Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Discussion: All Haredi Rabbis forbid ascent to the Temple Mount

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Some of it's members ascended to a portion of the Temple mount (a portion that was added by Herod and considered by some Religious-Zionist and Modern Orthodox rabbis to be permitted to Jews, though all Haredi rabbis and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel forbid access to it[1]).

Yossiea, I think Daniel575 is correct. Although I personally know of haredi Rabbis, one from the old Machne Yehudah yishuv in Jerusalem, another from the Old City, who privately promoted ascending to the "permitted" part of the Temple Mount. But that information that is irrelevant to wikipedia. I cannot find anyone who has declared this publicly. Maybe rather than saying "All Haredi rabbis", a more accurate wording (given what can be verified online) might be "the Haredi leadership". --Historian2 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC) I am not sure why this is mentioned here, it is mentioned in the "Haredi controversy" section where it is important to know the Haredi opinion, but not here. --Historian2 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, I just think using ALL is too risky. After all, you yourself know of some, and I'm sure others know of others. So using most is the safest method. If you want to use Yated, then we can say that Charedi leaders, but I'm not comfortable with a blanket statement that all charedi rabbis forbid it. Unless of course one believes that if a rabbi permits it, he's no longer charedi. Yossiea 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think we can all agree on using "the haredi leadership prohibits it" or something similar. Yossiea 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check out the Yated link, it says "virtually all rabbonim from all communities", which is not the same as "all hareidi rabbis". The Yated wording is slightly qualified. I think the best thing is to delete the quote. And say "a portion that was added by Herod and considered by rabbis associated with the "Temple Mount Faithful" movement to be permitted to Jews". This is probably more appropriate because it concerns the group being discussed. --Historian2 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree Yossiea 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It should say according to Yated... 203.158.57.190 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Further, Historian, one remark: there are no Haredim living in the Old City. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect and irrelevant. --Historian2 07:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

err... Daniel you are one weird person... 203.158.57.190 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest Background Section on Controversy

Wanted to add a background section explaining to an external audience why the issue of a Modern Sanhedrin is both potentially important and potentially devisive for religious Jews, and is particularly opposed by the Haredi communty. Suggest the following, beginning with this quote from Rabbi Yehudah Herzl Henkin about a different controversy in his book Teshuvot on Women's Issues

Underlying the controversy [about the issue of Talmud study by women] is Psalms 119:126, "eit la'asot laShem, it is time to act for haShem, h-f-r-u Toratecha." The Mishnah in Berakhot 54a reads h-f-r-u in two ways. If read in the past tense, heiferu, "they have violated," the verse means it is a time to act for the sake of haShem and punish those who have violated His Torah. If read as a command, however, hafeiru, "violate…!," it means that there is a time to violate His Torah in order to save it, as it were, and introduce needed changes. The Talmud employs this second sense in a number of instances: in Berakhot 54a to permit using haShem's name in everyday greetings, even though that might seem to be irreverent; in Yoma 69a to permit wearing priestly garments outside the Temple, in order to save the community; in Gittin 60a to permit writing selections from the Prophets, even though normally only complete books of the Bible may be written; and in Temurah 14a to permit transcription of the Oral Law, which had previously been forbidden. This has no direct application to our time, however, as the Sages of the Talmud had the authority to legislate changes while we do not. No rabbi or group of rabbis today, however well-meaning, is authorized to introduce permanent changes in Halakhah. [2]

Orthodox Judaism regards a legitimately constituted Sanhedrin as authorized to do precisely what (as Rabbi Henkin notes) it holds no ordinary Rabbinic body capable of doing: like the Sages of the Talmud, such a Sanhedrin would again have authority to issue legislative decrees suspending or changing Halakhah. A principle difference between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism is that Conservative Judaism began as a body largely indistinguishable from Modern Orthodox Judaism except that it regarded its rabbinical authorities as holding Sanhedrin-like powers. Many Orthodox Jews, particularly in the Haredi community, regard Conservative Judaism's subsequent history of decrees as constituting little more than capitulations to the values of secular society. Distrusting absolute power, they believe that Orthodox Judaism's respect for they regard as the halakhic difficulties in creating such an all-powerful body have been what has preserved it from what they regard as corrupting influences. They are afraid that giving a rabbinic body such powers could lead to a politicized body which might result in what they would regard as a failure of will to preserve Divine law in the face of secular pressures, and could potentially lead to the obliteration of authentic Orthodox Judaism.

On the other hand, some Modern Orthodox Jews believe that a legitimately constituted and widely recognized Sanhedrin (whether or not they believe the current attempt to be such) would provide a legitimate means to institute religious changes that some regard as necessary and overdue, and that its Rabbis could be trusted to keep their charge. --Shirahadasha 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, I don't think this captures the point.

• As far as being "particularly opposed by the Haredi community", I tried to show in this wikipedia article, there is a difference between the Haredi leadership and what is said "on the street". While the leadership has taken NO action to ban or condemn their actions (unlike say the Temple Institute), even "on the street" I would claim there is not "opposition" per se, it does not extend beyond gossip and jokes (I challenge anyone to prove me wrong).
• The halachic world is divided and there is no authority which can arbitrate on complex issues of Jewish law. This is a big problem in the halachic world. Many Haredi leaders actually want to see the re-establishment of a Sanhedrin (maybe not this one, but something like it) echoing the words of the Rambam that it is a binding obligation for every generation to set up a Sanhedrin (first) and courts of justice (second). (Anyone can see this for themselves by a simple google search on "Sanhedrin" and "halacha" ignoring the quotes from masechet Sanhedrin, see all the forums discussing this point)
• Perhaps one can classify the leadership of this Sanhedrin as largely "hardal", Hareidi-Dati Leumi, Rabbis who fall between (or within) both camps. Rabbi Steinsaltz, although controversial, identifies with the Haredi camp. It was espoused by the National Religious, but it was not a creation of their institutions. This can clearly be seen by their distancing themselves from Rabbi Maimon's attempt to turn the Israeli Chief Rabbinate into a Sanhedrin.

This "Sanhedrin" is clearly attempting to follow a path trodden by previous Rabbonim who were Haredi. The quote "Since 1948, the government of Israel has in general been a socialist, secular government that exercises civil authority in the majority of the land of Israel..." or the quote "The Sanhedrin ... will be convened to address the following questions: Is it correct to vote in the elections according to halacha (Jewish Law)", or the quote "Continued support of the Sanhedrin for the political and public institutions in the future is dependent on the actions of the elected officials to work towards the enactment of a Torah Constitution" sounds more like something Agudat Israel or Degel HaTorah might say. I am not saying the are accepted by the Haredi community, only that they are trying to behave like Haredim (Hardelim?). --Historian2 06:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

On the comment, "Sages of the Talmud, such a Sanhedrin would again have authority to issue legislative decrees suspending or changing Halakhah." according to the Haredi view -- technically speaking -- a future Sanhedrin can only clarify the law or select a minority opinion to be the halacha, they cannot "suspend or change halacha" in broad strokes. This is also the view espoused by the 'new Sanhedrin'. I brought the quote from one Modern Orthodox person who lamented that "The Arutz Sheva Sanhedrin doesn't seem interested in making any positive (i.e. innovative) changes in the state of Jewish Law" --Historian2 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian2, acknowledge lack of clarity (absence of a Beit HaMikdash etc.), and also not disputing the fact that the current group is not seeking to make changes etc. Do you disagree, however, that (1) a really determined Sanhedrin willng to push its limits could potentially make far-reaching changes (for example, by hearing witnesses claiming to have received oral traditions miMoshe miSinai and recognizing them as new Bereitot)?, and (2) a fear of such a circumstance has historically motivated opposition to Sanhedrin-like bodies? I am hoping to bring some historical context into the discussion. Also, is it worth mentioning the relationship to the controversy over Zionism and the State of Israel? --Shirahadasha 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This body claims to follow the principles of Maimonides, the Shulchan Aruch, and halachic tradition to date, so this would put limits to what a Sanhedrin can "innovate". In addition, "arbitration" between two competing traditions must be heard in full by both sides by dayanim who completely understand the subject material. This concept is nothing new, the Mishne Torah and all the Codes of Law were attempts at exactly this, choosing one ruling over several. Historically speaking, I am not aware of opposition based on fear of innovation or arbitration. IMHO, I think people might be afraid, as Daniel expressed it, that these Rabbis are "idiots and heretics" and will not behave themselves properly as required by law. --Historian2 23:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent legal rulings and opinions

I realize I've been discussing the putative Sanhedrin as a theoretical proposition (the issue of whether one should be re-established), but on reflection I agree more should be said about what the body has actually said and done in recent months. I must say, the announced "Legal Rulings and Opinions" in the last few months have said very little about halakha as traditionally understood, and a great deal about politics, lots of "rulings and opinions" about Israeli government actions and Supreme Court decisions. The present Sanhedrin advocates a program in which it would be the Israeli Supreme Court, with its view of the Torah as the new Israeli constitution and it as the arbiter of whether the Torah has been violated. (See [3] The analogy that comes to mind is Iran. This is a far cry from a body dedicated to bringing clarity and unity to traditional Jewish law and perhaps taking an occassional revote on a few Talmudic disputes of relevance to the contemporary situation. This should perhaps be mentioned, perhaps in a more neutral tone than I'm saying here. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You are saying two things. First that the "Legal Rulings and Opinions" have nothing to do with Jewish Law and everything to do with politics. Second that they want to set up a theocracy like Iran. I agree with the first part, but I think the second is "politically charged". Check out this link, they talk about being one of two houses, I am not familiar with the government of Iran, but this seems different. I can't find anything more on this anywhere online. I also think more should be said. Go ahead and make a change, but try to avoid POV or Crystal balling. --Historian2 07:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I have heard they have discused over 300 halachic issues . You can see above an ivatation to discuss the half-shekel. They wont be issueing any public halachic rulings until there is a Sanhedrin in every city. As this is required first. 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Folded back discussions

I folded the discussions back into this page because new discussions were starting here and nobody was adding to the old discussions on the subpage.

Andy, How does one delete the subpage?

BTW I particpated in this page only to reword two quotes which I thought were "potentially libelous material". I have tried my best to make this page as NPOV as possible, but I can't do it myself. Please edit, change, add references. --Historian2 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I will delete the subpage if everyone is in agreement to use this page and try not to clutter it. I just started the subpage because it was getting hard to follow what was going on with all the mini-discussions starting everywhere. I think everyone is willing to contribute - we just need to stay focused on discussing things under the proper headings and not edit-warring, since that obvious put a dent in our efforts. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Program

Replaced "goals and strategy" section, based on sources published before the Sanhedrin began meeting, with an outline of the Sanhedrin's theocratically-oriented political program based on its announcements. --Shirahadasha 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I would like to see that merged with the old information, or made a separate paragraph. The original intent of the paragraph was to explain how (strategy?) they were going to implement what Rabbi Steinsaltz said was their main goal, to gain wider acceptance. I think what you have written should be in addition to, not replace, the other goals. P.S. Do we need the full quotes, or could a summary suffice? --Historian2 07:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I folded the quotes I thought were important into the Rabbi Steinsaltz section. --Historian2 07:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How about compressing the section a bit, like this:

Torah Constitution

This agenda requires a focus on efforts to institute a theocratic or critocratic system of government in which "the authority of government depends on Jewish law", so that secular government institutions and laws would be subordinate to, and function within, Jewish law as determined by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin has declared itself to have authority to veto democratically-enacted laws which it determines are contrary to the laws of Torah. (This is analogous, for example, to the U.S. Supreme Court's ability to nullify a state law mandating segregated school systems for minorities as contrary to the Constitution). It has made this very clear in, among other pronouncements, its "Decision of the Sanhedrin concerning the State Elections". The Sanhedrin announced that it is seeking a state in which any matters contrary to what Jewish law defines are "issues that cannot be decided by vote":

Torah "Basic Law": Laws which are contrary to the laws of the Torah are not laws of the Jewish people, and therefore they are invalid. Any law which is contrary to the laws of Torah, legislated by the "Knesset" (including legislated amendments) or interpreted as such by judicial sources is a disqualified law. The authority to decide in these matters has been unconditionally expropriated by the central religious court based on the Torah (Bible) [the Sanhedrin].

In an exercise of its claim to authority over "matters concerning the Land of Israel", the Sanhendrin has issued a series of decisions declaring the Israeli pullout from Gaza invalid. In "The Sanhedrin's Declaration Concerning the Disengagement from Gaza" , the Sanhedrin prohibited Jews from cooperating with the Government, saying: "The Prime Minister's program of uprooting stands in direct contradiction to the Torah of Israel.", "the decision of this government...is null and void.", "No Jew is permitted to cooperate" and "Any Jew - including a soldier or policeman - who supports the uprooting...transgresses a large number of Torah commandments."

Agree to the summary. --Shirahadasha 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading! The Sanhedrin does not hold the treaty to be invalid. Just that no Jew can pullout... etc. The treaty is as valid as Avraham avinu's treaty. 203.158.57.190 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should also mention the Sanhedrin's expansive/expansionist views of Israeli land claims, in particular, from its declaration on the Gaza pullout:

The commandment to "inherit and dwell" (Deut. 12:29) in the Land of Israel is obligatory upon every Israeli government. In this regard Israel is commanded by G-d to conquer the entire expanse of the Land of Israel within its Biblical boundaries, including the Gaza strip.

THEREFORE: Even if (Heaven forbid) the residents are forcibly removed from their homes - when the government changes, and a government in Israel arises that conducts itself according to the Torah, the armies of Israel will return and re-conquer this strip of land, to reinstate the people of Israel to their rightful place. This applies not only to this area, but to all the expanses of the Land of Israel that were stolen and are presently in foreign hands.

We are permeated with faith in the G-d of the Legions of Israel, that the oath which He swore to our forefather Abraham at the "Covenant Between the Halves" will be fulfilled precisely as it is stated, and with G-d's help, speedily - as it is written (Gen. 15:18):

"On that day the L-rd made a covenant with Avram, saying, to your seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates river... "

All I can say is, I am reminded not only of Rabbi Akiva's advice to his son not to live in a town run by Torah Scholars, but of what happened the last time we became enthralled with messianic zealotry at the expense of any humility -- not just the destruction of the Temple but, after the Bar Kochba rebellion, the depopulation of Jerusalem, the mass killig, the end of any hope of Jewish autonomy for millenia. I think this too should go in. I am very saddended. --Shirahadasha 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should mention this, but I would be wary of "typing" the group as this or that because it is obviously undergoing change. IMHO This new "Sanhedrin" has a long way to go before it can capture the hearts and minds of the wide spectrum of Jewish people that exist today. I wouldn't call it "ultra nationalism" -- what they are saying is what most Israelis said 30 years ago, and has a firm foundation in historical Jewish literature -- but for better or worse it is not where the hearts and mind of most Jews are today, and their declarations don't appear to be succeeding to capture those hearts. They just came out with a bunch of new rulings on the Hebrew site, maybe when they are translated to English we will have more to go on. --Historian2 07:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Sanhedrin Doing Anything section -- Obsolete?

Suggest retitling and significantly rewriting the "is the Sanhedrin doing anything" section and retitling it as obsolete. Now that the Sanhedrin is publishing various announcements, pronouncements, and agenda items, it is clear that it is definitely doing something. --Shirahadasha 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the information is obsolete. But I agree the paragraph needs work. --Historian2 07:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the introductory line Is the current Sanhedrin doing anything? discussions before the discussions, what they are talking about. could be re-worded. J.christianson 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that line can be deleted, its left over from a previous version --Historian2 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is establashing minor Sanhedrin's in every city. 203.158.57.190 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Adin Steinsalz Coverage

In covering Rabbi Steinsaltz's statements about the Sanhedrin's strategy, goals, etc. I believe more we need to say more about the fact that these views now appear to be essentially dissents -- the Sanhedrin had decided otherwise and gone in a different direction. He's clearly not currently speaking for what they're actually doing, and I believe the article should indicate this more clearly. The same may be true of various other statements and publications made before the Sanhedrin began its current course of action. I acknowledge views on how a modern Sanhedrin should act are highly relevant to the article, as long as they are distinguished from statements about how this particular body is acting or will act. --Shirahadasha 16:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Its complicated, if you look at their press releases, they have statements from the full Sanhedrin, from the two subcourts, from the "leadership council" (Rabbi Stein, et al) and from the Sanhedrin spokesman (Rabbi Weiss), and these don't always agree with each other. Sometimes it says the "Court of Nation and State" is acting under the auspices of the Sanhedrin, sometimes it says it is acting independently. I'm not really sure how to make sense of it all. It is not clear that Rabbi Steinsaltz' objectives are obsolete. When he spoke in London and then in Pittsburgh this year (see globalyeshiva.org forum and the aleph website) he seemed to imply that the main goal was still to gain wider acceptance and participation by experts in Jewish law. I thought the key phrase was what they said in the last couple press releases, to "give authoritative moral guidance". Because at this point in time, if they are being prevented (delayed) from making rulings in Jewish law, there is probably not much else they can do. --Historian2 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Steinsaltz objected to the declaration opposing the Gaza pullout, adhering to his view that the Sanhedrin should stay out of politics. But clearly this view wasn't followed. I'm not sure I can swallow the idea that the "Court of Nation and State" represents a minority acting in the Sanhedrin's name without the Sanhedrin itself approving. It seems to me that if a majority of the Sanhedrin didn't approve of these policies, there wouldn't BE a "Court of Nation and State" in the first place. The very fact that the Sanhedrin established such a Court is something I don't believe could have happened without a majority vote. It's evidence that the new Sanhedrin as a whole regards the "nation and state" -- politics in the most basic sense of the word -- as its bailiwick and intends to focus on it. For this reason, I believe the evidence shows it's abandoned the Steinsaltz view that the Sanhedrin should stay out of politics. --Shirahadasha 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I believe that, as an evidentiary matter, the question of whether what Steinsaltz said represents the Sanhedrin can't be inferred from what Rabbi Steinsalz said, whether in London, Pittsburgh, or elsewhere. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I don't know. --Historian2 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Material

Just a list of a bit of obsecure stuff on the Sanhedrin.

Letter requesting to come before the Beth Din IINTV announcement (Rabbi Halberstam is shown !!!) There was one more link but I am going to hold it back till I can comfirm that it is unedited. (It claims to be an email from a member of the Sanhedrin to one of the lost tribe claimits.) 203.217.83.31 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work --Historian2 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Background on current activities

It might be worthwhile to add a section describing a basic outline of the traditional Sanhedrin powers relevant to the present effort's activities.

For example:

They may not try a Tribe, or a false prophet, or a High Priest save by the court of 71, and they may not send forth [the people] to war save by order of the court of 71. Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5, Talmud Sanhedrin 16a.

I believe this is why Sanhedrin leaders are continuing to repeat in all sincerity that the Sanhedrin isn't engaging and shouldn't engage in politics, while simultaneously declaring government military actions invalid and ordering people not to support them etc. I hypothesize that from their point of view, saying they don't engage in politics means they confine themselves to matters the Talmud assigns to the Sanhedrin. And since the Talmud assigns the war power to the Sanhedrin, the war power is not a political power and issuing orders about it is not "politics". It's a completely consistent view when one understands the context.

I think the "war power is not politics" example helps illustrate why some background information on what Jewish law says about the powers of the Sanhedrin may be useful to understanding why the current Sanhedrin is acting as it is. The Sanhedrin is using a specialized vocabulary, language whose meaning must be interpreted through a Talmudic lens and may be incomprehensible without it. If we can do so without engaging in original research, I think it might be helpful to briefly outline the powers and duties the Talmud assigns to the Sanhedrin (in the absence of a Temple), perhaps as compared to the powers it assigns to the monarchy (the realm of "politics"), since their Torah Constitution approach seems to be based on the Soloveitchik position that the Knesset steps in for the Malchut (Monarchy). I hypothesize a reader who compares the background to what the current effort is doing will find a close fit, although making such a comparison ourselves would likely be WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea and good example. Perhaps we could avoid original research by listing the role and powers of the historical Sanhedrin on the Sanhedrin page. On this page we could compare and constrast to that. The Sanhedrin page is woefully missing any substantial information. You can read the entire page and have no idea what the historical Sanhedrin did or how it worked, or what it did for three hundred years after the destruction of the Temple, or its role in the composition of the Talmuds. If I get some time, I will try and fill out that page. (By the way, on their forum at least, they quote Rabbi Soloveitchik a several times as well as other modern Rabbinic leaders. It think this is consistent with the claim that they are not an anachronism - trying to act as if the last two thousand years didn't happen - but they are very much a product and result of modern day orthodox Judaism).--Historian2 07:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Waiting to establish a Sanhedrin in every city

I think this article should be renamed to Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrinim as the plan is to have a Sanhedrin in every city. I don't think there is any plan on reviving the Great Sanhedrin till the third Bet Hamikdash is built. From what I understand the only reason why there is a Sanhedrin of 71 right now is because one is needed to be able to establish a Sanhedrin in every city. (First Mishnah in Sanhedrin). 203.158.57.190 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you make any changes to the text, please bring a source that this is what they are actually doing. You still owe a source saying that a Sanhedrin in every city a requirement, and now you owe sources that this is indeed what they are working on.

As far as "no plan on reviving the Great Sanhedrin until the third Beit Hamikdash is built" goes against everything that appears on Arutz-7 and their website.

The Rambam, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin, says that "The commandment includes the communal responsibility to appoint a duly ordained Sanhedrin [of 71]. This precedes the establishment of other courts."

--Historian2 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A Sanhedrin of 71 does not mean it is the Great Sanhedrin. The first Mishnah in Sanhedrin has the requirement that a Sanhedrin of 71 (note, not Great Sanhedrin) must set up a Sanhedrin in every city. They have very clearly called themselves a Sanhedrin of 71 and not the Great Sanhedrin. The reason why it precedes the establishment of minor Sanhedrins is because a Sanhedrin of 23 is derived and requires a bibilical Sanhedrin before it can be established. 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at the first mishnah and I don't see what you are saying. A quick search on google shows other places like here "How many regular courts should there be in Israel, and how many judges should each have? First one must set up the Supreme Court in the Temple, called the Great Sanhedrin, with seventy-one judges... and another two courts of law with twenty-three judges, ... one at the entrance to the Temple court and one at the entrance to the Temple mount; and in every city in Israel with a population of one hundred and twenty or more, a minor court (Sanhedrin Ketanah) that sits in the city gate" and here "Furthermore one seats a Great Sanhedrin of 71 in the Temple in the place called Lishkat Hagazit, and they are the High Court. And in every city that has 120 men we seat a small Sanhedrin of 23". --Historian2 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this quote it shows clearly what authority they are claiming to have.

Question: What is your opinion of the Sanhedrin and what is their halachic authority, also what is their relationship with the leading Gedolim? Shouldn’t the Gedolim be leading the Sanhedrin?

Answer: (Rabbi Yishai Babad) Since the Smicha in Elul 5764 and restuction of the Sanhedrin on 28th of Tishrei 5765, they have the halachic autority of a Beit Din Gadol which doesn’t sit in Lishkat Hagazit. That is, they can make Halachic decrees, but not punish one with capital penalty. The Din of "Lo Tasur" applies only to Sanhedrin, and not to sole Rabbanim, as great as they may be.

The Sanhedrin respects the leading Gedolim as "Mufla Bebeit Din" who guides and counsels the Sanhedrin. After the age of 70 one is disqualified from the Sanhedrin, no matter his greatness, since Sanhedrin requires judges who aren’t over age and don’t have enough mercy, then they can only be Mufla Bebeit Din. At any time a Gadol who is not yet 70 who will wish to join the Sanhedrin will receive his place, and others shall give their place up for him. Right now many Gedolim think the Sanhedrin isn’t big enough, so it may be a long process. The Sanhedrin is willing to take the guidence of the Gedolim today as well. But each Gadol is solitary, and only the power of 71 sitting together has the Sanhedrin authority. That is the power of a Halachic community, Chachamim sitting and debating Halacha, and in stead of disagreement and seperation have a vote and decree according to the larger number. Today Talmidei Chachamim who just debate Halacha, and don’t vote over opinions are not obliged to follow the larger number since a count of the opinions was not held. [4] --Historian2 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Defining what is a Great Sanhedrin and a Lesser Sanhedrin should be done on the Sanhedrin page. The introduction to "modern attempts" should introduce the reasons why revive the Sanhedrin and how it was attempted. I think the "why" and "how" summary is lost in the new wording. --Historian2 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I have not sure that we are ready to remove the {{NPOV}} tag and replace it with {{cleanup}} With the exception of the comment about Rabbi Isaac Alfasi I think most of the new information should be added to the Sanhedrin page. --Historian2 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A Sanhedrin, in the ancient Israelite society could be found in every city. Its responsiblities range from legal cases to taking care of a widows' welfare. Taditionally members of a Sanhedrin require Semicha which comes from a long chain of tradition from Moses till its dissolution under the Roman Empire in 358 CE. Since then there has been no universal authority for Judaic law, in Jewish societies. Maimonides (1135–1204) is arguably one of most widely known scholars of the middle ages, proposed a solution for achieving the goal of re-establishing Semicha. Rabbi Isaac Alfasi proposed another four possible methods of re-establishing Semicha, three of which are impossible today. Unlike the Rabbi Isaac Alfasi's proposals, Maimonides' have been accepted by other Judaic lawyers. There have been several attempts to implement Maimonides' recommendations, the latest being in modern times.

We need some sources for this "aim to establish a Sanhedrin in every city". Do you have some? --Historian2 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In October 2004, after the re-establishment of Semicha according to Maimonides proposal and Rabbi Yosef Karo's ruling, 71 rabbis from varied communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded, with the aim to establish a Sanhedrin in every city.

There is a lot of information here and here and also here. We need to remember that when the term "Sanhedrin" is used in English it generally means what the Talmud refers to as "Great Sanhedrin". In Talmudic use "Sanhedrin" without the word Great means something else. This gets confusing as many historians claim that there were two Sanhedrins, one political and one religious, however this conflicts with traditional Jewish teaching, for example the Rambam. Others claim there was a separate Sadducean and Pharisaic Sanhedrin. So we need to define our terms :- the Talmudic Great Sanhedrin, Sanhedrin as understood by the Gospels, Sanhedrin as theorized by the historians, Sanhedrin as understood by Josephus - remembering our audience is probably interested in all these --Historian2 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask the Sanhedrin forums. 203.158.57.190 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to take a random quote from what I am reading right now. Such a discussion needs to be made by the new Sanhedrin that will be created soon. [5] 203.158.57.190 14:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia polices require reliable, verifiable sources, and unfortunately these policies have some restrictions, including that a forum can't be used as a basis for a Wikipedia article. As the source you point to notes, it is represented as the opinion of a single individual and disclaims reliability as official policy. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the question to ask? I just think we need to define terms on the Sanhedrin page and take care that we understand how these terms are being used differently by different communities. --Historian2 14:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

203.158.57.190 thanks for helping out, but please note the quote Such a discussion needs to be made by the new Sanhedrin that will be created soon. is a translation of what is written in Hebrew, which is dated 18 Av, 5752 (27 July, 2002), so the reference to "soon" is relative to the year in which it was written.

Another random unrelated quote: From this point of view we are captive within a system that needs to be reexamined by a Sanhedrin that hopefully will be formed in the near future. We can expect that a Sanhedrin will be formed when the Torah observant community will unite. [6] 203.158.57.190 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one to select the right time to obtain the boundaries of Israel up to the Euphrates river [7] 203.158.57.190 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanhedrin does not see it self as the Great Sanhedrin

Please see [8].

That quote specifically says, "they have the halachic autority of a Beit Din Gadol [the Great Sanhedrin] which doesn’t sit in Lishkat Hagazit. That is, they can make Halachic decrees, but not punish one with capital penalty" They claim they are a Great Sanhedrin and can theoretically do everything thing a full Sanhedrin can do except for capital punishment. --Historian2 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They are a Sanhedrin of 71. Not the Great Sanhedrin. Basicly it is the minor Sanhedrin of Jerusalem who chose to expand itself to 71 judges. The Mishnah says this is allowed. The Talmud implies that there must be a minor Sanhedrin in every major city before scholars can judge in the Great Sanhedrin. 203.158.57.190 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, clearly you have a view that the Sanhedrin of 71 is not the same thing as a Great Sanhedrin, while others have the view that as there can be only one Sanhedrin of 71, it is always the "Great Sanhedrin" whether the Beit HaMikdash is standing or not, even though everyone agrees that it has fewer powers in the absence of the Temple. You've replied to a quote from the Sanhedrin website with your own opinion on this question which appears to be based on your own paskin directly from the Mishnah, skipping over two millenia of later commentators, many of whom disagreed with you. What evidence do you have the members of the new Sanhedrin share your view on this issue? It's worth noting that members of the new Sanhedrin often cite the Rambam on issues of the Sanhedrin's status and authority. The Rambam disagrees with you on this particular issue. --Shirahadasha 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Israel's comments

A recent profile of Steinsaltz has some interesting comments. [9]

Discussion: NPOV tag

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

I originally disputed the page based on the wording of two comments which appeared to be "potential libelous material". With compromise wording I am ok with the text. I no longer dispute the page as POV.--Historian2 07:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to removing the NPOV tag? --Historian2 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Temple Mount Faithful movement to loses interest

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

After the acceptance of the position of Nasi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz discussion on these points has greatly diminished. This has caused members of Temple Mount Faithful movement to lose interest in the new Sanhedrin.

203.166.255.47 claims this should be deleted as WP:OR, please explain. Perhaps instead of "This has caused members of Temple Mount Faithful movement to lose interest in the new Sanhedrin" a more NPOV wording could be "Since the June 9, 2005 declaration, the new Sanhedrin no longer seems to be a topic of discussion within these groups." --Historian2 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable. Please remove. Its wp:or. 203.158.46.36 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly verifiable that the new Sanhedrin was announced and followed on several "Temple Mount" related websites, and that there is NOTHING about the new Sanhedrin on those same sites after June 9, 2005. This is important because if the new Sanhedrin's was on a "messianic mission" to rebuild the Temple (as is claimed by several sources) one would expect these sources to follow the new Sanhedrin more closely. --Historian2 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would simply say that as of <date>, additional materials and discussions on the new Sanhedrin appear not to have been added to "Temple Mount" websites since <date>, and leave any speculation as to why for the reader. --Shirahadasha 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Historian2 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. According to WP:NPOV, particularly "Let the facts speak for themselves," articles should not come to conclusions about the meanings of facts. If the conclusions are so obvious, the readers will come to them unaided. If you need to guide them by adding "conclusions," chances are you are doing original research.--Meshulam 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

You now have a paragraph that says Rav Halberstam passed away in both May and April of 2006.... -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct date is Apr 27, 2006 --Historian2 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Pictures

Crazyrussian, "Fair use" does not require that a screenshot be about the TV Station, it can also be about what they show. In addition "Fair use" was added temporarily by K-UNIT, I have obtained the documentation for the release of those pictures into the public domain, I am waiting for Pedant to explain to me how to document that. --Historian2 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The pictures have been documented as public domain --Historian2 12:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rambamist article and Copyright

I just deleted the "Rambamist" article since it violates copyright laws. Please do not restore this article, as it will be deleted again.

An unsigned comment was left above: "I just deleted the "Rambamist" article since it violates copyright laws. Please do not restore this article, as it will be deleted again."

I don't understand. What's the copyright issue?--Meshulam 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User: 66.32.63.206 You have reverted the same pages 4 times in 24 hours. Any more times and I will report you. Please stop, and discuss changes here.--Meshulam 01:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)