Entangled Stories: The Red Jews in Premodern Yiddish and German Apocalyptic Lore

“Far, far away from our areas, somewhere beyond the Mountains of Darkness, on the other side of the Sambatyon River…there lives a nation known as the Red Jews.” The Red Jews are best known from classic Yiddish writing, most notably from Mendele's Kitser masoes Binyomin hashlishi (The Brief Travels of Benjamin the Third). This novel, first published in 1878, represents the initial appearance of the Red Jews in modern Yiddish literature. This comical travelogue describes the adventures of Benjamin, who sets off in search of the legendary Red Jews. But who are these Red Jews or, in Yiddish, di royte yidelekh? The term denotes the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, the ten tribes that in biblical times had composed the Northern Kingdom of Israel until they were exiled by the Assyrians in the eighth century BCE. Over time, the myth of their return emerged, and they were said to live in an uncharted location beyond the mysterious Sambatyon River, where they would remain until the Messiah's arrival at the end of time, when they would rejoin the rest of the Jewish people. This article is part of a broader study of the Red Jews in Jewish popular culture from the Middle Ages through modernity. It is partially based on a chapter from my book, Umstrittene Erlöser: Politik, Ideologie und jüdisch-christlicher Messianismus in Deutschland, 1500–1600 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). Several postdoctoral fellowships have generously supported my research on the Red Jews: a Dr. Meyer-Struckmann-Fellowship of the German Academic Foundation, a Harry Starr Fellowship in Judaica/Alan M. Stroock Fellowship for Advanced Research in Judaica at Harvard University, a research fellowship from the Heinrich Hertz-Foundation, and a YIVO Dina Abramowicz Emerging Scholar Fellowship. I thank the organizers of and participants in the colloquia and conferences where I have presented this material in various forms as well as the editors and anonymous reviewers of AJS Review for their valuable comments and suggestions. I am especially grateful to Jeremy Dauber and Elisheva Carlebach of the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies at Columbia University, where I was a Visiting Scholar in the fall of 2009, for their generous encouragement to write this article. Sue Oren considerably improved my English. The style employed for Romanization of Yiddish follows YIVO's transliteration standards. Unless otherwise noted, translations from the Yiddish, Hebrew, German, and Latin are my own. Quotations from the Bible follow the JPS translation, and those from the Babylonian Talmud are according to the Hebrew-English edition of the Soncino Talmud by Isidore Epstein

Rivalry, antagonism and war in the nation- and state-building process: the H factor in the relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia

The tragic outbreak of violence between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1998 and the subsequent dramatic conflict that has locked the two states until 2000, and still hoover over the economic and social development of the Horn of Africa, has taken political analysts, specialists of the region and the media aback. Therefore the most recurrent words used to explain those feelings have been shock, dismay, delusion betrayal etc. However, this highly unexpected and to a certain extent surprising development has not generated a similarly strong desire for a deep understanding of its generating factor. On the opposite the media and to a certain extent even many political analysts have often opted for a rather superficial explanation dismissing this conflict with few contemptuous statements focusing on the personal rivalry between the leaders of the two nations or on the allegedly proactive and over-assertive policy of the young Eritrean state. These kind of judgements could be best epitomised by the catching image of \u201ctwo bald men fighting over a comb\u201d used by the Financial Times to describe the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia.1 In the intentions of the journalist this statement emphasised the futility of the conflict and, indirectly pointed out at the destitute economy of both countries. It is no coincidence that both Eritrea's and Ethiopia's leaders reacted angrily at this definition and called for a more complex and analytical understanding of the conflict, though offering different and, predictably contrasting interpretations. Without undermining the relevance of contemporary political issues the recent conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia ought to be analysed also through different lenses and to this analysis chronological depths is a key prerequisite. It is my strong belief that historians can provide additional elements for an understanding of this conflict by locating it within the perspective of the long dur\ue9e of historical developments. To this end it is crucial to address issues such as land, regional systems of power, the impact of colonialism, the formation and role of political elites and the paths toward state and nation-building. It is only within this specific, yet very complex framework, that historians can contribute in shedding some light on this complex and painful event. To a deeper and satisfactory understanding of the specific and immediate causes of the conflict the access to official and private documents remain a prerequisite which, unfortunately, will be possible to satisfy only after many years. My paper is an attempt to contribute toward this analysis from a historical perspective. I will argue that, though the 1998 \u2013 2000 conflict bears elements of specificity related to contemporary regional and international politics, important elements of understanding can be retrieved through a broader retrospective gaze focusing on the way historical elements of rivalry and antagonism have sedimented through time shaping the nature of relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The main point that I will try to make is that those elements of rivalry and even antagonism should not be interpreted in mechanist terms as necessary causes for the recent conflict but rather as successive layers of tension and uneasiness that within given geopolitical balances (or unbalances) of powers could also represent the platform for conflicting relations