Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 3

message: There definitely is opposition. Daniel575, it would be very helpful if you could come up with a source that represents the Haredi position using language somewhat less strong, and perhaps discussing some of the arguments supporting that position.--Shirahadasha 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unable to find such sources online. As you may know, Chareidi papers simply do not write on things which the Chareidi world does not support. An example is how not a single chareidi newspaper devoted a single article to the planned 'gay parade' which would have been held in 5 days in Jerusalem, R"L (may the Merciful One save us). Why? Because the gedolim commanded them not to devote a single letter to it. That's how chareidi newspapers work. If the chareidi world boycotts this initiative, does not support it, then the chareidi newspapers will not devote a single letter to it, positive nor negative. The closest thing which you will find are articles containing remarks about members of the 'Sanhedrin'. For example, the article which accuses Yisrael Ariel of having 'poisonous opinions', his books being 'unworthy of being purchased' and him being 'unworthy of any support for his activities'. As you can read in the second article (published on wednesday), this is the certified and confirmed opinion of the Litvishe gedolim. --Daniel575 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there has been no official response by any leading Haredi rabbi or Beis Din. --Historian2 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, Daniels complaint that the "Hariedim don't write on the internet" is also the reason I cannot give you a link to Rabbi Fischer's psak of the Eda Hareidi to show that Daniel's comment is factually wrong. --Historian2 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If Daniel would stop reading newpapers and instead learn his Rambam, he would see that the judges of the "Sanhedrin" specifically do not require individual "approval".  Once the original "Samuch" (ordained one) is selected by consensus, then he is free to pass ordination on to whom he sees fit. The Rabbis ordained by the first ordained Rabbi do not need to be "approved" in any other way.  So Daniel's comment about Rabbi Steinsalz is not only wrong, it is irrelevant. --Historian2 07:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historian2, but of course we can't present our own legal analysis from traditional sources, we have to present the analyses of the contemporary factions if we can find them. --Shirahadasha 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historian, Just your spelling of 'Eda Hareidi' shows that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. --Daniel575 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many ways to spell it, I usually cut and past.  I believe I copied that from you.  Personally I spell it Eda Charedis --Historian2 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Daniel: Stop this zealotry. This is not the way to behave. 203.217.54.74 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very funny, my name is Andrew and I can fax my passport to anyone who wants to see.  I am in touch with the webmaster and we are on good relationship, but he is not pleased that I have included so much negative material, especially the article by Rabbi Kaganoff. As I have entertained the idea of possibly publishing a book on this subject, he has provided me material and pointed out many things that I would not have otherwise known, but I only have included in the wikipage what is publicly available --Historian2 07:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documenting Opposition

message: I may be imagining things, but are we making progress toward at least agreeing on an approach to documenting this contentious issue? I see a lot of efforts underway to re-organize the page and to broaden the scope of information covered.  Originally, the site of most of the conflict seemed to be the old "Criticism" section.  Assuming the areas of content that still need to be researched and written, what sections of this article remain disputed? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I am the only one writing anything --Historian2 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Daniel appears just to be adding unsourced original research and inflammatory rhetoric, so the dispute is still in full course. --Historian2 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being totally MIA. I am sorry. I have some issues to deal with. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob, CrazyRussian.  Historian2, is it specifically the The debate stirred within the Hareidi camp section where you are disputing content?  Are there any other current sections you dispute?  I apologize if it seems like I am asking an obvious question, but it is getting exceedingly difficult for me to track the dispute with all of the reorganization and new text.  If this is the only section, I would like to start to visit it one paragraph at a time so we can agree on the text and citations.  In the mean time, please do not edit this section (I direct this request to everyone) and please hold off discussion until I start an organized discussion heading. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Historian2.  I'd like to review these again just to get them fresh in my mind, and then I will post a heading to begin reviewing the first item.  In the mean time, please remember to assume good faith in your fellow editors; it will make this whole deal a lot easier. While this is clearly a much-debated topic, I think everyone is here to make this the best article possible. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous, Historian! First off, Haredi (in general) or Lithuanian Haredi (in particular) criticism is a perfectly valid topic for the encyclopedia. If it's sourced, it's includable, much as you may not like it. Next, Yated is as prominent as news organ in the Haredi world. Its opinions, including its editorials, do represent the views of the Lithuanian Orthodox leadership, and a discussion of those is valid here as well. Finally, Daniel575 is not even Litvish! He's explicitly a follower of the Dushinsky Hasidus, and by nationality is Dutch. Your positions here are ridiculous. Superfinally, stop using Yiddish and Hebrew terms! Andy is not Jewish, and probably has no idea wtf you're talking about! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comments again, I didn't say that.  Sorry about the hebrew and yiddish. Lets take each point one at a time. --Historian2 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CrazyRussian: None of them are in reaction to the Sanhedrin. Do you want me to add every bit of insane ciriticism about your so called critic? 203.217.54.74 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi there - welcome to the discussion. I am about to start some organized sections to discuss the content in question, and I hope you will participate there.  In the mean time, would you be willing to consider creating an account and editing/posting while logged in?  It is not necessary, but definitely helpful in organizing discussion.  Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute status 

message: Against the view are such authorites as the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, who quoted Rabbi David ibn abi Zimra (Radvaz) on the subject, who in turn sided with the [{Ralbach]], who based his claims on the Ramban that it is impossible to form a Sanhedrin before Moshiach, the Jewish messiah, comes.
The before Moshiach comment is nonsense. They opposed it because Moshiach must be given semicha and they are not allowed to make it possible that this could happen before the time has come. (the time they are referring to is after an ingatherment of the exiles). I also wonder if anyone read the Chazan Ish's statements? He was talking about 1940s when the Zionists wanted to make a Sanhedrin (not based on semicha) which again was before a majority ingatherment of the exiles. Rabbi Kook also tried to establish the Sanhedrin since the 1920s but knowing what he was talking about he knew this wasn't possible till a majority ingatherment of the exiles. Instead he established Cheif Rabbinut in Israel which would work in the direction of establishing a Sanhedrin once the time has come. Every Cheif Rabbi in Israel knows this and they are supporting the establishment of the Sanhedrin because a majority ingatherment of the exiles has happen. They have said that themselves. Daniel: Go and ask them yourself. You live in Israel. 203.217.54.74 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone read Irgot HaSemicha?!?!? 

message: I moved your text from the introduction to the "forming a sanhedrin" section to keep the introduction small.
What do you mean by "A Beth Din of 71 was formed but has not taken on the responsiblity of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem as a Sanhedrin of 23 must be formed in every city first. Under Jewish law they have the status of a Sanhedrin of 71 outside of Jerusalem." I am not sure this is true. Where is this from? --Historian2 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem's job is to solve conflict in between different conflicting outcomes of minor Sanhedrins. This requires minor Sanhedrins first... I can't really think of how to put in simple words. I give you some Talmud reading... maybe you can explain it better. It might be a few days till I give it to you... so don't worry if there is a delay. 203.217.64.19 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions by [[User:203.217.54.74|203.217.54.74]]

message: I think a stronger argument, if you are trying to prove opposition by the Lithuanian Hareidi community is simply that fact that the Yated runs articles against these people. I think it would be a stretch to say that any other Hareidi community feels the same way about these two Rabbis. This leads me to the greater point of this "dispute" section.  If the Haredi community truly has such a problem with the 'Sanhedrin' then a verifiable quote shouldn't be hard to find. Bring a source. I think a more accurate statement is what I wrote originally, that the Hareidi community is generally unaware of the 'Sanhedrin' or doesn't take it seriously (laughs at it, etc). Historian2 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a quote IS very hard to find. It does not exist. As I said before, Haredi newspapers do not write on issues which conflict with their religious POV. For example, you will not find a Haredi newspaper writing negatively about 'Jews for Jesus'. I suppose according to your logic that would mean that Haredi rabbis are not opposed to Jews for Jesus? --Daniel575 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be hard to find. There are many hareidi newspapers printing comments about missionaries, websites of yad l'achim, jewsforjudaism, etc., whats your point? --Historian2 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to find. It does not exist. You will not find any Haredi newspaper writing about Jews for Jesus. Yes, they will write about unspecified missionaries, about Yad l'Achim, about Jews for Judaism. But they will not write about Jews for Jesus. Your conclusion: Haredim are not opposed to Jews for Jesus? --Daniel575 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok find a quote about some unspecified group of Rabbis trying to reinstitute semicha and create a Sanhedrin. That would be fine.--Historian2 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/ mentions "Jews for J." in over five articles. --Historian2 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two articles here. Quite surprising. I will continue looking, but don't expect any results. This whole 'Sanhedrin' thing is just a total non-issue in the Haredi world. Nobody gives a youknowwhat, understand? People simply don't care. This is how the average Haredi person or rabbi feels about it: 'It has no authority, has no influence, was set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.' --Daniel575 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, this is something, about the principle at least: see here. Scroll to the section that begins with 'Incidentally'. --Daniel575 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And another. See the section called 'Uprooting from the Source'. --Daniel575 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, the "Sanhedrin" plan of Rabbi Maimon in 1949 was clearly opposed by the Brisker. These sources might be good for the text that appears "When Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon in 1949 tried to form a Sanhedrin out of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, leading rabbis of the Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition in a number of declarations", but have nothing to do with the current attempt. --Historian2 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about Daniel's text above, I find it much more accurate "This whole 'Sanhedrin' thing is just a total non-issue in the Haredi world. Nobody gives a youknowwhat, understand? People simply don't care. This is how the average Haredi person or rabbi feels about it: 'It has no authority, has no influence, was set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.'". IMHO "not caring" is very different from "great opposition". If we could just rid of POV, it might be a good text. :-)  --Historian2 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding sources 

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
The above attempts to indicates the sharp divide between the ideology held by the some of members of the Sanhedrin initiative as opposed to the ideology of the Haredi world. The quotes indicate how strong the opposition held by the Lithuanian world against two particular members of the 'Sanhedrin'. There has been no indication that this 'Sanhedrin', as an institution, will ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace.
What is the purpose of the statement "Litvishe world will NEVER support that Sanhedrin"? or the milder one that concludes the section we are discussing "this 'Sanhedrin', as an institution, will [n]ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace." Crystal ball predictions are not appropriate for an encyclopedia --Historian2 07:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Such things cannot be explained to anyone who is not a Haredi Jew and not at all familiar with the Haredi world. The Litvishe world WILL NOT EVER support that Sanhedrin. That's a plain fact. --Daniel575 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Historian. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is orignal research. The very fact Litvishe Rabbis here support the Sanhedrin proves Daniel wrong. 203.217.54.74 06:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, and which Litvishe rabbis are those? Most be R' Avraham Shapiro? You're talking about Litvishe rabbis who ignore and don't care about the words of the Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv? And who still identify as Litvish Haredi? --Daniel575 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Litvish Rabbis I talked to said very clearly the Chazan Ish was referring to Zionist starting a Sanhedrin in 48. They take this as a totally different case. 124.168.3.10 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This text should be deleted. The whole text is unsourced and the last sentence predicts the future. --Historian2 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Crystal ball predictions