perisha, ad loc).

Within the Jewish community, and in Jewish law, a pledge to the building of the synagogue is valid and en forcible. The same phrase used in the case of charity gifts is used for synagogue building gifts, namely: “The mem-bers of the community may compel each other . . .” (kofin zeh es zeh, Orah Hayyim 150 : 1). To enforce payment, the older communities used the power of excommunication (cherem).

When the Russian government forbade the Jewish communities to employ the cherem, then the phrase “to compel,” used here in the Shulchan Aruch, seemed to reveal a violation of government decree. Therefore, in the Shulchan Aruch printed in Vilna, at the word “compel” there is an asterisk pointing to a footnote which reads, “by means of the government.” This, of course, did not mean that the Jewish communities ever called on the Russian government to enforce this religious obligation. The footnote was added either by the censor, or else was added to disarm the censor, and to say that the community would not use the forbidden instrument of the cherem.

It is clear, then, that, except for the time when Italian communities called for government aid in collecting taxes, the Jewish communities did not call upon secular courts to help them collect charitable or religious pledges. Jewish law considered that secular law could not vaHdly deal with charitable pledges. And, in general, resort to Gentile courts was held to be a sin.

The action of the congregation referred to, therefore, is contrary both to the letter and the spirit of Jewish legal tradition.

NYP no. 5757.3

CCAR RESPONSA

The “Falas Mura”

5757.3

She’elah

The Commission on Social Action of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations has asked for our opinion concerning the community of Ethiopian Jews known as the “Falas Mura”. Between three and four thousand members of this community are currently living in Addis Ababa in a camp administered under the auspices of the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ). These people seek permission to emigrate as Jews to Israel, but their aliyah has been delayed due to concerns over their Jewish status. Should the Commission resolve to call upon the government of Israel to authorize the aliyah of the “Falas Mura” and to bring them to Israel as soon as possible?

Teshuvah

This is an urgent question. The members of this community live under difficult conditions. Many have undergone severe hardships to reach Addis Ababa. Many of their close relatives died of disease or exposure on the way; others were killed. To rescue them is quite simply a matter of pikuach nefesh. The Social Action Commission wishes to move quickly; hence, we cannot offer a proper teshuvah and a full study of the problem at this time.[1] We emphasize as well that whatever answers we can offer are based upon the evidence that has been provided us through NACOEJ and the UAHC’s Religious Action Center.[2] If there exists other evidence which would support a contradictory conclusion, the position taken in this responsum might change accordingly. The Jewish Status of the “Falas Mura”. The issue to be decided here is whether that group of Ethiopians identified as “Falas Mura” enjoys the right to aliyah under Israel’s Law of Return. That legislation, which entitles all Jews to emigrate to Israel, defines a Jew as one who is born of a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism and who is not an adherent of any religion other than Judaism.[3] It is conceded by all that the “Falas Mura” are ethnically members of Beta Yisrael, the Ethiopian community whose status as Jews has been recognized by Israeli government and rabbinate. The problem is that nearly a century ago, the “Falas Mura” converted to Christianity during a period of severe political and economic hardship. For this reason, officials of the Jewish Agency denied many “Falas Mura” permission to emigrate to Israel during the mission to rescue the Ethiopian Jewish community (“Operation Solomon”) in 1990.[4] The “Falas Mura” now declare their determination to renounce Christianity and to return to Judaism. Are the “Falas Mura” a Jewish community, one which would qualify for a right to dwell in the state of Israel under the Law of Return? To answer this question, we shall have to consider two major problems with respect to their status: that of intermarriage and that of apostasy. 1. The Problem of Intermarriage. If the “Falas Mura” converted to Christianity, we might have to presume a great deal of intermarriage between them and the surrounding Ethiopian Christians. These intermarriages would have given rise to grave doubts as to the Jewishness, under halakhic standards, of many of their offspring and descendants. According to all accounts, however, the “Falas Mura” continued to marry among themselves, a fact due largely to their hostile relations with the Ethiopian Christians as well as with the rest of Beta Yisrael.[5] The absence of intermarriage means that the community enjoys a presumption of ethnic Jewishness (chezkat yahadut), and Israeli authorities would therefore have the burden of disproving this presumption in each and every individual case in order to refuse immigration. 2. The Problem of Apostasy. Do the “Falas Mura” remain Christian? The evidence at our disposal, drawn from reports from the camp in Addis Ababa as well as from the absorption center in Neve Carmel which houses a number of “Falas Mura” immigrants, declares overwhelmingly that the answer to this question is “no.” There is no indication that they maintain even the slightest active connection to Christianity,[6] and they have participated actively in an intensive program of Jewish study (hashavah leyahadut, “return to Judaism”) overseen by Rabbi Menachem Waldman, the representative of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate on this issue. Every report that we have seen indicates that the members of the community practice an intensive and rigorous Jewish religious lifestyle. Their synagogues are crowded, especially on Shabbat and festivals; they study Judaism in their schools; they observe Jewish ritual in their homes. In the words of Rabbi Waldman, “there is no doubt that this is a community of Jews faithful to the God of Israel, observant of the mitzvot, particularly Shabbat, kashrut, and public religious life (such as daily, Shabbat, and festival prayer). They have a powerful desire to study and to live as religious Jews, according to halakhah.”[7] This conclusion is shared by a number of first-hand observers of the community,[8] and we have seen no evidence that would argue against it. The Return of the Apostate to Judaism. In the eyes of our tradition, an apostate Jew remains a member of the community of Israel[9] and is encouraged to perform the act of teshuvah, to return to Jewish life.[10] The tradition looks with great sympathy upon those who were coerced into apostasy[11] and upon the descendants of apostates, who clearly did not have the opportunity to learn and to accept Judaism. The current generation of the “Falas Mura” clearly fall into this latter category.[12] There is some question as to whether this return should involve a ritual act, such as immersion in a mikveh, as a symbolic demonstration that the individual has indeed forsaken his or her non-Jewish religion. While we find no mention of such a requirement in the talmudic sources, a number of rishonim (rabbinic authorities prior to the writing of the Shulchan Arukh) do state that this ritual is customary.[13] Some suggest other ritual requirements as a means of marking the transition from apostasy to a renewed Judaism.[14] On the other hand, some scholars insist that since the apostate remains a Jew, a ritual that resembles conversion is out of place.[15] This fact is worthy of special emphasis in the present situation, since it is generally recognized that the “Falas Mura” are indeed members of the people of Israel. To require that they undergo a ritual of conversion or quasi-conversion would call this very status into question and lead to resentment among the “Falas Mura,” who would justifiably regard the demand to “convert” as a smear and an insult to their very identity as Jews. Opposition to Aliyah. Why has the Israeli government thus far not permitted the “Falas Mura” as a community to immigrate? The official explanation is set forth in a report of the government’s Ministerial Committee on the Issue of the “Falas Mura,” dated January 4, 1993. The report defines the members of this community as Jews who have willingly (meratzon) adopted another faith, a label which disqualifies an individual from the automatic right of aliyah under the Law of Return. The Ministerial Committee adds that it is not the business of the government of Israel to participate in any program of conversion or “return to Judaism” which would remedy this situation. On the other hand, “the government will examine the possibility that suitable agencies will, with the agreement of the government of Ethiopia, work with those of this community who are candidates for aliyah to bring them closer to Jewish tradition and to teach them about Israeli life, in order to minimize the difficulties of their absorption in Israel.”[16] The operation supervised by Rabbi Waldman, the representative of the Chief Rabbinate, is just such a “suitable agency,” and its programs, as noted above, have succeeded in bringing the members of this community back to a powerful identification with and attachment to Judaism and Jewish life. The rabbinic leaders of this operation have called upon the Israeli government and the Jewish Agency to expedite the immigration of the “Falas Mura” to Israel under the terms of the Law of Return.[17] Surely the concerns expressed by the Ministerial Committee have been met, so that there would no longer exist any reason to deny their aliyah. Recently, however, Israel’s Chief Sefardic Rabbi Eliahu Bakshi- Doron issued an opinion which dealt a serious blow to the efforts on behalf of the “Falas Mura.” He declared that the Jewish ancestry of those in the Addis Ababa camp is “unclear” and that “for a goodly number of (those already in Israel), their return to Judaism is insincere.”[18] These are serious allegations which, should they prove to be well-founded, would argue against allowing the residents of the Addis Ababa camp to enter Israel. Yet Rabbi Bakshi-Doron offers no evidence in support of his claims. His opinion contains nothing but bland assertions, which we are called upon to accept at face value. Against these stand the ample first- hand testimony, cited in this teshuvah, as to the Jewishness and Judaism of the “Falas Mura,” those in Addis as well as those in Israel. The halakhah posits that “the judge must decide the case on the evidence which lies before him,”[19] and based upon all the information at our disposal, we see no reason to prefer Rabbi Bakshi-Doron’s statement over the findings of Rabbi Waldman, the Chief Rabbinate’s own representative on this question. We repeat: in the absence of any substantial proof to the contrary, we must presume that the “Falas Mura” are an ethnically Jewish community and that they have returned to Jewish life. Conclusions. We join together with all those who call upon the government of Israel to rescue and to relieve the suffering of the “Falas Mura” living in Addis Ababa. Specifically: 1. We are persuaded that the “Falas Mura” are Jews and that they should be allowed to emigrate to Israel as soon as possible. 2. The “Falas Mura” should be required to complete satisfactorily a process of “return to Judaism” such as the one that has been conducted under the supervision of Rabbi Waldman. This process may be accompanied by rituals, such as immersion, which have long been associated with the return of the apostate Jew. It must not, however, be conceived of or presented as a form of conversion to Judaism, for the members of this community are already Jews. NOTES 1. Moshe Zemer, a member of this Committee, is in contact with Rabbi Uri Regev of the Israel Religious Action Center and Rabbi Menachem Waldman, director of the Israel Chief Rabbinate’s committee on the absorption of Ethiopian immigrants. His findings will be the basis for the published version of this teshuvah. 2. This includes a collection of reports edited by Rabbi Menachem Waldman (see note 1) entitled Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis ababa uveyisra’el: shivah leyahadut, shemirat mitzvot ukelitah ruchanit datit, Cheshvan 5757 (1996), as well as his Beney Ha- “falas mura” veshivatam leyahadut le’or hahalakhah, Cheshvan 5757 (1996). 3. The CCAR’s doctrine of “patrilineal descent” is irrelevant to our discussion. Although under that principle we in North America would accept the child of one Jewish parent, either father or mother, as potentially Jewish, the resolution which enacted it explicitly limits its scope to Reform Jewish communities in North America. In offering counsel to Jewish communities elsewhere, therefore, it is inappropriate for us to violate these limits, which we ourselves have established, and insist that they adopt our own particular understanding of Jewish identity. 4. The criteria by which the Jewish Agency determined that some Ethiopian Jews would be denied permission for aliyah have not yet been fully explained; see the report by Avshalom Elitzur in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 35-40. 5. Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 2-3. 6. “From discussions with the local Amharric Christians it became clear that [the “Falas Mura”] did not attend church services”; Dan Siman, an anthropologist at Harvard University who has studied the Ethiopian Jewish community extensively, in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 55. 7. Waldman, in Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 64. In Beney ha- “falas mura” veshivatam, Rabbi Waldman numbers six specific indicators of the community’s return to Judaism: 1. a school for instruction in Judaism and Hebrew as well as general studies, attended by 1000 students; 2. a synagogue where daily services are attended by hundreds of worshippers; 3. widespread observance of daily, Shabbat, and festival mitzvot; 4. translations of the siddur, the machzor, and other Jewish works into Amharric for the community’s use; 5. the repeated declaration by the community’s members of their acceptance of Judaism; 6. the careful supervision of this process by representatives of the Israeli chief rabbinate. 8. See the reports of Elitzur and Siman in Waldman, Beney ha- “falas mura” be’adis. 9. The classic source for this doctrine is the statement “a Jew, even though he sins, remains a Jew,” an interpretation of a midrash on Joshua 7:11 found in BT Sanhedrin 44a. It was Rashi who lent this interpretation its halakhic force; see Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Elfenbein, 171, 173, 175. Although some earlier authorities entertained the notion that an apostate is in fact no longer a Jew (see Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 22a and Kidushin 18a), the predominant strain of the halakhah holds otherwise. See R. Yosef Karo, Bedek habayit YD 268, end: “apostates are obligated from Sinai to observe the mitzvot just as are the rest of us.” 10. See Resp. Rashbash (Shelomo b. Shimeon Duran, 15th-cent. North Africa), no. 89: those anusim who were forced into accepting Christianity should be “drawn to us with bands of love.” 11. Resp. Rivash (R. Yitzchak b. Sheshet, 14th-cent. Spain/N. Africa), no. 4 and no. 11; Yad, Yesodey Hatorah 5:4; SA YD 119:9. 12. Maimonides suggested that the Karaites of his generation, as descendants of the original Karaites, were like the child taken captive by Gentiles (tinok shenishbah bein hagoyim) and thus not to be held responsible for their apostasy (Commentary to Mishnah, Chulin 1:1). See also Beit Yosef YD 159. This description is applied to the “Falas Mura” by R. Chaim David Halevy, chief rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yafo; see his letter reprinted in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 53. 13. Rav Paltoi Gaon, Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 47b; Chidushey Haritva, Yevamot 47b; Mordekhai, Ketubot, ch. 306; Nimukey Yosef to Alfasi, Yevamot, fol. 16b; Yam shel Shelomo, Yevamot 4:52; Isserles, YD 268:12. 14. See Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 27ff, and Stanton Zamek, Even Though He Sins He Remains a Jew: The Repentance of the Returning Apostate (Cincinnati: Rabbinical Thesis, HUC-JIR, 1996). 15. Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Amram Gaon, Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 47b; Resp. Rashba 5:306; Resp. Rashbash, no. 89. The objections to a conversion-like ritual are especially strong with respect to demands that the returning apostate undergo hatafat dam berit; there is simply no evidence in the sources to support such a requirement. See, in general, see R. Moshe Zemer, Halakhah Shefuyah (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1993), 128-134. 16. The report is printed in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 69-72. See particularly the opinion of Rabbi Shabbetai Sabato, an adviser to the Ministerial Committee, reprinted ibid., 67-68. 17. Letter signed by Rabbis Menachem Waldman, Ratzon Arusi, and David Shloush, dated 1 Kislev 5754 (Nov. 15, 1993), reprinted in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 78-79. 18. Letter of Rabbi Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, dated 14 Cheshvan 5757 (Oct. 27, 1996), on file with the Responsa Committee. 19. ein ladayan ela mah she`einav ro’ot; BT Bava Batra 130b.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5757.3

CCAR RESPONSA

The “Falas Mura”

5757.3

She’elah

The Commission on Social Action of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations has asked for our opinion concerning the community of Ethiopian Jews known as the “Falas Mura”. Between three and four thousand members of this community are currently living in Addis Ababa in a camp administered under the auspices of the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ). These people seek permission to emigrate as Jews to Israel, but their aliyah has been delayed due to concerns over their Jewish status. Should the Commission resolve to call upon the government of Israel to authorize the aliyah of the “Falas Mura” and to bring them to Israel as soon as possible?

Teshuvah

This is an urgent question. The members of this community live under difficult conditions. Many have undergone severe hardships to reach Addis Ababa. Many of their close relatives died of disease or exposure on the way; others were killed. To rescue them is quite simply a matter of pikuach nefesh. The Social Action Commission wishes to move quickly; hence, we cannot offer a proper teshuvah and a full study of the problem at this time.[1] We emphasize as well that whatever answers we can offer are based upon the evidence that has been provided us through NACOEJ and the UAHC’s Religious Action Center.[2] If there exists other evidence which would support a contradictory conclusion, the position taken in this responsum might change accordingly. The Jewish Status of the “Falas Mura”. The issue to be decided here is whether that group of Ethiopians identified as “Falas Mura” enjoys the right to aliyah under Israel’s Law of Return. That legislation, which entitles all Jews to emigrate to Israel, defines a Jew as one who is born of a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism and who is not an adherent of any religion other than Judaism.[3] It is conceded by all that the “Falas Mura” are ethnically members of Beta Yisrael, the Ethiopian community whose status as Jews has been recognized by Israeli government and rabbinate. The problem is that nearly a century ago, the “Falas Mura” converted to Christianity during a period of severe political and economic hardship. For this reason, officials of the Jewish Agency denied many “Falas Mura” permission to emigrate to Israel during the mission to rescue the Ethiopian Jewish community (“Operation Solomon”) in 1990.[4] The “Falas Mura” now declare their determination to renounce Christianity and to return to Judaism. Are the “Falas Mura” a Jewish community, one which would qualify for a right to dwell in the state of Israel under the Law of Return? To answer this question, we shall have to consider two major problems with respect to their status: that of intermarriage and that of apostasy. 1. The Problem of Intermarriage. If the “Falas Mura” converted to Christianity, we might have to presume a great deal of intermarriage between them and the surrounding Ethiopian Christians. These intermarriages would have given rise to grave doubts as to the Jewishness, under halakhic standards, of many of their offspring and descendants. According to all accounts, however, the “Falas Mura” continued to marry among themselves, a fact due largely to their hostile relations with the Ethiopian Christians as well as with the rest of Beta Yisrael.[5] The absence of intermarriage means that the community enjoys a presumption of ethnic Jewishness (chezkat yahadut), and Israeli authorities would therefore have the burden of disproving this presumption in each and every individual case in order to refuse immigration. 2. The Problem of Apostasy. Do the “Falas Mura” remain Christian? The evidence at our disposal, drawn from reports from the camp in Addis Ababa as well as from the absorption center in Neve Carmel which houses a number of “Falas Mura” immigrants, declares overwhelmingly that the answer to this question is “no.” There is no indication that they maintain even the slightest active connection to Christianity,[6] and they have participated actively in an intensive program of Jewish study (hashavah leyahadut, “return to Judaism”) overseen by Rabbi Menachem Waldman, the representative of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate on this issue. Every report that we have seen indicates that the members of the community practice an intensive and rigorous Jewish religious lifestyle. Their synagogues are crowded, especially on Shabbat and festivals; they study Judaism in their schools; they observe Jewish ritual in their homes. In the words of Rabbi Waldman, “there is no doubt that this is a community of Jews faithful to the God of Israel, observant of the mitzvot, particularly Shabbat, kashrut, and public religious life (such as daily, Shabbat, and festival prayer). They have a powerful desire to study and to live as religious Jews, according to halakhah.”[7] This conclusion is shared by a number of first-hand observers of the community,[8] and we have seen no evidence that would argue against it. The Return of the Apostate to Judaism. In the eyes of our tradition, an apostate Jew remains a member of the community of Israel[9] and is encouraged to perform the act of teshuvah, to return to Jewish life.[10] The tradition looks with great sympathy upon those who were coerced into apostasy[11] and upon the descendants of apostates, who clearly did not have the opportunity to learn and to accept Judaism. The current generation of the “Falas Mura” clearly fall into this latter category.[12] There is some question as to whether this return should involve a ritual act, such as immersion in a mikveh, as a symbolic demonstration that the individual has indeed forsaken his or her non-Jewish religion. While we find no mention of such a requirement in the talmudic sources, a number of rishonim (rabbinic authorities prior to the writing of the Shulchan Arukh) do state that this ritual is customary.[13] Some suggest other ritual requirements as a means of marking the transition from apostasy to a renewed Judaism.[14] On the other hand, some scholars insist that since the apostate remains a Jew, a ritual that resembles conversion is out of place.[15] This fact is worthy of special emphasis in the present situation, since it is generally recognized that the “Falas Mura” are indeed members of the people of Israel. To require that they undergo a ritual of conversion or quasi-conversion would call this very status into question and lead to resentment among the “Falas Mura,” who would justifiably regard the demand to “convert” as a smear and an insult to their very identity as Jews. Opposition to Aliyah. Why has the Israeli government thus far not permitted the “Falas Mura” as a community to immigrate? The official explanation is set forth in a report of the government’s Ministerial Committee on the Issue of the “Falas Mura,” dated January 4, 1993. The report defines the members of this community as Jews who have willingly (meratzon) adopted another faith, a label which disqualifies an individual from the automatic right of aliyah under the Law of Return. The Ministerial Committee adds that it is not the business of the government of Israel to participate in any program of conversion or “return to Judaism” which would remedy this situation. On the other hand, “the government will examine the possibility that suitable agencies will, with the agreement of the government of Ethiopia, work with those of this community who are candidates for aliyah to bring them closer to Jewish tradition and to teach them about Israeli life, in order to minimize the difficulties of their absorption in Israel.”[16] The operation supervised by Rabbi Waldman, the representative of the Chief Rabbinate, is just such a “suitable agency,” and its programs, as noted above, have succeeded in bringing the members of this community back to a powerful identification with and attachment to Judaism and Jewish life. The rabbinic leaders of this operation have called upon the Israeli government and the Jewish Agency to expedite the immigration of the “Falas Mura” to Israel under the terms of the Law of Return.[17] Surely the concerns expressed by the Ministerial Committee have been met, so that there would no longer exist any reason to deny their aliyah. Recently, however, Israel’s Chief Sefardic Rabbi Eliahu Bakshi- Doron issued an opinion which dealt a serious blow to the efforts on behalf of the “Falas Mura.” He declared that the Jewish ancestry of those in the Addis Ababa camp is “unclear” and that “for a goodly number of (those already in Israel), their return to Judaism is insincere.”[18] These are serious allegations which, should they prove to be well-founded, would argue against allowing the residents of the Addis Ababa camp to enter Israel. Yet Rabbi Bakshi-Doron offers no evidence in support of his claims. His opinion contains nothing but bland assertions, which we are called upon to accept at face value. Against these stand the ample first- hand testimony, cited in this teshuvah, as to the Jewishness and Judaism of the “Falas Mura,” those in Addis as well as those in Israel. The halakhah posits that “the judge must decide the case on the evidence which lies before him,”[19] and based upon all the information at our disposal, we see no reason to prefer Rabbi Bakshi-Doron’s statement over the findings of Rabbi Waldman, the Chief Rabbinate’s own representative on this question. We repeat: in the absence of any substantial proof to the contrary, we must presume that the “Falas Mura” are an ethnically Jewish community and that they have returned to Jewish life. Conclusions. We join together with all those who call upon the government of Israel to rescue and to relieve the suffering of the “Falas Mura” living in Addis Ababa. Specifically: 1. We are persuaded that the “Falas Mura” are Jews and that they should be allowed to emigrate to Israel as soon as possible. 2. The “Falas Mura” should be required to complete satisfactorily a process of “return to Judaism” such as the one that has been conducted under the supervision of Rabbi Waldman. This process may be accompanied by rituals, such as immersion, which have long been associated with the return of the apostate Jew. It must not, however, be conceived of or presented as a form of conversion to Judaism, for the members of this community are already Jews. NOTES 1. Moshe Zemer, a member of this Committee, is in contact with Rabbi Uri Regev of the Israel Religious Action Center and Rabbi Menachem Waldman, director of the Israel Chief Rabbinate’s committee on the absorption of Ethiopian immigrants. His findings will be the basis for the published version of this teshuvah. 2. This includes a collection of reports edited by Rabbi Menachem Waldman (see note 1) entitled Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis ababa uveyisra’el: shivah leyahadut, shemirat mitzvot ukelitah ruchanit datit, Cheshvan 5757 (1996), as well as his Beney Ha- “falas mura” veshivatam leyahadut le’or hahalakhah, Cheshvan 5757 (1996). 3. The CCAR’s doctrine of “patrilineal descent” is irrelevant to our discussion. Although under that principle we in North America would accept the child of one Jewish parent, either father or mother, as potentially Jewish, the resolution which enacted it explicitly limits its scope to Reform Jewish communities in North America. In offering counsel to Jewish communities elsewhere, therefore, it is inappropriate for us to violate these limits, which we ourselves have established, and insist that they adopt our own particular understanding of Jewish identity. 4. The criteria by which the Jewish Agency determined that some Ethiopian Jews would be denied permission for aliyah have not yet been fully explained; see the report by Avshalom Elitzur in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 35-40. 5. Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 2-3. 6. “From discussions with the local Amharric Christians it became clear that [the “Falas Mura”] did not attend church services”; Dan Siman, an anthropologist at Harvard University who has studied the Ethiopian Jewish community extensively, in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 55. 7. Waldman, in Beney ha-“falas mura” be’adis, 64. In Beney ha- “falas mura” veshivatam, Rabbi Waldman numbers six specific indicators of the community’s return to Judaism: 1. a school for instruction in Judaism and Hebrew as well as general studies, attended by 1000 students; 2. a synagogue where daily services are attended by hundreds of worshippers; 3. widespread observance of daily, Shabbat, and festival mitzvot; 4. translations of the siddur, the machzor, and other Jewish works into Amharric for the community’s use; 5. the repeated declaration by the community’s members of their acceptance of Judaism; 6. the careful supervision of this process by representatives of the Israeli chief rabbinate. 8. See the reports of Elitzur and Siman in Waldman, Beney ha- “falas mura” be’adis. 9. The classic source for this doctrine is the statement “a Jew, even though he sins, remains a Jew,” an interpretation of a midrash on Joshua 7:11 found in BT Sanhedrin 44a. It was Rashi who lent this interpretation its halakhic force; see Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Elfenbein, 171, 173, 175. Although some earlier authorities entertained the notion that an apostate is in fact no longer a Jew (see Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 22a and Kidushin 18a), the predominant strain of the halakhah holds otherwise. See R. Yosef Karo, Bedek habayit YD 268, end: “apostates are obligated from Sinai to observe the mitzvot just as are the rest of us.” 10. See Resp. Rashbash (Shelomo b. Shimeon Duran, 15th-cent. North Africa), no. 89: those anusim who were forced into accepting Christianity should be “drawn to us with bands of love.” 11. Resp. Rivash (R. Yitzchak b. Sheshet, 14th-cent. Spain/N. Africa), no. 4 and no. 11; Yad, Yesodey Hatorah 5:4; SA YD 119:9. 12. Maimonides suggested that the Karaites of his generation, as descendants of the original Karaites, were like the child taken captive by Gentiles (tinok shenishbah bein hagoyim) and thus not to be held responsible for their apostasy (Commentary to Mishnah, Chulin 1:1). See also Beit Yosef YD 159. This description is applied to the “Falas Mura” by R. Chaim David Halevy, chief rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yafo; see his letter reprinted in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 53. 13. Rav Paltoi Gaon, Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 47b; Chidushey Haritva, Yevamot 47b; Mordekhai, Ketubot, ch. 306; Nimukey Yosef to Alfasi, Yevamot, fol. 16b; Yam shel Shelomo, Yevamot 4:52; Isserles, YD 268:12. 14. See Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 27ff, and Stanton Zamek, Even Though He Sins He Remains a Jew: The Repentance of the Returning Apostate (Cincinnati: Rabbinical Thesis, HUC-JIR, 1996). 15. Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Amram Gaon, Otzar hageonim, Yevamot 47b; Resp. Rashba 5:306; Resp. Rashbash, no. 89. The objections to a conversion-like ritual are especially strong with respect to demands that the returning apostate undergo hatafat dam berit; there is simply no evidence in the sources to support such a requirement. See, in general, see R. Moshe Zemer, Halakhah Shefuyah (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1993), 128-134. 16. The report is printed in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 69-72. See particularly the opinion of Rabbi Shabbetai Sabato, an adviser to the Ministerial Committee, reprinted ibid., 67-68. 17. Letter signed by Rabbis Menachem Waldman, Ratzon Arusi, and David Shloush, dated 1 Kislev 5754 (Nov. 15, 1993), reprinted in Waldman, Beney ha-“falas mura” veshivatam, 78-79. 18. Letter of Rabbi Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, dated 14 Cheshvan 5757 (Oct. 27, 1996), on file with the Responsa Committee. 19. ein ladayan ela mah she`einav ro’ot; BT Bava Batra 130b.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 206-210

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

132. A Black Jew and Falashas

QUESTION: A young black woman who has attended services regularly and studied Judaism in the customary introductory course has stated that she wishes to be considered as Jewish in accordance with the Reform decision on patrilineal descent. She claims that her forbears were Falashas and states it unnecessary and inappropriate for her to go through a conversion ceremony. (Joanne Freeman, Pittsburgh PA)ANSWER: Let us begin by taking a careful look at the resolution passed by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1983. “The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parents and child, to Jewish life. “Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.” From what I have gathered from conversations after the initial question, the parents of this young woman consider themselves to be Christians and she, herself, was raised in a Baptist community. In her mother’s family, there was a family tradition of descent from African nobility which the daughter has interpreted, because of some customs about which she is rather vague, as descent from the Falashas. The closest parallel to this would be if we looked at the Spanish-Jewish family which did not preserve its Marrano traditions, and only had a vague memory of the Marrano past, but in every way was thoroughly identified with the Catholic Church. In those instances when no memory at all of the Jewish past remained, the decision was that such individuals could not be considered as Jews or as returning apostates, but should be treated as converts. There is some unclarity about this depending on how far from the original Jewish generation the descendants were and whether the maternal line remained “Jewish.” We have five different categories. (1) Apostates were Jews who had sinned but, nevertheless, remained Jewish (Isaac ber Sheshet; Simon ben Zemah of Duran but on some occasions he did not grant this status; Solomon ben Solomon; Zemah ben Solomon). (2) Those who considered the apostate as Jewish only in matters of matrimony (and so their offsprings were Jewish), but not in any other area (Samuel de Medina). (3) Marranoes (anussim) were non-Jews in every respect including matters of marriage; their children were not considered to be Jews (Judah Berab, Jacob Berab, Moses ben Eliea Kapsali, etc.). (4) An apostate was worse than a Gentile (ben Veniste, Mercado ben Abraham). (5) Descendants of the Marranoes who have been baptized were like Jewish children who have been taken captive by non-Jews, and their children are Jewish (Samuel ben Abraham Aboa). A full discussion of the problem may be found in H. J. Zimmel’s Die Marranen in der Rabbinischen Literatur pp 21 ff. One extreme position was held by Solomon ben Simon Duran (Rashbash Responsa #89) who felt that not only the apostate but also the children would continue to be considered Jewish forever into the future as long as the maternal line was Jewish. He also felt that nothing needed to be done by any generation of such apostates when they returned to Judaism. No ritual bath or any other act was considered necessary or desirable. In fact, he emphasized that no attention be given to their previous states, for that might discourage their return. Rabbenu Gershom earlier similarly urged the quiet acceptance of all who returned to Judaism (Mahzor Vitry pp 96, 97). The other extreme has been presented by Hai Gaon as cited in a slightly different fashion by Rashi (in his commentary to Kid 68b and Lev. 24.10). He felt that any returning apostate, or the children of a Jewish mother who had apostatized, were potentially Jewish but had to undergo a process akin to conversion if they wished to become part of the Jewish community. That point of view was rejected by most later scholars, as for example, Nahmanides (in his commentary to Leviticus 24.10; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.10 f; Ezekiel Laudau Noda Biyehudah #150, etc). We, therefore, have two opposing positions in rabbinic literature; both, of course, represented reaction to particular historic conditions. Solomon ben Simon of Duran wished to make it easy for a large number of Marranoes to return to Judaism; unfortunately this did not occur. Even when it was possible for Jews to leave Spain, the majority chose to remain. Rashi’s harsh attitude probably reflected the small number of apostates who were a thorn in the side of the French community. The later tradition chose a middle path and encouraged the apostates return along with some studies, but without a formal conversion process. Even if an apostate indicated no desire to return to Judaism, he would, nevertheless, be considered as part of the Jewish people (San 44a). In this instance we are very far removed from any Jewish identity even if we take the reference to “noble lineage” in a family tradition as one which alludes to the Falashas. There certainly was no continuous maternal “Jewish” line. My investigation of the origin of American Negroes and the African slave trade to North America, the Caribbean and Central America indicates that virtually all the slaves came from the West African Coast or the hinterland immediately behind it. Occasionally captives were transported a greater distance but the cost of such transportation and the difficulties inherent in a long march over land made this the rare exception. There is no known record of individuals from as far as Ethiopia having been transported to North America nor is there any Falasha tradition of members lost to the Western slave trade. That, of course, does not mean that there might not have been an isolated incident, however, the likelihood is very small. Clearly it will help the Jewish identity of this Black woman if she considers herself from a Falasha tradition even though that can never be proven. However, her current affiliation with the Jewish community must occur through a conversion as any other convert. We will then gladly accept her into our community.January 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕