Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 4

message: For the sake of organization (and my sanity), I have created a subpage at Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Section discussions to contain ONLY sections for discussing changes in a consistent format.  So, I have moved any such sections from this page to that one.  These sections all begin with "Discussion:section name".  As far as I can tell, we have only really come to agreement on one of them, which is the one about "Clear Haredi Opposition".  Significant work still needs to be done on the others. 
If you want to discuss a new section, please start an appropriately named heading and follow the examples already there.  There is already a heading about the "lies, total lies" segment, so discussion of that should go back there.  Daniel575, if you want to open a section about other text that you see as unverifiable, please do. 
I strongly suggest that everyone consider removing text from this article that is unverifiable by a reliable secondary source.  Otherwise, this article is useless to serious readers and researchers.  Remember, that is the goal here. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't remove anything, AG, it's fullprotected. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by "consider removing" I mean "discuss removing and then do so when consensus is reached".  But now that you mention it, I think we've had a sufficient cool-off period.  I am unprotecting, and hoping we can avoid further edit warring or 3RR issues. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have archived a little bit of text.  I recommend to archive any closed or non-active discussion and bring the "Discussion" sections back to this talk page where people can see it. I think the "Discussions" on Rabbi Ariel and Rabbi Steinsaltz are closed with the compromise text and can be removed. The page structure and defining the relationship between this group and the Haredi community is under active discussion, and could be added. --Historian2 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about some organization? 

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
However, although there is clear Haredi opposition to the new 'Sanhedrin'
I dispute the premise that there is great opposition in the Hareidi camp to the new Sanhedrin. I contend that there have been no sources to support this comment.  The only sources have been Lithuanian, which is less than 10% of the Haredi community.  These questionable sources (and one being almost 20 years old) are against two leaders on unrelated matters. Lets document what the other 90% say. --Historian2 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lithuanian is not 10% of Haredi Judaism. It is closer to 50%, probably more. Definitely not 50%. --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you discount Sefardim and underestimate Chassidim.--Historian2 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree. Looks perfectly fine to me. We have a solution!!! --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your arguments in support seemed to be much stronger than those against. That was the difficulty. --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot read the 20 pages of material I prepared and ignore that fact that throughout I have documented dissenting opinions at every stage, and that NO group is holding by it. Try reading it again, from start to finish. I said quite prominently "The organization which calls itself Sanhedrin is not recognized by any wing of Judaism." How much more explicit do you want to get? You do not need to sling dirt and bring inflammatory comments about unrelated issues, discrediting people along the way, to get your point across.  It is not academic and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This idea is not heresy and it is not new, its one of a long chain of attempts, as Rabbi Kaganoff said, even if we do not agree, even if it is folly, it should inspire us 'to daven with more kavanah when reciting the bracha Hoshiva shofteinu k’varishonah, “Return our judges like the ones we had originally,” as a result of T’ka b’shofar gadol licheiruseinu, “Blow the Great Shofar that will free us.”' . --Historian2 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I claim this that "clear Haredi opposition" is unsourced.  I would prefer the text "Haredi indifference" or the sentence deleted entirely. --Historian2 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody else seems interested in this and I don't feel strongly about it, so I am closing the issue. --Historian2 07:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Clear Haredi Opposition

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
In addition the new Sanhedrin is seen as identifying with the extreme-right factions of the National Religious movement because its leadership ascended on the Temple Mount. While there is disagreement between the some factions of the Modern Orthodox and the Haredim on this point and Maimonides himself ascended to the Temple Mount Maimonides specifically states that there are areas on the temple mount that we are permitted to enter today even when all Jews are ritually unclean. He writes that in 1165 he visited Jerusalem and went up on to the Temple Mount and prayed in the great, holy house (probably the Al-Aqsa mosque). (Sefer HaCharedim Mitzvat Tshuva Chapter 3), modern Haredi legal opinions as well as the vast majority of National-Religious authorities, including the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, do not allow this. As Yated Neeman writes, "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it." Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, Don't Be Conspicuous, by Yisroel Spiegel
 Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, What is Geulah?
I think the statement "While there is disagreement between the some factions of the Modern Orthodox and the Haredim on this point..." is not correct here.  As far as I can find sources, the "Modern Orthodox" as a group do not allow ascending to the Temple Mount. Individual Rabbis from various right wing groups support this, but not any group as a whole - as far as I can document.  In an attempt to answer Daniel575's objection to this text, I recommend the following compromise text, with two new source references: "Historically, important Rabbis like MaimonidesMaimonides specifically states that there are areas on the temple mount that we are permitted to enter today even when all Jews are ritually unclean. He writes that in 1165 he visited Jerusalem and went up on to the Temple Mount and prayed in the great, holy house (probably the Al-Aqsa mosque). (Sefer HaCharedim Mitzvat Tshuva Chapter 3) and the RadbazShaarey Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 561:1; cf. Teshuvoth Radbaz 691 ascended to the Temple Mount, and gave advice to others on how to do so, however modern Haredi legal opinionsJSPA The Temple Mount Question as well as..."
The Sanhedrin DID NOT acsend the Mount. A group of about 50 smuchim acsended the mount (most of which where not on the Sanhedrin). Most were not on the Sanhedrin and most members of the Sanhedrin opposed it rather preferring of investigating the area using modern technology. Not even the media suggested the Sanhedrin acsended to the mount. 50 smuchim != the Sanhedrin. 203.217.83.31 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Ascending the Temple Mount

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
Many members of this forum, while supporting the formation of a Sanhedrin in principle, do not recognize what is claimed to be Rabbi Yosef Karo's interpretation of Maimonides, but rather follow a more textual interpretation, insisting that the vast majority of all the scholars of the Land of Israel must be assembled at one time to reinstate the semikha, rather than contacting a few of the "main scholars" via letters as was done.
In an attempt to answer 203.217.83.31 objection to this text, I recommend the following compromise text: "rather than contacting many scholars via letters, phone and individual visits as was done." --Historian2 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Debate in the Rambamist Camp