A prominent Ethiopian-Israeli rabbi, Sharon Shalom recently opened a center for the study of Ethiopian Jewry at Ono Academic College, just outside Tel Aviv. In an interview with Sephardi Ideas Monthly, he discusses the failures of prior academic studies of his community and his commitment to preserving the unique halakhic and theological traditions of his ancestors even as Ethiopian Jews become more integrated into Israeli society:

The Ethiopian tradition deserves to be seriously studied. The deeper dimensions of this tradition, such as the belief that human beings are, at bottom, good . . . are very important and relevant for our time. [The new center is], accordingly, establishing a beit midrash [a traditional house of learning] for Ethiopian religious leaders, known as kessim, to study in depth the Ethiopian tradition. The kessim will study the Ethiopian oral Torah—[which] is still to a great degree oral—using tools from within the Ethiopian tradition to determine contemporary Ethiopian halakhic responses that will be relevant for all of Israel. . . .

There are parallels between the Ethiopian approach and ḥasidic teachings, which, for instance, the kessim-to-be will study. They will also study different approaches and schools within the Jewish tradition, and they’ll finish with a degree. But the message coming from these walls will be for all of Israel. . . . .

[In the academic study of Ethiopian Judaism], race enters the picture. From our perspective, skin color is not identity. In Ethiopia, skin color wasn’t a concern for us. The academic discourse attempts to explain the Ethiopian world, but not to understand it. The moment you put skin color in the center you are still wrestling with the fact that there are black Jews. . . . The academic community has contributed to understanding Ethiopian Jewish history and culture, and contributed some very serious scholarship. But the time has come—and I say it to myself as well—to understand Ethiopian Jewish tradition as it understands itself. And then to see what it can contribute to Israel.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.