During the past few decades, thousands of Ethiopian Jews whose ancestors converted to Christianity, known by their Ethiopian name, the Falash Mura, have returned to observance of Halachah. This chapter presents a halachic perspective on their status as Jews, based on an article by Rav Menachem Waldman in Techumin (16:243-272).
Is One Who Abandons Judaism Still Jewish?
The Gemara (Yevamot 47b) states that once a convert has completed the conversion process (as soon as he emerges from the mikvah), he is considered a Jew even if he later reverts to his non-Jewish lifestyle or religion. In a similar vein, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 44a) cites a verse from the book of Yehoshua (7:11) in which God proclaims, "An Israelite has sinned." The Talmud infers from this formulation that despite committing a sinful deed, the person remains a Jew ("Yisrael af al pi shechata Yisrael hu").
On the other hand, the Gemara (Yevamot 17a) states that Chazal proclaimed the ten lost tribes to be Gentiles ("goyim gemurim").1See Chulin 6a for a similar proclamation regarding the Samaritans. For a fascinating explanation of this proclamation, see the commentary of the Chatam Sofer to Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 39. Assyria exiled these tribes from Israel in the First Temple period, and they completely assimilated into their surrounding cultures. Treating them as non-Jews seemingly contradicts the Gemara's statement that Jews, no matter how much they sin, always remain Jewish. The Rishonim present two approaches to resolve the apparent contradiction. The Me'iri (Avodah Zarah 26b s.v. Na'aseh), representing the minority among the Rishonim, states:
If a Jew practices another religion, he is no longer considered a Jew, except in matters concerning personal status, such as marriage and divorce. His child [presumably he means "her child," as he is referring to a case where a woman converts to another religion -H.J.], however, is even considered non-Jewish regarding those matters.
The Ba'al Ha'itur (cited by the Beit Yosef, Even Ha'ezer 44 s.v. Yisrael Mumar) cites and rejects an opinion that resembles the Me'iri's. Indeed, most Rishonim reject the approach of the Me'iri and state that a Jew who converts to another religion remains Jewish.2See Rambam, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:17; Rosh, Yevamot 4:36, and Korban Netaneil ad. loc.; and Tur, Even Ha'ezer 44. They regard even the children of an apostate as Jews, provided that their mother is Jewish. These Rishonim believe that the rabbinical proclamation regarding the ten tribes is unique, due to their total assimilation over many generations. Hence, it does not apply to Jews who have converted to other religions, unless they assimilate socially into non-Jewish society to the point where their Jewish roots are not identifiable.3See the responsum of Rav David Darshan, the Rama's student (printed erroneously in Teshuvot Harama 62), and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's essay in Judaism (12:260-280) for further discussion of this issue.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha'ezer 44:9) codifies the majority opinion as normative, and most of the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch do not challenge his ruling. The Be'er Heitev (44:7), however, cites Mahari Mintz (Teshuvot 12) and Maharshdam as writing that a marriage between a Jew who has converted to another religion and another Jew is valid only on a rabbinical level, implying that they believe he is no longer a full-fledged Jew. Furthermore, the Be'er Heitiv (44:8) quotes Mahari ben Chaviv as distinguishing between a Jew who was forcibly converted to another religion (who remains Jewish) and a Jew who converted willingly (who loses his status as a Jew). Nevertheless, the Pitchei Teshuvah (44:9) cites the Noda Biy'hudah (2:162), who states unequivocally that the minority view is rejected by halachic authorities.4Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, E.H. 4:83) affirms the Noda Biy'hudah's assertion. The Be'er Heitev (44:8) also cites the Re'eim, who asserts that even "after many generations" of following a different religion, the descendants of those who converted to a different religion remain Jewish. Of course, Jewishness is passed down from mother to child only, so the child of a Jewish man and non-Jewish woman is not Jewish (see Rashi on Devarim 7:4).
Rav Waldman reports in the aforementioned essay that, despite their conversion to Christianity a century ago, the Falash Mura remain a socially distinct (though not religiously distinct) group within the general Ethiopian community. Non-Jews refer to them as "Israel" and know that they have Jewish roots. Furthermore, non-Jewish society views them as strange and of a lower stature, and refuses to marry them. Rav Waldman writes that the intermarriage rate of the Falash Mura was extremely low (approximately 0.3 percent), and the few intermarriages occurred mostly among those who moved to cities far from their ancestral villages. Accordingly, the fact that the Falash Mura lived as Christians for quite some time seems not to detract from their status as Jews.
Are Ethiopian Jews Truly Jewish?
A prerequisite to determining the halachic of the status of the Falash Mura is determining the halachic status of Ethiopian Jewry in general. This thorny and complicated question has been hotly debated, and Rav Waldman summarizes the debate (Techumin 4:314-326). Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 8:11) claims that Ethiopian Jewry is undoubtedly Jewish in origin, and its members need not undergo conversions. Most authorites, however, doubt the status of all Ethiopian Jews and require them to conversion upon arrival in Israel, out of concern that they are not Jewish.5See Techumin (7:295-313), where Rav Shaul Yisraeli argues that Ethiopian men who were circumcised in Ethiopia need not undergo a second circumcision when participating in such a conversion. The authorities who subscribe to this view include former Israeli Chief Rabbis Yitzchak Herzog, Yitzchak Nissim, and Shlomo Goren (all cited in Techumin 4:324-326) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (Techumin 12:98 and Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 4:41).
Must One Who Left Judaism "Reconvert"?
Upon establishing that a Jew who "converted" to a different religion remains a Jew, it follows that he need not "reconvert" when he returns to Judaism. Indeed, the Talmud never requires such an individual to immerse in a mikvah. However, a number of Rishonim mention that the practice emerged for someone returning to Judaism, after practicing another religion, to immerse in a mikvah, and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 268:12) codifies this practice. Although this immersion is not required, strictly speaking, it is an act of great significance, expressing the depth of one's commitment to leave his past sins and return to God and the Jewish people.
The following ruling of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, related by Dr. David Berger, demonstrates the importance of this immersion. An older woman, who had "converted" to Catholicism in her youth, but returned to Judaism in her later years, asked Dr. Berger if she must immerse in a mikvah. She told him that she found it somewhat difficult to immerse, due to her age. Dr. Berger posed the question to Rav Lichtenstein, who ruled that the woman should make a great effort to immerse, despite the difficulty. He explained that "it is the least that she could do" in light of her earlier abandonment of Judaism.
Are Falash Mura Permitted to Marry Other Jews?
Authorities have also raised concern for mamzeirut regarding the Falash Mura (and all Ethiopian Jews), assuming that they were Jewish prior to their conversion in Israel. This concern arises because they did not practice the laws of Jewish divorce.6A mamzeir (described in the Sifrei's comments to Devarim 23:3) is any child born to a Jewish woman from an adulterous or incestuous relationship with another Jew. This creates profound problems for communities which do not perform proper gittin (divorce documents), because a woman who marries according to Halachah remains halachically married to her first husband until receiving a get. If a woman "remarries" without a get, this constitutes adultery, and any children born from this marriage are mamzeirim. A mamzeir is prohibited to marry anyone, Jew or non-Jew, other than a convert to Judaism or a fellow mamzeir. Regarding the Karaites, who similarly did not observe Jewish divorce laws, the Rama (Even Ha'ezer 4:37) forbids marrying a Karaite even if the Karaite repents and accepts the authority of the Oral Law. He explains that Karaites are considered possible mamzeirim (mamzeirim misafek)7It should be noted that a mamzeir misafek is treated like a mamzeir only on a rabbinical level (Kiddushin 73a), so once any other doubt exists, there is greater room to be lenient. due to the invalid divorces that they performed throughout the centuries. At first glance, it would appear that this ruling of the Rama should apply to Ethiopian Jews.8Not all authorities accept the Rama's ruling against marrying Karaites. See Radbaz (Teshuvot 1:73), Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 4:45), Yabia Omer (8:12), and Rav Eliyahu Bakshi Doron's essay in Techumin (18:77-83). Also see Tzitz Eliezer (12:66), citing Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Rav Avraham Sherman's essay in Techumin (19:192-200), who prohibit Karaites from marrying Jews.
However, two different approaches exist to free all Ethiopian Jews from the stigma of mamzeirut.9See Teshuvot Moznei Tzedek (vol. 1, Even Ha'ezer 2) who nonetheless questions the permissibility of marrying Ethiopian Jews. The overwhelming majority of authorities do not appear to accept his view. The more straightforward approach, endorsed by Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 8:11), argues that their divorces did not conform to Halachah, but their marriages (kiddushin) were also conducted in a halachically invalid manner. The invalidity of their divorces does not produce mamzeirim, because the improperly divorced couples were never married. Rav Waldman (Techumin 11:214-240) demonstrates in detail that Ethiopian Jews' marriages were not valid.10We discuss the halachic status of marriages without valid ceremonies in section II of this book.
Rav Yitzchak Herzog (Techumin 4:324-325), Rav Shaul Yisraeli (Techumin 7:312), and Rav Hershel Schachter (The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 9:143-160) espouse a different approach, saving Ethiopian Jews from mamzeirut by virtue of a safeik s'feika (a double doubt). First, they argue, there was so much intermarriage, coupled with the improper performance of conversion ceremonies, that many of today's Ethiopian Jews are descendants of non-Jews. As non-Jews, the problem of mamzeirut does not apply to them (see Kiddushin 66b). Rav Herzog adds that perhaps they were all originally non-Jews who improperly converted to Judaism and thus remained non- Jews. Dr. Karen Bacon (The Torah U-Madda Journal 3:1-7) uses genetic tests to prove that Ethiopian Jewry contains a large number of people who were originally non-Jewish.11See Nefesh Harav (p. 53 note 26), where Rav Hershel Schachter cites sources to demonstrate that historical evidence may be used to establish the necessary facts for a halacihc ruling. Two letters criticizing Dr. Bacon's study appear in the subsequent volume of The Torah U-Madda Journal, and she ably responds to both of them (pp. 243-245).
Even if they are Jews, each Ethiopian Jew is only a safeik mamzeir (a possible mamzeir), as it is not known which individuals descend from women who remarried without halachic divorces. In light of this double doubt, Rav Herzog, Rav Yisraeli, and Rav Schachter argue that, after the completion of the conversion process in Israel, Ethiopian Jews may marry within the ranks of the Jewish people.
Conclusion
Most authorities require the Falash Mura, as well as other Ethiopian Jews, to undergo a conversion. While some doubt surrounds the Falash Mura's status, Rav Waldman advocates saving them, along with rest of Ethiopian Jewry. It should be noted that Rav Waldman published his essay in 1996, but since then thousands more of the Falash Mura have requested to immigrate to Israel. At present, many in Israel have questioned the sincerity of these potential immigrants' commitment to Judaism, as well as challenging Rav Waldman's claims about the observance of the Falash Mura already living in Israel. This author lacks access to reliable sources of information for accurately evaluating the present religious dedication of the Falash Mura in Ethiopia or Israel.