Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 5

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
Some of it's members ascended to a portion of the Temple mountArutz-7: Members of Reestablished Sanhedrin Ascend 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).
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)
replies: text: I would think we can all agree on using "the haredi leadership prohibits it" or something similar. Yossiea 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree Yossiea 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I rephrased it. Further, Historian, one remark: there are no Haredim living in the Old City. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect and irrelevant. --Historian2 07:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: err... Daniel you are one weird person... 203.158.57.190 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: All Haredi Rabbis forbid ascent to the Temple Mount 

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest Background Section on Controversy 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent legal rulings and opinions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Folded back discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think the information is obsolete.  But I agree the paragraph needs work. --Historian2 07:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think that line can be deleted, its left over from a previous version --Historian2 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Sanhedrin Doing Anything section -- Obsolete? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps, I don't know. --Historian2 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbi Adin Steinsalz Coverage 

message: 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)
replies: text: Great work --Historian2 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Background on current activities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  203.158.57.190 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Please see .
: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)
thread_title: Sanhedrin does not see it self as the Great Sanhedrin

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

message: 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. These events were followed TempleMount.org: Recent Developments in the News and announced The Temple Institute: The Sanhedrin's Decision Regarding the Holy Temple, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem, but nothing is found on related websites after June 9, 2005.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed --Historian2 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion: Temple Mount Faithful movement to loses interest 

message: :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)
replies: text: The correct date is Apr 27, 2006 --Historian2 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Date

message: 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)
replies: text: The pictures have been documented as public domain --Historian2 12:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Pictures

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rambamist article and Copyright