Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 1

message: Ok what should be done to get consensus before the page is unprotected and more nonsense gets added?
Daniel575 your comments boil down to this:
# Hareidim are vocal in their opposition to this "Sanhedrin"
# The Chazan Ish said we couldn't have a "Sanhedrin" until Moshiach comes
# Rabbi X is not fit to sit on the "Sanhedrin" because he his evil
# Rabbi Y is not fit to sit on the "Sanhedrin" because his books are poison
All because the Yated said so.  (I can quote you what the Yated has said about Rav Landau as well)
Lets start with the first point.  Can you document to ANY ruling against this "Sanhedrin" by Hareidim?  
I tried to capsulize the attitude of the Gedolim in this statement that I placed on Semicha.
It has since been watered down.
:The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to political climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by various religious communities as actions against their interests. The Sanhedrin is seen as one of several attempts to form an alternative (in this case religious) leadership in Israel. However, though criticism from leading Rabbis is lacking, public support for it is equally lacking, so it remains unlikely that this particular attempt will gain acceptance within the Jewish community.
What do you think? Historian2 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July Edit War - a Proposal 

message: IIRC, Kook's dream was to re-establish the Sanhedrin in his time but was not able to. His establishment of Rabbinut was meant to be a step towards the Sanhedrin. Since his death many believe Rabbinut has become just a sockpuppet of the Israeli Government or at least is controlled by some extent by the Israeli Government. Does anyone know where the source for this is? -- 203.217.35.51
Source for what? BTW It is interesting that Rabbi Kook chose to create the Rabbinut with exactly 71 rabbis. Historian2 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Isaac Kook's dream 

message: The Semicha article also to some degree duplicates the content, and also contains some very one-sided material:
:The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to moral climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by communities around the world both Jewish and Gentile. --Shirahadasha 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semicha Article 

message: Hi everyone! CrazyRussian asked me to come in and review the recent conflict regarding the modern Sanhedrin, and see if we can hammer out a consensus that everyone can agree with.  First and foremost, let me state clearly that I am totally uninvolved and completely unbiased.  Additionally, all I know about the subject is what I have just read in the article and its relevent related topics.  I appreciate the participation and support of interested editors.
After reviewing the Talk page and history of the article, I think it is important to get one huge item out of the way first: the question of whether the article text on the modern Sanhedrin should be moved to a new article.  After that is determined, we can focus on getting the text to a place where everyone can agree it is neutral and verifiable.
In thinking about this, I ask each editor to consider: Is the modern iteration of the Sanhedrin significantly similar to the ancient Sanhedrin, in both theory and practice? If your answer is "no", I suggest that moving the text to a new article may be appropriate.  Please indicate below whether you support or oppose moving to a new article, with a bullet, the word support or oppose, any comments, and your signature.  Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus discussion 

message: All right, one hurdle out of the way.  That was the easy part.  I suggest at this time that we take the discussion to the new article Talk page, and as Shirahadasha suggested, try to flesh it out a little bit with a standard lead paragraph and links back to the old article.  I am leaving for the evening, and I will leave you with two suggestions:
* Agree not to edit-war the criticism section until we have time to discuss it.
* Begin a discussion about the name of the new article. If you agree with the current name, fine.  If not, please propose an alternative.  The goal should be neutral and informative.
Thanks and have a good night. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved