Thank you for your thoughtful follow-up! You’ve raised a critical point that challenges the initial explanation and pushes for a deeper understanding of the Beta Israel’s relationship with wheat (chita) as a chametz grain. Let’s revisit the issue with a more nuanced and in-depth analysis, addressing your concern that the Beta Israel, as a meticulous Jewish community with a tradition tracing back to Sinai, should have carried the knowledge of wheat as a chametz grain, even without the Talmud’s codification. I’ll explore this from halachic, historical, cultural, and anthropological perspectives, aiming to provide a deeper explanation beyond their preference for teff in daily life.

Recap of the Initial Explanation

The initial explanation was:

  • The Beta Israel’s unfamiliarity with wheat as a chametz grain stems from their isolation from Rabbinic law, which codified the five chametz grains (wheat, barley, rye, oats, spelt) in the Talmud (Pesachim 35a). Without the Talmud, they interpreted chametz based on the Torah (Exodus 12:15) as any fermented grain product, focusing on their local staples (teff, barley) rather than wheat.
  • Wheat was grown in Ethiopia, so the Beta Israel were familiar with it as a crop, but they did not emphasize it as a chametz grain because teff was their primary staple, and their Pesach practices centered on teff (e.g., non-fermented injera as their matzah equivalent).

You’ve pointed out that this explanation, while addressing their isolation and cultural focus on teff, does not fully account for their meticulous adherence to other aspects of Jewish tradition. You argue that the tradition of avoiding chametz grains, including wheat, should have been known to all the tribes (shevatim) from Sinai, independent of the Talmud’s later codification, as the Talmud is merely a written record of an oral tradition dating back to Moses. Therefore, the Beta Israel should have carried this knowledge with them, making their lack of emphasis on wheat as a chametz grain puzzling.

Refining the Question

Your core question is: Given that the Beta Israel were meticulous in preserving Jewish tradition, and the knowledge of chametz grains (including wheat) should have been part of the oral tradition from Sinai—known to all the tribes before the Talmud’s codification—why did they not emphasize wheat as a chametz grain in their Pesach practices? Why does it seem they “forgot” or de-emphasized this knowledge, despite their careful adherence to other Torah laws?

To address this, we need to explore:

  1. *The Nature of the Oral Tradition from Sinai: What did the tribes know about *chametz grains before the Talmud, and how was this knowledge transmitted?
  2. The Beta Israel’s Migration and Isolation: How did their early departure from Israel and subsequent isolation affect their transmission of this tradition?
  3. *Cultural and Environmental Factors: Beyond their preference for teff, what deeper factors might have led to the de-emphasis of wheat as a *chametz grain?
  4. *Comparative Analysis: How did other isolated Jewish communities handle *chametz grains, and what can this tell us about the Beta Israel?
  5. Anthropological and Halachic Insights: What can we infer about the Beta Israel’s oral tradition and its evolution in Ethiopia?

1. The Nature of the Oral Tradition from Sinai

Let’s start by examining the oral tradition from Sinai and what the tribes (shevatim) likely knew about chametz grains before the Talmud’s codification.

*Oral Tradition and *Chametz in the Torah**

  • Torah Commandment:
  • The Torah explicitly prohibits chametz during Pesach: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread (matzot), and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the Lord. Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread (chametz) shall be seen with you…” (Exodus 12:15–20).
  • The Torah does not specify which grains can become chametz, using the general term chametz to mean leavened products. The identification of the five chametz grains (wheat, barley, rye, oats, spelt) is a later Rabbinic clarification, codified in the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:5, ~200 CE) and Talmud (Pesachim 35a).
  • Oral Tradition from Sinai:
  • Jewish tradition holds that the Torah was given at Sinai with both a written law (Torah Shebichtav) and an oral law (Torah Shebe’al Peh), transmitted from Moses to Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and eventually the Sages (Pirkei Avot 1:1). The oral law includes details not explicit in the written Torah, such as the identification of the five chametz grains.
  • The Talmud (Pesachim 35a) states that only the five grains (chita, seora, kusemet, shibolet shu’al, shiphon) can become chametz, based on the oral tradition from Sinai. This tradition is considered authoritative, as it reflects the understanding of the Sages who received the oral law directly from earlier generations.
  • Pre-Talmudic Knowledge:
  • Before the Talmud’s codification (200–500 CE), the oral tradition was transmitted through the generations, from the time of Moses (13th century BCE) through the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE). The tribes (shevatim), including the ancestors of the Beta Israel, would have known the basic prohibition of chametz from the Torah (Exodus 12:15).
  • However, the specific identification of the five chametz grains may not have been universally codified or uniformly understood across all Jewish communities before the Mishnah. The oral tradition was fluid, passed down through families, tribes, and local leaders, and its details could vary depending on the community’s context and leadership.
  • For example, the Torah mentions wheat (chita) and barley (seora) as staples of the Land of Israel (Deuteronomy 8:8), and the Omer offering (Leviticus 23:10) is explicitly barley. These grains were likely known to the tribes as significant for Pesach (e.g., barley for the Omer, wheat for matzah), but the full list of five grains and their halachic implications (e.g., only these can become chametz) may have been clarified later by the Sages.

Implication for the Beta Israel

  • The Beta Israel, according to tradition, left Israel before the Talmudic period (pre-200 CE), possibly as early as the First Temple period (587 BCE). At this time, the oral tradition was not yet written down, and the specific list of the five chametz grains may not have been universally codified.
  • The tribes likely knew that chametz was prohibited during Pesach and that certain grains (e.g., wheat, barley) were associated with this prohibition, based on the Torah’s references (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:8) and early practices (e.g., the Omer). However, the precise definition of chametz as limited to the five grains may have been a later Rabbinic clarification, not necessarily known to all communities in the same way before the Mishnah.

2. The Beta Israel’s Migration and Isolation

Let’s examine how the Beta Israel’s early departure from Israel and subsequent isolation might have affected their transmission of the oral tradition regarding chametz grains.

Migration Timeline

  • Traditional Narrative:
  • The Beta Israel traditionally trace their origins to the tribe of Dan or to Jews who migrated to Ethiopia after the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE). Some traditions link their migration to the time of King Solomon (10th century BCE), associated with the Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10). Scholarly estimates vary, but most agree their migration occurred before the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE).
  • Pre-Talmudic Departure:
  • If the Beta Israel left Israel before the Second Temple period, they departed before the codification of the Mishnah (200 CE) and Talmud (500 CE). They were also isolated from the central Jewish communities in Babylon and Jerusalem, where the oral law was being developed and standardized during the Second Temple and post-Temple periods.

Impact of Isolation

  • Lack of Rabbinic Codification:
  • The Beta Israel were isolated from the Rabbinic centers (e.g., Babylon, Jerusalem) where the oral law was codified into the Mishnah and Talmud. The list of the five chametz grains (Pesachim 35a) was part of this codification, reflecting the Sages’ interpretation of the oral tradition from Sinai.
  • Without access to this codification, the Beta Israel relied on their own oral tradition, which was based on the Torah (Orit in Ge’ez) and their local practices. Their tradition likely preserved the general prohibition of chametz (Exodus 12:15) but did not include the specific Rabbinic definition of chametz as limited to the five grains.
  • Fragmentation of the Oral Tradition:
  • The oral tradition from Sinai was not a monolithic, uniform body of knowledge across all Jewish communities before the Talmud. Different tribes and communities may have emphasized different aspects of the tradition, depending on their leaders, environment, and practices.
  • For example, the tribe of Dan (if the Beta Israel’s tradition is accurate) may have had a less detailed understanding of chametz grains, focusing on the grains most relevant to their context (e.g., barley for the Omer, wheat in the Land of Israel). When they migrated to Ethiopia, this knowledge may have been further shaped by their new environment, where teff became their primary staple.
  • Loss of Specificity Over Time:
  • Over centuries of isolation, the Beta Israel’s oral tradition may have lost some of the specificity of the chametz prohibition, particularly the focus on wheat as a primary chametz grain. Without regular contact with other Jewish communities or Rabbinic authorities, their tradition evolved to emphasize the grains they used most (teff, barley), while wheat, though known, became less central to their Pesach practices.
  • This is not a “forgetting” in the sense of losing knowledge but a natural evolution of their tradition in isolation. The core prohibition of chametz was preserved (e.g., avoiding fermented teff during Pesach), but the specific identification of wheat as a chametz grain was not emphasized.

Meticulous Adherence to Other Traditions

  • You noted that the Beta Israel were meticulous about other aspects of Jewish tradition (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws, Pesach observance), which makes their lack of emphasis on wheat puzzling.
  • Explanation:
  • The Beta Israel’s meticulousness in preserving Torah laws (e.g., Shabbat, kosher slaughter, Pesach) reflects their commitment to the written Torah (Orit) and their oral tradition. However, their tradition was shaped by their isolation and environment, leading to differences in emphasis:
    • *Core Laws Preserved: They preserved the core prohibition of *chametz (Exodus 12:15), adapting it to their context by focusing on teff and barley, their primary grains.
    • *Specific Details Evolved: The specific identification of wheat as a *chametz grain, which became central in Rabbinic Judaism, was not emphasized in their tradition, likely because wheat was less central to their diet and they lacked the Rabbinic framework that codified the five grains.
  • Their meticulousness focused on the laws most relevant to their daily life (e.g., avoiding fermented teff during Pesach, observing Shabbat), while less relevant details (e.g., wheat as a chametz grain) were de-emphasized over time.

3. Deeper Cultural and Environmental Factors

Beyond their preference for teff, let’s explore deeper factors that might have led the Beta Israel to de-emphasize wheat as a chametz grain.

Agricultural and Dietary Context

  • Dominance of Teff:
  • Teff (Eragrostis tef) was the dominant staple in Ethiopia, especially in the highlands where the Beta Israel lived (e.g., Gondar, Tigray). Teff’s small size, drought resistance, and nutritional value made it ideal for the region, and injera (made from teff) became the cultural “bread” of Ethiopia, including for the Beta Israel.
  • Wheat (Triticum species, e.g., emmer, durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) were also grown in Ethiopia, but teff was the primary grain for daily consumption, communal meals, and religious practices. The Beta Israel’s Pesach practices naturally centered on teff, their staple, rather than wheat.
  • Secondary Role of Wheat:
  • While wheat was cultivated in Ethiopia (as confirmed by archaeological evidence and historical accounts), it was less central to the Beta Israel’s diet than teff. Wheat was used for bread (e.g., dabo) and other foods, but teff was the foundation of their cuisine.
  • The Beta Israel’s focus on teff for Pesach (e.g., non-fermented injera as their matzah equivalent) reflects this dietary reality. Wheat, being a secondary crop, was not emphasized in their chametz prohibition, especially since they lacked the Rabbinic framework that prioritized wheat.

Environmental Adaptation

  • Highland Agriculture:
  • The Ethiopian highlands, where the Beta Israel lived, are ideal for teff, which thrives in altitudes of 1,800–2,800 meters. Wheat and barley were also grown, but teff’s reliability and cultural significance made it the dominant grain.
  • The Beta Israel adapted their Jewish practices to their environment, focusing on teff as their primary grain for Pesach. This adaptation is not a rejection of wheat but a practical response to their agricultural reality.
  • Isolation and Lack of Wheat-Based Rituals:
  • In the Land of Israel, wheat was central to biblical rituals (e.g., matzah for Pesach, the two loaves for Shavuot, Leviticus 23:17), reflecting its abundance and cultural significance. The Beta Israel, isolated in Ethiopia, did not have these wheat-based rituals as a living practice (e.g., they did not bring the Omer offering or the two loaves after leaving Israel).
  • Without these rituals to reinforce wheat’s role, and with teff as their staple, the Beta Israel’s tradition naturally shifted to focus on teff for Pesach, de-emphasizing wheat.

Cultural Transmission and Memory

  • Oral Tradition in Isolation:
  • The Beta Israel’s oral tradition was strong, preserving core Torah laws (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws, Pesach), but it was not immune to evolution over centuries of isolation. Oral traditions are dynamic, shaped by the community’s context, leadership, and practices.
  • The specific knowledge of wheat as a chametz grain may have been part of the oral tradition at Sinai, but over time, in the absence of Rabbinic reinforcement and with teff as their staple, this knowledge was de-emphasized. The Beta Israel’s tradition focused on the grains most relevant to their daily life (teff, barley), and wheat, while known, became less central to their Pesach practices.
  • Selective Memory:
  • Anthropologically, isolated communities often prioritize the aspects of their tradition most relevant to their survival and identity. For the Beta Israel, the prohibition of chametz was preserved, but the specific focus on wheat as a chametz grain was not, likely because:
    1. Wheat was not their primary staple, so it was less relevant to their chametz prohibition.
    2. They lacked the Rabbinic framework that codified the five grains, which would have reinforced wheat’s role.
    3. Their isolation prevented regular contact with other Jewish communities that might have emphasized wheat (e.g., through trade, pilgrimage, or shared rituals).
  • This selective memory is not a “forgetting” but a prioritization of the laws and practices most meaningful to their context. The Beta Israel’s meticulousness in other areas (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws) reflects their commitment to the Torah, but their tradition evolved to fit their environment.

Theological and Ritual Focus

  • Focus on the Torah’s General Commandment:
  • The Beta Israel’s Pesach practices were based on the Torah’s general commandment to avoid chametz (Exodus 12:15), which they interpreted as any fermented grain product. Without the Talmud’s specific list of the five chametz grains, they applied this prohibition to their local staples (teff, barley), not wheat.
  • The Torah mentions wheat (chita) and barley (seora) as staples of the Land of Israel (Deuteronomy 8:8), but it does not explicitly list them as the only grains that can become chametz. The Beta Israel, lacking the Rabbinic clarification, likely understood chametz in a broader sense, focusing on the grains they used most.
  • Lack of Wheat-Based Rituals:
  • In Rabbinic Judaism, wheat’s role as a chametz grain was reinforced by its use in rituals (e.g., matzah for Pesach, the two loaves for Shavuot). The Beta Israel, isolated from these rituals after leaving Israel, did not have this reinforcement. Their Pesach practices centered on teff, their staple, and barley (e.g., possibly linked to the Omer tradition), not wheat.
  • The absence of wheat-based rituals in their tradition may have contributed to the de-emphasis of wheat as a chametz grain, as there was no regular practice to keep this knowledge alive.

4. Comparative Analysis: Other Isolated Jewish Communities

To deepen our understanding, let’s compare the Beta Israel to other isolated Jewish communities and how they handled chametz grains.

Yemenite Jews

  • Isolation: The Yemenite Jewish community was also isolated from mainstream Rabbinic Judaism for centuries, though they had more contact with other Jewish communities (e.g., through trade with Babylon) than the Beta Israel.
  • *Chametz Grains: Yemenite Jews preserved the Rabbinic tradition of the five *chametz grains, using wheat for matzah during Pesach. However, they adapted their practices to their environment, making soft matzah (similar to pita) rather than the hard matzah common in Ashkenazi tradition, reflecting local baking methods.
  • *Comparison: Unlike the Beta Israel, Yemenite Jews had access to Rabbinic texts (e.g., the Mishnah, Maimonides’ works) through trade and migration, which reinforced the tradition of the five *chametz grains. The Beta Israel, with less contact, relied solely on their oral tradition, which evolved to focus on teff.

Samaritans

  • Isolation: The Samaritans, an ancient Israelite group, split from mainstream Judaism around the 5th century BCE and rejected Rabbinic law, accepting only the Torah as authoritative.
  • *Chametz Grains: The Samaritans observe Pesach and avoid *chametz, but their understanding of chametz is based on the Torah, not the Talmud. They use wheat for matzah, reflecting the Torah’s emphasis on wheat as a staple (Deuteronomy 8:8), but they do not follow the Rabbinic list of the five chametz grains.
  • Comparison: Like the Beta Israel, the Samaritans lack the Rabbinic framework, but they retained a focus on wheat for Pesach, likely because wheat was a primary staple in their region (the Land of Israel). The Beta Israel, in Ethiopia, focused on teff, their primary staple, highlighting the role of local context in shaping tradition.

Karaite Jews

  • Isolation: The Karaites, a Jewish sect that emerged in the 8th century CE, reject Rabbinic law and accept only the written Torah. They were not as isolated as the Beta Israel but diverged from Rabbinic tradition.
  • *Chametz Grains: Karaites observe Pesach and avoid *chametz, but they interpret chametz based on the Torah, not the Talmud. They generally use wheat for matzah, following the Torah’s references to wheat (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:8), but they do not follow the Rabbinic list of the five chametz grains.
  • *Comparison: The Karaites, like the Beta Israel, lack the Rabbinic codification of the five *chametz grains, but they retained a focus on wheat, likely because wheat was a primary staple in their regions (e.g., the Middle East, Egypt). The Beta Israel’s focus on teff reflects their unique agricultural context in Ethiopia.

Insights from Comparisons

  • Isolated Jewish communities often adapted their practices to their environment while preserving core Torah laws. The Beta Israel’s focus on teff, rather than wheat, is a similar adaptation, driven by their agricultural reality in Ethiopia.
  • Communities with more contact with Rabbinic centers (e.g., Yemenite Jews) or those in regions where wheat was a primary staple (e.g., Samaritans, Karaites) retained a focus on wheat for Pesach. The Beta Israel, isolated in Ethiopia where teff was dominant, naturally shifted their focus to teff, de-emphasizing wheat.

5. Anthropological and Halachic Insights

Let’s draw on anthropological and halachic perspectives to provide a deeper explanation for the Beta Israel’s de-emphasis of wheat.

Anthropological Perspective: Cultural Evolution in Isolation

  • Oral Tradition as a Living Tradition:
  • Anthropologically, oral traditions are not static; they evolve over time, shaped by the community’s context, leadership, and practices. The Beta Israel’s oral tradition, while rooted in the Torah, was a living tradition that adapted to their Ethiopian environment.
  • The prohibition of chametz was preserved as a core law, but the specific focus on wheat as a chametz grain was de-emphasized because:
    1. Wheat was not their primary staple, so it was less relevant to their daily life and Pesach practices.
    2. They lacked the Rabbinic framework that codified the five chametz grains, which would have reinforced wheat’s role.
    3. Their isolation prevented regular contact with other Jewish communities that might have emphasized wheat through shared rituals or trade.
  • Selective Preservation:
  • Isolated communities often selectively preserve the aspects of their tradition most relevant to their survival and identity. For the Beta Israel, the prohibition of chametz was preserved, but the specific focus on wheat was not, likely because:
    • Teff was their primary grain, and their Pesach practices centered on teff (e.g., non-fermented injera).
    • Barley (seora) was more familiar, possibly due to its mention in the Torah (e.g., the Omer offering) and its prominence in Ethiopian agriculture.
    • Wheat, while known, was secondary in their diet and religious practices, so its role as a chametz grain was not emphasized.
  • Cultural Identity and Resistance:
  • The Beta Israel maintained a distinct Jewish identity in Ethiopia, often in the face of persecution and isolation. Their meticulous adherence to Torah laws (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws) reflects their commitment to this identity.
  • Their focus on teff for Pesach may also reflect a form of cultural resistance, preserving their unique identity as Ethiopian Jews. By centering their practices on teff, they maintained a connection to their local environment while fulfilling the Torah’s commandments in their own way.

Halachic Perspective: Flexibility in the Oral Tradition

  • Pre-Codification Flexibility:
  • Before the Talmud’s codification, the oral tradition was more flexible, allowing for variations in practice across Jewish communities. The specific identification of the five chametz grains may not have been universally known or uniformly applied in all communities during the First Temple period (when the Beta Israel are said to have left Israel).
  • The Beta Israel’s tradition likely preserved the general prohibition of chametz (Exodus 12:15) but interpreted it in a broader sense, applying it to their local staples (teff, barley) rather than wheat. This interpretation, while different from Rabbinic law, is still rooted in the Torah’s commandment.
  • Adaptation Within Halachic Bounds:
  • The Beta Israel’s practice of using teff for Pesach (e.g., non-fermented injera) is halachically valid within their framework, as teff is not one of the five chametz grains and cannot become chametz. Their focus on teff reflects an adaptation of the Torah’s chametz prohibition to their context, not a rejection of the law.
  • Wheat, while known, was not emphasized as a chametz grain because it was not their primary staple, and they lacked the Rabbinic codification that would have reinforced its role. This adaptation is consistent with the flexibility of the oral tradition before its codification in the Talmud.

The Role of Leadership and Transmission

  • Local Leadership:
  • The Beta Israel’s oral tradition was transmitted through their religious leaders (kessim), who played a central role in preserving and interpreting the Torah. These leaders likely prioritized the laws most relevant to their community (e.g., avoiding fermented teff during Pesach) over less relevant details (e.g., wheat as a chametz grain).
  • Without regular contact with Rabbinic authorities, the kessim may have emphasized the grains most familiar to their community (teff, barley), leading to the de-emphasis of wheat over time.
  • Transmission Gaps:
  • Over centuries of isolation, the Beta Israel’s oral tradition may have experienced transmission gaps, where specific details (e.g., the role of wheat as a chametz grain) were not reinforced. This is not a failure of their tradition but a natural consequence of isolation, where less relevant knowledge fades while core laws are preserved.

Final Answer: A Deeper Explanation

*Why Did the Beta Israel De-Emphasize Wheat as a *Chametz Grain?**

  1. Pre-Codification Flexibility in the Oral Tradition:
  • Before the Talmud’s codification (200–500 CE), the oral tradition from Sinai was more flexible, allowing for variations in practice across Jewish communities. The specific identification of the five chametz grains (wheat, barley, rye, oats, spelt) was a later Rabbinic clarification, not necessarily known to all tribes in the same way during the First Temple period (when the Beta Israel are said to have left Israel).
  • The Beta Israel, departing before this codification, likely knew the general prohibition of chametz (Exodus 12:15) but interpreted it in a broader sense, applying it to their local staples (teff, barley) rather than wheat. Their tradition preserved the core law but not the specific Rabbinic emphasis on wheat.
  1. Impact of Isolation:
  • The Beta Israel’s early departure from Israel (pre-Second Temple period) and subsequent isolation in Ethiopia meant they lacked access to the Rabbinic centers (e.g., Babylon, Jerusalem) where the oral law was codified into the Mishnah and Talmud. Without the Talmud, they did not have the codified list of the five chametz grains, which would have reinforced wheat’s role as a chametz grain.
  • Over centuries of isolation, their oral tradition evolved to focus on the grains most relevant to their daily life (teff, barley), de-emphasizing wheat, which was secondary in their diet. This evolution was not a “forgetting” but a natural adaptation to their context.
  1. Cultural and Environmental Adaptation:
  • *Dominance of Teff: Teff was the Beta Israel’s primary staple, deeply embedded in their diet and culture (e.g., *injera as their daily bread). Their Pesach practices naturally centered on teff, with non-fermented injera serving as their matzah equivalent. Wheat, while known, was a secondary crop, less central to their daily life and religious practices.
  • *Lack of Wheat-Based Rituals: In Rabbinic Judaism, wheat’s role as a *chametz grain was reinforced by its use in rituals (e.g., matzah for Pesach, the two loaves for Shavuot). The Beta Israel, isolated from these rituals after leaving Israel, did not have this reinforcement, and their tradition shifted to focus on teff and barley (e.g., possibly linked to the Omer tradition).
  • *Selective Preservation: Anthropologically, isolated communities prioritize the aspects of their tradition most relevant to their survival and identity. The Beta Israel preserved the core prohibition of *chametz, applying it to teff and barley, but de-emphasized wheat, which was less relevant to their context.
  1. Transmission and Evolution of the Oral Tradition:
  • The Beta Israel’s oral tradition, while meticulous in preserving core Torah laws (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws, Pesach), evolved over centuries of isolation. Without regular contact with Rabbinic authorities or other Jewish communities, specific details (e.g., wheat as a chametz grain) were not reinforced and faded from emphasis.
  • Their religious leaders (kessim) likely prioritized the laws most relevant to their community (e.g., avoiding fermented teff during Pesach), leading to the de-emphasis of wheat over time. This is not a failure of their tradition but a natural evolution in isolation.
  1. Comparative Context:
  • Other isolated Jewish communities (e.g., Yemenite Jews, Samaritans, Karaites) retained a focus on wheat for Pesach because wheat was a primary staple in their regions or they had more contact with Rabbinic tradition. The Beta Israel, in Ethiopia where teff was dominant, naturally shifted their focus to teff, reflecting their unique agricultural and cultural context.

Addressing Your Concern:

  • The Beta Israel’s lack of emphasis on wheat as a chametz grain does not mean they “forgot” the tradition from Sinai. They likely knew the general prohibition of chametz and were familiar with wheat as a crop, but their tradition evolved to focus on teff and barley, the grains most relevant to their daily life and environment.
  • The specific identification of wheat as a chametz grain was a Rabbinic clarification, codified in the Talmud, which the Beta Israel did not have access to due to their isolation. Their meticulous adherence to other Torah laws (e.g., Shabbat, kosher laws) reflects their commitment to the tradition they received, but this tradition was shaped by their context, prioritizing teff over wheat.
  • The de-emphasis of wheat is not a “strange forgotten tradition” but a natural adaptation to their isolation, environment, and cultural priorities. Their tradition preserved the core prohibition of chametz, applying it to their local staples, while the specific focus on wheat faded due to lack of reinforcement and relevance.

Conclusion:
The Beta Israel did not forget wheat as a chametz grain; they de-emphasized it due to their isolation from Rabbinic law, the dominance of teff in their diet, and the evolution of their oral tradition in Ethiopia. The specific identification of wheat as a chametz grain was a Rabbinic clarification, not necessarily known to all tribes in the same way before the Talmud’s codification. The Beta Israel’s tradition adapted to their context, focusing on teff and barley, while their meticulous adherence to other Torah laws reflects their commitment to the tradition they received, shaped by their unique circumstances.