Conversion Practices Among Ethiopian Jews and Their Transformation in Recent Generations

Abstract

Among Ethiopian Jews, as among all other Jewish communities throughout history, the process of conversion to Judaism, and attitudes toward converts, were shaped by the circumstances of time and place. This article investigates conversion as practiced in the Beta Israel community. It examines the motivations for conversion and the process itself. Naturally, conversion was not uniform across all Ethiopian Jewish communities, but common fundamental features reflected a core understanding of conversion, expressed in a process that was quicker than the standard conversion practice in Israel. The testimonies presented in the article describe in detail both the process and the background to the unique traditional Ethiopian Jewish approach to conversion. This article shows that in some communities, different and more rigorous conversion ceremonies were held. A central claim of the article is that in recent generations, significant changes have occurred in the conversion process in several communities as a result of the interaction between Ethiopian Jewish communities and the State of Israel and its Orthodox rabbinic establishment. This interaction, which at times included pressures for members of the community themselves to undergo a form of conversion, introduced into some communities the terminology and processes of Orthodox conversion.

1. Introduction

Among Ethiopian Jews, as among all other Jewish communities from biblical times onward, the process of conversion to Judaism, and attitudes toward converts, were shaped by the circumstances of time and place. Ethiopian Jews, who lived in isolation from other Jewish communities and were not exposed to halakhic literature, had a form of conversion that was based on Scripture and their preserved tradition. From interviews with religious leaders and elders from within the community now living in Israel who participated in or witnessed conversion practices, a picture emerges of a unique process that differs from the current-day Orthodox Jewish model.1

We cannot expect these testimonies regarding the conversion process to present a unified or harmonious picture. Not following a fixed or uniform halakha, the kessoch (religious leaders, singular kes) who led the various communities—spread out over wide geographic areas—had a fair amount of flexibility to modify customs. This resulted in differences, generally minor, in the details of the conversion ceremony. Nevertheless, regarding the conceptual aspects of conversion—such as the community’s attitude toward conversion, the principles involved, and the stages of the process—broad commonality across the communities is typical. The sources of any conceptual differences that are identified warrant investigation.

With this understanding, and with an awareness of the methodological challenges involved in using oral sources, this article seeks to outline the general framework and characteristics of the conversion process among Ethiopian Jews, based on testimonies of religious leaders from the community. It aims to offer insights into cultural features and attitudes toward conversion within the community, to highlight conflicting conceptual traditions, and to explore the background behind these differences.

2. Motivations for Conversion

When religious conversions resulted from the shared life of the Beta Israel community among the surrounding Christian society, the most common case was Jews converting to Christianity. However, there were also limited instances of Christians converting to Judaism. The converts generally came from lower or middle social classes; there are no known cases of conversion among those of high economic status. The decision to convert was personal and typically stemmed from individual circumstances. There are no known cases of families or groups converting—except for members of the Falashmura, descendants of converts to Christianity who sought to return to Judaism, some motivated by a desire to immigrate to Israel—a unique, charged, and complex issue that merits separate study.2

Four prominent motives for conversion can be identified. Two of these are common across all Jewish communities: (1) conversion driven by belief in the truth of the Jewish faith, and (2) conversion for the purpose of marrying a member of the community. (3) A third motive—not found in other Jewish communities in the modern era and apparently the most common motive in the Ethiopian context—is conversion as a prerequisite for living and working in a Jewish household. The Torah laws of ritual purity as practiced by Ethiopian Jews made it infeasible to reside in the same house with non-Jews or to share a common lifestyle. Physical contact with a gentile, or even a droplet of saliva that touched a Jew’s body or clothing, were taken as imparting ritual impurity that required immersion in a river and purification until evening. For this reason, living together was simply unthinkable. Therefore, a gentile who wished to become a live-in worker in a Jewish household had to undergo full conversion. A central part of this phenomenon was the conversion of individuals from the Barya stratum, who were defined as slaves. Women from this group who converted in order to serve in Jewish households at times became second wives.3

(4) The fourth motive is the conversion of children—sometimes orphans—from non-Jewish families who were unable to care for or feed them. These families would ask affluent Jewish families to take in the children out of compassion, trusting that the adoption would benefit the children. Because of their young age, these children were seen as not yet deeply “defiled” as gentiles. For this reason—and out of consideration for their age and condition—their conversion process was less stringent.4 Upon completion, these children were considered fully Jewish and integrated into their adoptive families. While they were allowed to assist their biological families, ritual purity considerations forbade them from touching, eating with, or living with their original families again.5

3. Stages of the Traditional Conversion Process

The conversion process began with a meeting between the prospective convert and the local kes (religious leader), who guided the individual through the entire process from beginning to end. Due to the laws of ritual purity, the kes maintained physical distance from the convert throughout this period. In the initial stage, the kes would interview the candidate to understand the motivations for conversion and to explain the implications the conversion would have on the candidate’s life. In contrast to contemporary Orthodox Jewish practice, motivations such as a desire to marry within the community or to work in a Jewish household were not, generally speaking, seen as disqualifying factors for serious and sincere conversion.

Because Jews and non-Jews lived in close proximity, the convert typically already had a general familiarity with Jewish life, particularly the purity laws and Sabbath observance. Nonetheless, those interviewed emphasized a key stage in which the kes would attempt to convince the candidate that becoming Jewish is not worthwhile for him because of the large number of Jewish obligations that would make his daily life more difficult.6 He would call attention to the laws of ritual purity and impurity, the frequent immersions (primarily on Fridays), the prohibition of contact with non-Jews and eating with them in order to avoid ritual impurity, and the resulting distance the convert would have to maintain from their biological family. The kes would also explain the difficulty of observing the dietary laws and the laws of ritual slaughter, and the Sabbath prohibitions, such as refraining from work, not leaving the camp, and not kindling fire.7 If, after hearing this, the candidate still insisted on converting, and the kes was convinced of the sincerity of their intent, the process began immediately. The kes would bless the convert with a welcome and express hope for success in the process of joining the people of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.8

The conversion process began with the convert moving into a secluded living space, with no contact with others.9 This was usually in proximity to the Jewish family that had adopted the convert. The process lasted just under a week, from Saturday night until Friday. During this period, the candidate for conversion followed a strict purification regimen involving dietary restrictions. Only natural, unprocessed foods—especially sprouted chickpeas, vegetables, and fruits—were allowed. Any food involving fire or human preparation was forbidden during these days of purification. Most testimonies mention the consumption of chickpeas. According to several testimonies, the conversion candidate was permitted to eat nothing other than sprouted chickpeas and to drink nothing other than water, with the kes personally delivering the chickpeas that the candidate was meant to eat, possibly due to concerns about impurity. Chickpeas were believed to cleanse the body physically from the impure foods the candidate had eaten in the past. They were also believed to purify the convert spiritually from his past, effecting a profound inner transformation. The difficulty and monotony of this diet also served as a test of the convert’s seriousness and willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of conversion.10

This special diet continued throughout the week until Friday afternoon, when the conversion ceremony took place. On that day, the convert would wash his clothes and walk to the river for the ritual immersion, accompanied by at least one supervising witness to ensure that the convert performed the actions that had been explained to him. The immersion procedure included cutting fingernails, shaving all body hair, and immersing seven times. Immediately afterward, without delay (to minimize the risk of him becoming ritually impure), the convert would proceed to the site of the conversion ceremony.11

The ceremony was prepared in advance by the supervising kes, who invited other kessoch to join, lending dignity to the occasion. Witnesses were also brought to the ceremony to testify to the sincerity of the convert and the completion of the process. Members of the community the convert was joining were invited as well, and the event was seen as important and emotionally significant for all involved.

During the ceremony, the Ten Commandments from the book of Exodus were read aloud. The kes recited special prayers and blessings for the convert, including verses from Psalms and a special passage from the Arde‘et (a sacred Ethiopian text).12 The decisive moment of the ceremony was when the convert accepted upon himself, with an oath and deliberate intention, belief in God and commitment to fulfill His commandments. Circumcision was not generally part of the process, since the Ethiopian Church also practiced circumcision in accordance with biblical tradition, and most Christian men in Ethiopia were already circumcised. In the rare case of an uncircumcised candidate, the supervising kes would perform the circumcision at the beginning of the process and later confirm during the ceremony that it had been performed. If the convert bore a tattoo of a cross, efforts were made to blur it in an attempt to erase it, or at least to make it difficult to identify as a cross.

At the conclusion of the ceremony, in the presence of the kessoch and the participants, the kes formally welcomed the convert into the Jewish people. This was not carried out through a fixed liturgical formula, but with words chosen by the kes. According to some accounts, the kes would sprinkle the convert with pure water as part of the ceremony.13

The event concluded with a celebratory meal, funded either by the convert or their adoptive family, which the latter was apparently responsible for preparing. A special bread known as dabo was baked for the occasion and used for the blessing, and a sheep was slaughtered. The convert’s biological family was not permitted to participate in the ceremony or the meal, due to the restrictions imposed by the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

4. Post-Conversion Supervision and Integration

Formally, the conversion process was completed within a relatively short period—primarily that week of purification culminating in the Friday ceremony. However, the convert remained under the supervision of the kes who oversaw the process for at least a year. During this year, the convert was considered fully Jewish but was expected to learn the various aspects of religious life and be monitored to ensure proper behavior according to religious norms. In the case of a female convert, she was accompanied by a woman from the community who taught her primarily about Sabbath observance and the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

From the moment of conversion, a separation from the convert’s biological family was imposed. Although the convert could speak with family members, Jewish law forbade him from touching them, eating with them, or living in the same household due to the laws of purity and impurity.

The convert learned the commandments and religious way of life through oral recitation, repetition, and observation, since most community members were illiterate. Progress was not measured through tests or formal questions but by observing how well the convert adapted to Jewish life. The evaluation was based on daily behavior, Sabbath and holiday observance, immersion practices, and separation from Christianity both religiously and culturally, mainly to verify that the convert had fully entered into the Jewish faith with sincerity. After the kes was satisfied that the convert had completed this phase, the supervision ended, generally without a formal ceremony, since the conversion itself had already been completed. Nevertheless, a convert could choose to hold a celebratory event marking the end of the process, though this was not obligatory.

The kes who accompanied the convert from the beginning and supervised them throughout this year was referred to by the honorary title Näfs Abbat (Ge’ez: “soul father”).14 This title reflected his role as the convert’s spiritual father.15 In most cases, this relationship continued even after the formal process ended. The kes helped the convert integrate into the community, assisted them in finding a spouse, and served as a personal guide. The convert often turned to the kes for religious or personal questions, and the kes participated in major family events throughout the convert’s life.

Alongside the spiritual father, another figure provided social and economic support. This person was known as the Yetut Abbat—literally “nursing father,” from yetut (“breast”), and abbat (“father”). This was an older, respected man of social and economic standing who extended his protection and guidance to the convert throughout their life. The kes might recommend such a figure to the convert, who would then approach that person with the proper honor and respect to request that he become their Yetut Abbat. Since the convert was, in many respects, like an orphan—cut off from their biological family and former community—the role of the Yetut Abbat was central. In return, the Yetut Abbat saw it as a great honor to provide care and support to someone who had undergone such a profound transition.

5. Religious and Social Status of the Convert

In Ethiopian Jewish society, the distinction between Jew and non-Jew was binary—one was either Jewish or gentile. Accordingly, once a convert completed the conversion process—meaning the week of purification and the ceremony—they were considered fully Jewish in every respect. They were permitted to marry within the community and live among Jews without being viewed as a source of ritual impurity. Reflecting Ethiopian cultural norms, the community received converts with warmth and made a point never to mention their past. Nonetheless, knowledge of who were converts, descendants of converts, or related to them by marriage was retained within the community due to careful attention to genealogy. This was particularly important because of strict prohibitions against marrying members of the zemed, a term referring to the extended family up to seven generations back.16

Despite the generally positive attitude toward converts, several factors tempered their religious and social status. During the supervision period, even though the convert was considered Jewish, they were not permitted to slaughter animals for themselves or for others. This contrasted with adult Jews in the community who, after undergoing training and receiving the kes’s blessing, were authorized to perform slaughter. After the supervision phase, the convert could receive such authorization and slaughter like any other member of the community. Female converts during the supervision period were not permitted to bake a specific type of bread called bereket, prepared in honor of the Sabbath, festivals, or special events. This restriction was not due to ritual impurity—Jewish women who were menstruating were likewise prohibited from baking this bread—but rather because the convert had not yet completed the supervision process.

Even after completing supervision, the convert’s social status did not reach that of the community’s most respected members. For example, a convert could not be honored with reciting the blessing over the Bereket bread on behalf of the community. Nor could they eat the choicest portion of this bread, which was reserved for the kessoch, elders, and senior women in the community.17 From a religious standpoint, two main restrictions applied to converts: A convert could not slaughter meat for a kes, and neither the convert nor their descendants could become a kes.18 Although kessoch were referred to as Kahanat, or priests, they were not literally descendants of Aaron and had no fixed familial lineage, so theoretically any Jew could become a kes. However, because the kessoch saw themselves as inheritors of the priestly function of the “seed of Aaron,” they were regarded as priests in certain respects. This status had several implications, including the requirement that they be Jews by birth.19

6. Alternative Accounts and the Influence of Modern Rabbinic Expectations

A significantly different account of the conversion process was provided by Melokse Abba Bina Damoza, as well as by Rabbi Yosef Hadane, who was ordained by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel in 1979 and served as the Chief Rabbi of Ethiopian Jewry until 2017. According to their descriptions, the preparatory phase of conversion was much longer than the accounts given by the kessoch. Rabbi Yosef Hadane emphasized that the process lasted several months, during which the prospective convert had to engage in thorough study of religious commandments, and most of the converts learned to read and write. During this extended period, the convert was observed and assessed to ensure that the convert was truly sincere in his actions and desire to convert. According to both Melokse Abba Bina Damoza and Rabbi Hadane, this process produced converts who were often more deeply knowledgeable in Scripture and religious law than many native members of the community. As a result, many converts became teachers of Jewish law within the community and were known for being especially scrupulous in matters of religious observance. For this reason, they generally held a position of honor and distinction in the community.

Differences in testimony regarding the conversion process are understandable and natural. Conversion was relatively rare, and there was no uniform or clearly defined structure among the Ethiopian Jewish communities, which were dispersed across different regions. However, the contrast between accounts of a process lasting just a few days and others describing one that spanned several months is striking. This discrepancy is not merely technical—it reflects a deeper, conceptual question about the nature of conversion: Is conversion a relatively simple transition from non-Jew to Jew that requires only a basic examination, or is it a profound and demanding transformation that must be accompanied by rigorous study and extended evaluation?

One respected community member, Mr. Avraham Yerday, who testified to witnessing a conversion conducted in just a few days by Kes Yitzhak Yasu (Goite), confirmed a hypothesis raised at the beginning of this study. According to him, the phenomenon of extended and meticulous conversion processes emerged as a result of Ethiopian Jewry’s interaction with the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. This interaction, which intensified from the 1970s onward, led some community members to internalize rabbinic norms about how conversion “should” be conducted. Thus, testimonies describing short processes more accurately reflect the traditional Ethiopian model of conversion, which viewed entry into the Jewish community as relatively straightforward, even if the convert’s initial motivation was marriage or employment in a Jewish household. In contrast, testimonies describing extended periods of instruction and detailed examination—often using terms familiar from Orthodox halakhic discourse, such as “acceptance of the yoke of commandments and of Heaven”—reflect later adaptations shaped by modern rabbinic influence during the 20th century.

This transformation in the conversion process also reshaped the status and image of the convert. In places where traditional methods were followed, the convert’s social standing remained relatively modest. But where extended study and rigorous testing were emphasized, converts often gained a higher status than the average community member, thanks to their deep religious knowledge and commitment.

7. Conceptual Shifts and Historical Parallels

Even within Orthodox conversion—firmly rooted in the Oral Torah—changes have taken place throughout Jewish history.20 There are certain parallels between the traditional Ethiopian model of conversion and some historical rabbinic approaches. For example, the traditional Ethiopian practice has similarities to the conversion approach outlined by Maimonides in the 12th century, according to which, once a prospective convert is found to be sincere, the process should begin immediately. The convert is taught the fundamentals of the religion and a few commandments—enough to understand the meaning of conversion—but not so much as to overwhelm or frighten them. If, after receiving this basic information, they still wish to convert, the conversion is carried out without delay.21 This ruling reflects a welcoming approach toward converts and joy at their desire to come under the wings of the Divine Presence. As we have seen, Ethiopian Jews also regarded conversion as a joyous event for the entire community. There is no sign of the ambivalence often seen in modern Orthodox conversion circles. To a large extent, the growing stringency of modern Orthodox conversion developed as conversion shifted from being a costly, unattractive step to one often motivated by more appealing or beneficial circumstances.

The appropriateness of the traditional Ethiopian conversion model was rooted in both cultural and religious factors in Ethiopian society. There was a broad commonality between Ethiopian Judaism and Ethiopian Christianity—certainly more than what exists between Orthodox Judaism and Western forms of Christianity. The Oral Torah and Jewish law as it developed from the Rabbinic era and continuing afterwards until modern times was not part of Ethiopian Judaism. Instead, their practice was based solely on the commandments found in the Bible. Moreover, Ethiopian Christianity preserved many biblical practices, such as circumcision, Sabbath observances (on both Saturday and Sunday), dietary laws (such as not eating pork or insects), and more. The fact that most Christian Ethiopians were already circumcised meant that one of the most defining acts of conversion in other Jewish communities—circumcision—was generally absent here. As a result, the primary conversion ceremony focused on immersion, with circumcision required only in rare cases.

In general, the Ethiopian Jewish tradition lacked a fully developed theological vocabulary or conceptual framework that would create a sharp divide or critical distance between Judaism and Christianity—in sharp contrast to the polemical–religious evolution of Jewish–Christian encounters in Europe. This remained the case despite the efforts of European missionary movements in the 19th century that sought to convert Ethiopian Jews to Christianity. The simplicity and sincerity of prospective converts called for a straightforward conversation—one with almost no theological depth or debate—focusing instead on a basic expression of desire to join the Jewish community. Another cultural factor shaped this reality: the Ethiopian social norm of trusting others and taking their words at face value. Ethiopian culture tends not to assume manipulative or deceitful motives. As a result, the starting assumption was that a person expressing a desire to convert was telling the truth. It was entirely plausible that someone could sincerely convert to Judaism even while also having practical motivations, such as marriage or employment.

To this must be added the tremendous social cost of conversion in the Ethiopian context. Because of the strict laws of ritual purity and impurity, converts were required to sever close contact with their biological families and the Christian society they had previously belonged to. This dramatic rupture served as tangible proof of the convert’s sincerity and identification with the process. Under these conditions, the essential requirement at the moment of conversion was the inner intention to believe in God and accept His commandments. A detailed and in-depth knowledge of the commandments was not demanded at the time of conversion itself, but rather acquired later, during the post-conversion supervision period.

The commonalities between Jewish and Christian religious practices in this cultural context may also help to explain the central role played by the laws of ritual purity and impurity in defining the separation between the two communities. Unlike other Jewish communities around the world—who developed a rich and complex halakhic system based on the Oral Torah and rabbinic tradition, which created sharp legal and social boundaries between Jews and non-Jews—in Ethiopia, the function of societal separation was fulfilled by the laws of purity and impurity. The strict insistence on avoiding physical contact with non-Jews, not eating with them, and not living in shared spaces effectively maintained the separation between the communities. These practices also provided a framework for distinguishing the convert’s new identity. Consequently, purity laws became central not only in everyday religious life but also in the conversion process, which was focused largely on the convert’s ritual purification from prior impurity.

8. Conclusions

The investigation of traditional conversion practices and the conscious and unconscious motivations that accompanied them is methodologically complex. The interaction of members of the community with Orthodox Jewish conversion in recent generations likely influenced the terminology and emphases found in testimonies. In interviews with the community’s religious leaders on the subject of traditional conversion, one could sense that they emphasized the fact that they had upheld elements of conversion that are significant in Orthodox practice, particularly in their descriptions of how they attempted to discourage the convert by explaining that the consequences of conversion would make life more difficult for them, and in their accounts of how they examined the sincerity of the convert’s intentions.

However, the kessoch did not perceive a contradiction between these descriptions and their acknowledgment that they also converted individuals who sought conversion for the sake of marriage or employment, and that they at times conducted a conversion process that was relatively brief. This gap may indicate that there was no underlying antagonism toward the idea of gentiles seeking to join the religion of Moses, and it is possible that in previous generations the process was less rigorous than the descriptions offered in contemporary testimony suggest. Nonetheless, there was no missionary element to traditional conversion, nor any desire for gentiles to enter the religion of Moses. That is, in the context of the religious struggle between Jews and Christians in Ethiopia—in which many missionaries worked to convert Jews, particularly the Falashmura—no conscious “mirror image” emerged that positively viewed the phenomenon of Christians seeking to cross over in the opposite direction.

When Ethiopian Jews from the Tigray region began to immigrate to Israel in the late 1970s, they were required to undergo a giyur le-ḥumra (a conversion performed as a halakhic safeguard due to doubts about their Jewish status), which included acceptance of the commandments, immersion, and symbolic circumcision (hatafat dam brit). This brought the consciousness of traditional Ethiopian conversion into direct contact with halakhic Orthodox conversion. The magnitude of the event—the end of exile and the upheaval of transitioning into Israeli society—led the community’s leader, Kes Yitzhak Yaso, to subordinate himself to Orthodox Judaism and to instruct the members of the community that what had been practiced in exile had come to an end, and from now on all were subject to the authority of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.22 Thus began the conversion of members of the community in Israel, which continued until around 1984. The conversions ceased after members of the community who had immigrated from the Gondar region began to oppose the requirement that they undergo conversion, since they considered themselves Jews. This struggle, which ultimately succeeded to a large extent, stemmed from several reasons,23 to which should be added their conceptual view of the act of conversion, which was seen as unjustified by members of the community who, with all their being, demonstrated their religious and Jewish sincerity through their preservation of Judaism over the generations and through their act of immigrating to the Land of Israel.