Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Introduction and Background 2 Busy bees 3 Sections needing discussion according to Historian2 4 Criticism discussion 5 This article is currently under construction 6 Objection to Rabbi Steinsalz 6.1 Litvish Rabbis 7 Taking AMA advice 8 Discussion: Comments of Rabbi Shach 9 Discussion: Comments about Rabbi Ariel 10 Sandbox for proposed compromise text 10.1 The debate stirred within the Haredi camp 10.2 Comments on changes 11 Dispute status 12 Ordering of Sections 13 August Edit War

Introduction and Background

Suggest an introduction briefly summarizing what's happening, and a background section discussing the (old) Sanhedrin and linking to Sanhedrin for more info. I'll try to do this later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Shirahadasha 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, does this rule have any meaning?

3RR Rules: Reverting potentially libelous material. All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including the associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not.

What is Daniel575 adding his text now for? The text was supposed to be protected until we reached consensus and he has used the renaming as a pretense to add potentially libelous material. If this is the way things work around here, I am not going to spend day and night working on this.

I request a revert and page protect on both Sanhedrin and Modern Attempts wikipages --Historian2 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets start with Rav Shach's saying that Rabbi Steinsaltz was guided by the evil inclination. First of all that quote is old 1989, twelve years before Rav Shach passed away, and does not reflect events that followed and Rav Shach's final opinion. Second, the context of Rav Shach's complaint was R Steinsaltz and changing the structure of the traditional Talmud study page. R Steinsaltz acceded to the demands by Rav Shach, wrote an apology, amended the page format in later editions, ceased future publication, as well as other changes. (Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2005) Thirdly, Rav Shach does not speak for all Hareidim He represented the Litvish, who are perhaps 10% of all hareidim.. There were no non-Litvish Gedolim who joined Rav Shach in his condemnation of Rabbi Steinsaltz, and Rabbi Steinsaltz was enthusiastically supported by the Chabad Chassidim - who are by all counts hareidim. In fact much of the animosity between Rav Shach and Rabbi Steinsaltz was attributed to Rav Shach's vocal criticism of Chabad Chassidus. Rav Shach comments about Rabbi Steinsaltz' "evil inclination" must be understood within the context that he also made statements that led many to believe that he considered the Rabbi M. Schneerson (the "Rebbe" of the Chabad Lubavitch movement) to be a "heretic". So in summary, Daniel's comments - without context - amount to slander of a living individual. Similar comments can be said about Daniel575's other statements. --Historian2 10:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the standard definition of Haredim or Charedi Judaism is Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, which doesn't just mean Litvish - though they might think so. By most definitions, it includes the broad range of Chassidic, non-Chassidic and Sefardic Jews who are strict in their performance of halachah and reliance on Rabbinic authorities. --Historian2 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian, several things I would like to point out to you. One; Rov Shach never criticised chabad chassidus or even The Rebbe. two; Rov Stiensaltz has been shunned from Chabad. three; Rov Shach only criticised Rov stiensaltz because of what he did with the talmud, and the fact he actually as he was a starter of the Modern Sanhedrin, Which, by most litvoks and even Chossidim, is no valid. Shaul avrom

In my opinion, classifying the modern "Sanhedrin" as a Ultra-Orthodox, National Religious venture or anything else, should be based on their approach to Rabbinic authorities. Whether they prefer traditional or modern authorities, and of course their relationship to "nationalism", i.e. the State of Israel. --Historian2 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Busy bees

Okay, I have written a simple lead paragraph for this article. Edit at will. I think it provides an accurate overview of what is currently in the article. I have also removed the text from Sanhedrin that we moved here, and left a blurb behind.

Again, I will request that we agree to stop editing the article page until consensus is reached. If we must, we will turn the article into a stub and just add text sentence by sentence as we agree on it.

Can everyone involved please list here, with one bullet, what sections they believe need discussion? Title? Lead paragraph? "Attempts to re-establish the Sanhedrin in Israel"? "Criticism"? No need to list individual paragraphs. For now please just list sections; there will be ample opportunity to discuss everything in due time. We will discuss things in one place for clarity, which will be the Talk page section I will start after we determine what article sections need discussion. Thanks, --Aguerriero (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have listed my points for almost a week now on Daniel575's talk page, the Sanhedrin Talk page, my own Talk page and this Talk page. And nobody seems to be paying any attention. In spite of your request and sysop AmiDaniel's request not to edit the page until we have consensus, Daniel575 continues to bully his text online. I have yet to see how wikipedia manages to be anything other than the webpage of the bully. If that is so, I want no part of it. Daniel575 can spread his slander and misinformation, and it is on his head. --Historian2 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read your points. What I am requesting now is a concise list of sections we must go over as a group. If you are willing to give me a chance to help get this to a good place, I'm willing to help. If you're not, then there isn't much I can do. The ball is in your and Daniel575's court. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections needing discussion according to Historian2

I really don't understand how this system works, but I'll give it a shot.

IMHO, we need to discuss these points

1. Pro and against Rambam's semicha by consensus
2. A brief summary of the last six attempts to create a Sanhedrin
3. A closer look at the attempt by Rabbi Beirav, and the involvement of the Beis Yosef, which was the model for the current attempt
4. The election process itself, and selection of Rav Halberstam
5. The formation of a place holder Sanhedrin by Rabbi Levanoni and the debate it stirred (many pro Sanhedrin supporters began to fall away)
6. The "Temple Mount Faithful" early days of the "Sanhedrin"
7. The acceptance of office of Nasi by Rabbi Steinsalz and the complete change in direction (Sanhedrin on ice)
8. The strategy and goals of the current "Sanhedrin" as they have said to "provide a transition from current halachic leadership to a full Sanhedrin"
9. Is the current "Sanhedrin" doing anything? (discussions before the discussions, what are they talking about)
10. The debate stirred within the National Religious camp
11. The debate stirred within the Rambamist camp
12. The debate stirred within the Kahanist camp
13. The debate stirred within the "Temple Mount Faithful" camp
14. The debate stirred within the Hareidi camp
15. Other effects and comments by Conservative, Reform and unaffiliated Jews
16. The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics

There is a lot of debate going on because all these camps are split in varying degrees for and against a "potential Sanhedrin", and see different things in it. There is a fair amount of information available on all these points, and any decent encyclopedia article worth its salt should at least attempt to address these points. But then again, I am looking at it from a "historical" viewpoint without any particular viewpoint to push. --Historian2 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks for taking the time to compile this work list. It is a great place to begin some serious work on this article. If I may, however, can I ask how much of this relates to the most contested section, which is "Criticism"? I think it might be in our best interests to address that section first. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What Daniel575 has written relates to #14. However, I contest his comments because they are not factually accurate. He portrays as if Rabbi Steinsalz has been ostracized by the Hareidi community. I claim that Rabbi Fischer of the Eda Hareidi of Jerusalem reviewed this incident and declared R Steinsalz had corrected any needed issues. I claim that any lingering slander is due to litvish-chabad tensions. The Rabbi in question bent over backwards to "clear his name", and to present it as if it is still open is just plain mean. In other words he is propagating slander, and it shouldn't be in wikipedia. I also claim that this single event, even if factual, does not sufficiently support his claim that the Hareidim vocally oppose this "Sanhedrin" --Historian2 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position. I would like you to consider a question though: how does your view of Daniel575's text change when you look at it through the lens of verifiability, rather than truth or accuracy? Consider the difference in concepts. Focusing on verifiability will make it much easier to assess what belongs in this article and what doesn't. Make sense? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism discussion

Let's dive right into this one. First question: does everyone agree that including a section titled "Criticism" in this article is encyclopedic, disregarding the content of the section for now? Assume that the finished section will be neutral and verifiable. Please answer concisely and we will move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. --Shirahadasha 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, on condition that it is balanced by equivalent pros and cons, and an attempt is made for fairly represent each position --Historian2 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Off to a good start. We really need to get Daniel575's signoff and comments before we go too much further, since he has been a major contributor to the section in question. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Dan got engaged yesterday. He's uh... preoccupied - in a good way. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • B"H yes. Also a lot of other things. Haven't been doing much more than keeping track of my watchlist over the past few days. I'm back again, more or less. Made some great improvements to this article about 7 hours ago. --Daniel575 07:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently under construction

This means that the author is "constructing" the article in several edits. Please do not delete. I see that Daniel575 placed a {{construction}} wiki token, perhaps as if people should hold off editing until I am finished. But that gives me far to much credit. Besides the fact that Daniel said "I don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about", and I have less than zero time to work on this, and it is not my area of expertice - I can't do this by myself. It is only a passing interest and if Daniel hadn't gotten me upset, I wouldn't have written anything. Feel free to dive in and edit, as Daniel said "its not my page". --Historian2 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Objection to Rabbi Steinsalz

So you agree with me, at least on one point, your sources only reflect Litvish opinion so you have no basis to say that there is general Hareidi opposition to Rabbi Steisalz.

And you did not respond to my comments that Rabbi Fischer of Eda Hareidi declared that the issue was resolved.

And you did not respond to what everyone knows is that this comes within the context of Chabad-Litvish tensions which have no place within an encyclopedia article. If this comment goes in here, then we should add to the wiki article Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson, Rav Shach's comments that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was a heretic, or other comments that Yated has published about Chabad. By the way, why should these comments be here and not mentioned anywhere in the Adin_Steinsaltz article itself? None of this belongs in an encyclopedia.

This is pure reputation smearing, even (and especially) if the Yated prints it. --Historian2 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. You KEEP missing the point even after I explained it multiple times. I am going to try ONE MORE TIME and that's it.

The remarks about Steinsaltz are very relevant. They are not posted as libel or defamation - they are posted in order to show what the Litvishe gedolim think about the members of the organization which calls itself 'Sanhedrin'. Same thing for the remarks about Yisrael Ariel. I don't care whether these things are true or not: this is what the Litvishe gedolim said, and that makes it relevant. You claim that the Haredi world supports this 'Sanhedrin', and to make it seem that way, you try to delete all references which indicate that the Haredi does not and will not ever support this 'Sanhedrin'. How likely do you estimate it that these gedolim will support an initiative of which the Chazon Ish concluded that it is totally impossible, and the members of which are "under the influence of the yetzer hora" and have "poisonous opinions"? --Daniel575 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU keep missing the point. You have brought no support that Hareidim Gedolim are against the nascent Sanhedrin. You have brought unqualified slander by one LITVISH newspaper against a CHABAD Rabbi. This is not the same. I do not claim that the Haredim support the "Sanhedrin", but I stand by that the Gedolim have also not opposed it. The Chazon Ish's comments referred to an entirely case - and I left those comments.

But this is all BESIDE THE POINT, comments like "under the influence of the yetzer hora" and have "poisonous opinions" do not belong in an encyclopedia. And I contend they are factually erroneous and do not reflect Rav Shach's final opinion about Rabbi Steinsalz. I stand by my comments that the Beis din of Eda Hareidi declared any issue with Rabbi Steinsalz resolved.

The fact that this kind of dirt can be placed on the encyclopedia without any course of appeal or correct, disgusts me. I do not like the wiki system and I do not have time for it. You have won Daniel575, its on your head. --Historian2 10:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't wikipedia rules require that "potential slanderous material" be removed, at least to the talk page? (emphasis on the word "potentially". I am specifically referring to the comment about Rabbi Shach against Rabbi Steinsalz which I claim is outdated. --Historian2 07:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could a potential solution to allegations of libel be to remove direct quotes from the article itself, and instead summerize that the remarks are in strong opposition? Additionally, if there is a contention that the remarks are erroneous, can we find a reliable source to back that up? --Aguerriero (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a step in the right direction. If I could prove that the rabbinical court of Jerusalem declared the issue to be resolved, I would prefer to see the whole issue eliminated from the wikipage. I am not saying there is no Haredi opposition "on the street" so to speak to this 'Sanhedrin', and I am not saying that Litvish Jews don't like Chabad in general and they don't like Rabbi Steinsaltz in particular. I would claim that this kind of information doesn't belong in any encyclopedia and is not directly relevant to the 'Sanhedrin', but somehow it keeps reappear there. In any event, I have reworked the "opposition" page by doing what I didn't want to do concerning Rabbi Steinsaltz, I included "both sides of the story". Now that 24 hours has past without edit, do I take that as an indication we might actually be moving forward in this? --Historian2 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

Please think about three questions in this discussion:

• Do the disputed remarks state an opinion or do they state that someone has a certain opinion? The diffence is subtle - but the former is not allowed on Wikipedia, the latter is allowed.
• Is the source given reliable? Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You will find that reliability is a subjective term, but guidelines are given for published sources.
• Can the article benefit from representing many facets of the debate over this criticism?

Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge the source states someone has an opinion and that opinion can be reliably sourced. The issue in dispute is really the third point. I believe the article would benefit primarily from focusing on the substantive arguments each side is making, not giving undue attention to the insults some people are trading at each other. It may be useful to point out that the issue has aroused such strong feeling as to cause some people to engage in insults, but nonetheless this is a debate about a religiou/political/legal issue, and each side's substantive position on that discussion should be represented. If we showcase one side's name calling perhaps we should showcase other side's. There were insults traded over many important disputes, for example the adoption of the American Constitution, but it is not normal for encyclopedia articles about these topics to emphasize these sorts of barbs. Same here. --Shirahadasha 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources state that the opinion of Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi Michel Yehudah Lefkovits, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, is that Yisrael Ariel, one of the founders and members of the 'Sanhedrin', has - once again - 'poisonous opinions', 'is unworthy of any support for his activities', and 'his books are unworthy of being purchased'. Yes, that's strong language. SO WHAT? Some books accuse -lehavdil- Adolf Hitler of having committed genocide. I suppose that's strong language. We should certainly not write that Adolf Hitler is guilty of genocide - we should at most write that he murdered multiple people. Otherwise we are only placing insults which might hurt other people's feelings. Get it? This whole thing is ridiculous. Because the Litvishe world has a VERY strong opinion against Yisrael Ariel, this opinion should therefore be censored? What idiocy is this! --Daniel575 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The litvish are perhaps 10% of hareidim, so they don't speak for all of them. And I am referring specifically to Rabbi Steinzalz. It is one thing to have a strong opinion. It is another to be factually incorrect. This was NOT the final opinion of Rabbi Shach. --Historian2 08:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shavua Tov, Daniel575, and hoping you had a tzom kal. Perhaps I can explain our difficulty. Saying "Hitler committed genocide" identifies something specific Hitler did, a specific reason to disapprove of him. But saying "Hitler was evil" or "Hitler was under the influence of the Yetzer Harah" or "Hitler's ideas are poisonous" doesn't explain what is that Hitler did or why it is that people find it wrong. Perhaps we could resolve this by presenting a summary of this source. Would you be OK if we noted that these rabbis have declared their opposition to the modern Sanhedrin concept, and the approach Steinsaltz et. al have used, in very strong terms? Would this be a reasonable summary of this source if one summarized it? --Shirahadasha 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Litvish Rabbis

The Litvish Rabbis where I live oppose the cherem made by other "Litvish Rabbis" working for artscroll on the Steinsaltz shas (note: no one placed a cherem on him or even opposed him as a person) and have made their opinion very clearly by placing a cherem on following any cherem made by those "Litvish Rabbis." The funny thing is a few years later artscroll published their translation to Hebrew... should we place a cherem on artscroll? No because that is not how Jews should behave. 203.217.54.74 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking AMA advice

Following 3RR rules i reverted Daniel's text, and Daniel's friend CrazyRussian blocked me. Following AMA advice, I did remove potentially slanderous material to the talk page, and Daniel575 put it back. Then I added the NPOV marker as the AMA suggested and he removed it. Is this how things work at wiki? --Historian2 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also blocked because of our edit war, just like you. You did not remove "potentially slanderous material" - you removed all of my additions in order to make it seem like there is almost no opposition to this 'Sanhedrin'. The NPOV marker is totally ridiculous. If you want an NPOV marker, I propose one for the whole page, to be placed at the top of the page. --Daniel575 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Comments of Rabbi Shach

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Rabbi Elazar Shach, the primary leader of the Lithuanian Jewish world until his passing in 2001, referred to Steinsaltz in 1989 (although not by name and on an unrelated matter) as "one who has been inspired by the evil inclination (yetzer hora)". (Letter dated Erev Shabbos Kodesh Pinchos 5749, Michtovim Umaamorim vol. IV.) Within this context, the books of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the current president of the 'Sanhedrin', were declared to be unfit for the Haredi public to read because of doubtful material contained in them. ([1]) Although it is disputed whether Rabbi Elazar Shach really opposed Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his final days, as it is claimed that Rabbi Steinsalz met with the rabbinical court in Jerusalem (Edah HaChareidis) making required changes and thereby resolving the issue, it is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz untraditional and 'university oriented' approach was at odds with the Haredi approach.

In particular dispute is the quote in which Rabbi Shach asserts thaat Rabbi Steinsaltz has been inspired by "evil". Is it the context of the quote disputed (in other words, a question of who Rabbi Shach was referring to), or whether the quote is even properly attributed to Rabbi Shach? I would also like to know what citation exists for this statement, as the only footnote in this passage refers to an article that does not seem to contain that quote. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is definitely inflammatory, though definitely in style for Rabbi Shach, who was not known for mincing words. In the spirit of BLP, I suggest our mediator remove it ASAP pending a bulletproof source. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, nevermind, I supplied a source from the collection of R' Shach's writings. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, strictly as a quote, I am satisfied now that both alternatives (matter settled, matter not settled) are presented, provided the text remains like this.
• Secondly, I dispute whether this belongs in the encyclopedia, in that it is defamatory and I claim it doesn't really support the point of the paragraph. As I said above, it would be like writing and article to explaining the workings of the the United States Senate, by showing that Sen. Kennedy was involved in unrelated lawsuits.

I don't see how it supports the conclusion of the paragraph. Proving that one Leader of a group about 10% of the Hareidi community has problems with 2 members of a court of 71 judges in unrelated issues, is not the same as saying the whole Hareidi community opposes the court itself and certainly doesn't prove that "Haredi ideology is opposed to the ideology of the 'Sanhedrin'" --Historian2 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rabbi Shach was ridiculously influential with the Haredi Lithuanians. If his opinion of Rabbi Steinsaltz was that he was motivated by less than holiness, than that certainly casts a pall on the Sanhedrin which R' S. chairs, n'est-ce pas? - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. see comment above --Historian2 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're splitting hair. Statement was made. It may be more properly make in the Adin Steinsaltz article and only referenced here, but it's eligible for inclusion into Wikipedia. This is not a court, and prejudicial things are OK. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though you can easily verify that Eda HaChareidis issued a statement of Rabbi Steinstaltz and there is reason to believe that may have been cleared up, you insist on spreading potentially libelous material. In my opinion this is not the correct thing to do and I appeal to your conscience to not do it. This point aside, as far as wikipedia is concerned it must be necessary for the article. You haven't convinced me that it is necessary. --Historian2 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What you said above fits squarely under WP:NPA. Here on Wikipedia the tradition is to discount the opinions of those who buttress their substantive statements with ad hominem attacks. As an professor, you really ought to know that already - it shouldn't take a 25 year old law student to set you straight on this basic issue! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is what I have been fighting with Historian over for a week already. If Rabbi Shach said that this guy is influenced by the yetzer hora, and this guy is the chairman of that 'Sanhedrin', that is VERY relevant, because it means that the Litvishe world (who really see Rabbi Shach, even after his death, almost like a prophet) will NEVER support that Sanhedrin. Some people just cannot be convinced to open their eyes. --Daniel575 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, this guy is an immensely respected Rabbi in many Orthodox circles (not ours) and it doesn't help your argument to put him down in this discussion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Le sigh, as Pepe Le Pew would say. Historian2, we could honestly do without that sort of remark. I do understand your frustrations, but if no one was interested in discussion or compromise, no one would be posting here. So, can we start with that as a baseline? Accusations of slander or libel (especially containing personal attacks) are not helping us agree on a version of text. As such, I'm giving you a voluntary homework assignment: Can you write a version of this paragraph that expresses the sentiment as its authors intend, but is less inflammatory? --Aguerriero (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't mean it as an attack. I have rephrased the point above.

Wait a second, lets get back to basics. This whole discussion began because I claimed that Daniels comments fell under wikipedia's definition of "potentially libelous material", i.e. slander. If a newspaper prints an old quote from a respected leader out of context, without mentioning that the issue has been resolved. That is clearly called slander in legal terms, and could be taken to court. If someone repeats that material on wikipedia, then it is clearly "spreading potentially libelous material". For me to say that I think this is what he is doing is not a personal attack. --Historian2 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that this comment was made in 1989 and arguably may have been resolved before the present controversy. It is at least arguable the comment isn't relevant to the revived-Sanhedrin controversy. At least, its relevance isn't a slam dunk. It may be an unconnected private dispute. --Shirahadasha 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To revisit this, is anyone willing to propose a rewritten version? I think that is necessary to work toward compromise. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The reason I have been asking for a proposed version is that is makes it WAY easier to work and agree on in one central place, rather than continuously reverting each other. If I rewrite the section, are you willing to consider my changes? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - absolutely. I have offered a couple of rewrites of some of the other disputed issues, but I have been unable to find anything short of the original wording that Daniel575 will agree to. --Historian2 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Comments about Rabbi Ariel

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

The newspaper Yated Neeman, which is the official newspaper of the leaders of the Lithuanian ('Litvish') faction of Haredi Judaism and portrays their opinions, in July 2006 published an article strongly attacking Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of the Temple Institute (Machon HaMikdash). While the article does not explicitly forbid buying the books he wrote on behalf of the Machon HaMikdash, it refers to them as 'unworthy of being purchased' and refers to the content of the books as 'poisonous.'

Rabbi Ariel's website prominently features a picture of "The Admor of Machnubka receives Temple Institute Founder Rabbi Yisrael Ariel". So I guess he forgot to read the Yated. --Historian2 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, here is HaRav Ovadia Yossef and his official letter of approval. He forgot to read the Yated. --Historian2 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, guess HaRav Harashi Yona Metzger doesn't read the Yated either. --Historian2 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, what about Pictured above, (from the top, clockwise):HaRav hamekubbal, David Batsri, blowing on a silver trumpet, Rishon Letziyon Bakshi-Doron, with Rav Ariel, the Admor of Sedigora at the Institute Exhibit, the Bostonner Rebbe holding the Mizrak, Rishon Letziyon Mordechai Eliyahu, receiving Machzor Shavuot from Rav Ariel, Rishon Letziyon Mordechai Eliyahu on a Temple Institute fact-finding mission about the red heifer, Rav Schwartz speaking at the Institute annual conference, Chief rabbi Avraham Shapira scrutinizing an Institute display. From the center, clockwise: Rishon Letziyon Mordechai Eliyahu examining an Institute publication, the Admor of Sedigora, Chief rabbi of Haifa, She'ar Yishuv HaCohen at the Institute annual conference. I wonder who reads the Yated? --Historian2 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Andy, and anyone else, these are a few of some of the most prominent Hareidi Rabbis in Israel visiting Rabbi Ariel and looking at his "poison", err - I mean book. I think the Yated newspaper quote is inflammatory, minor, not required for the text (it could be replaced with a simple statement "The Lithuanian Hareidi Yated newspaper has run several articles condemning Rabbi Ariel and his 'Temple Institute'." leaving the footnotes). --Historian2 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone find Historian2's rewrite acceptable? --Aguerriero (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do. (I do wish he were less bitter/sarcastic. It's tiring to get through all the acrimony.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Better version of same thing: "Yated Neeman, the official newspaper of the Lithuanian Haredi leadership, has run several articles critical of Rabbi Ariel and the 'Temple Institute'." - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not better. The articles are not merely 'critical', they are much more than that. Doing away with the content by merely calling it 'criticism' makes it sounds much less harsh than the language the article really uses. Quoting the exact phrases of him and his institute being unworthy of any support, their books being unworthy of being purchased and he himself having poisonous opinions shows the depth and severity of the 'criticism' better than anything else. --Daniel575 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, are you will to agree to the version first proposed by Historian2? Condemnation is a pretty strong term - does it accurately reflect the opinion expressed? CrazyRussian may also agree to that version. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. It is like saying "McCarthy was critical of Communism." or "Adolf Hitler disliked Jews". Such statements do not do justice to the strength, the severity of the opinion held by the person in question. I see it as an attempt to make the criticism look less severe than it actually is. --Daniel575 05:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, I think everyone respects your right to disagree with the changes, but what is 10 times more useful is a proposed revision for everyone to chew on. We won't get very far if you are not willing to compromise.--Aguerriero (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, why did you remove my material? You deleted my text but kept the reference?, "It appears however that the other Haredi communities (Sefardic, Chassidic, etc) do not share these views http://www.templeinstitute.org/rabbanim.htm The Temple Institute: The Rabbinical Guests." You POV actions are unproductive. --Historian2 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox for proposed compromise text

Here is a proposed text, no damaged reputations, no slurs, but gets the point across --Historian2 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate stirred within the Haredi camp

Haredi Leadership

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. The Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish and the Lubavitcher Rebbe were some of more vocal opponents of that initiative. Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, (Chazon Ish) quotes the Radvaz that no one is fit to renew the Sanhedrin. He concluded that any discussion of the topic in this "orphaned generation" is ludicrous. ^{[1] [2]}

However, although there is clear Haredi opposition to the new 'Sanhedrin', unlike the case of Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon's attempt, there has been no official response by any Haredi leader or Jewish Court (Beis Din) about this 'Sanhedrin'. The 'Sanhedrin' itself claims that current attempt is very different than the previous attempt and leading sages like Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, who passed away in May 2006, have expressed support for, and consented to, the renewal of Semicha. To date, none of these Rabbis have commented on these claims. It has been met, in public at least, by silence. the new Sanhedrin itself and its supporters claim that it proves there is quiet support. The Haredi community however interprets this to mean that the new Sanhedrin is is simply another fringe group not worthy of comment, or even a fabrication. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, an associate of Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, denied that Rabbi Halberstam had ever supported the Sanhedrin or had anything to do with it.

Haredi Community & Media

The lack of response by the leadership has given pause, but has generally reinforced the feeling in the Haredi world that the 'Sanhedrin' is a complete non-issue, and is generally ignored by the Haredi press. It is considered a fringe group and is considered unrelated to the Haredi community in any way. People simply do not care even to debate the issue. 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' rabbis who do not belong to any group, and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.'".

The members of the new Sanhedrin are not considered as belonging to the Haredi community. The Lithuanian Haredi Yated newspaper, which expresses the official opinion of the Lithuanian Haredi rabbinical establishment, has run several articles condemning Rabbi Yisrael Ariel and his 'Temple Institute' using the expression "poisonous opinions". ^{[3] [4]} Although it appears however that this feeling is not shared by all the Haredi communities.^[5] The Yated also run has recently run articles condemning Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz referring to strongly worded comments made by Rabbi Elazar Shach in 1989. ^{[6] [7]}. It is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz untraditional and 'university oriented' approach was at odds with the Haredi approach. While not all leading members [2] have not generated such controversy, and some like Rabbi Yoel Schwartz and Rabbi Michael Shlomo Bar-Ron are generally recognized as scholars within the Haredi community, they are generally unknown figures.

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 ^[8], 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." ^{[9] [10]}

Conclusion

Although the new Sanhedrin claims that it is in touch and even coordinating with some Haredi leaders, no basis to support these claims can be found. The overriding response to the new Sanhedrin by the Haredi community has been driven by the the fact that leadership of the new Sanhedrin is unknown or controversial, and the decisions of the new Sanhedrin are perceived as identifying with the extreme wings of the National Religious community. The Haredi community tends to simply ignore the new Sanhedrin or ridicule it.

Comments on changes

I made some changes, removed a few links, clarified some issues. --Daniel575 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Amongst others, the vast majority of national-religious rabbis also forbid going on the Temple Mount. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate is the supreme halachic source for the main national-religious community, and they forbade it. --Daniel575 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• I removed a reference which was a forum topic, since this is in my eyes not a significant reference. Anyone can start a forum topic. That's not a source. --Daniel575 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Concerning: "Although it appears however that this feeling is not shared by all the Haredi communities." I removed the claim that some Haredi groups would disagree with the harsh comments by / on behalf of Rabbi Karelitz and Rabbi Eliashiv (as published in the Yated). The reason is that the visits by these leaders, such as the Rebbe/Admor of Machnovka (not Machnubka, that's a wrong transliteration), the Bostoner Rebbe and the Rebbe/Admor of Sadigura were made before the whole storm involving Rav Eliashiv and Rav Karelitz erupted. I do not believe that now that Rav Eliashiv and Rav Karelitz have denounced Ariel and the Temple Institute in such clear words, these rabbis would go there again. You can claim that the Sefardim might still support the Temple Institute. For example Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav David Batsri, Rav Bakshi-Doron, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (him for sure). Also about those affiliated with the Chief Rabbinate, such as Rav Yona Metzger and Rav Shear Yashuv Kohen you could say so. However, after Rabbi Ariel severely insulted Rav Eliashiv and the whole court case with Rav Karelitz, there is not a chance that the Rebbes of Boston, Machnovka and Sadigura would still support Rabbi Ariel and his institute. You can say that they supported Rabbi Ariel and the institute in the past. You cannot claim their visits in the past as evidence that they would support him now, after the things which have just happened. And that is what you keep claiming. I would propose that about the Sefardi response to the Sanhedrin you write a new section, like we have a section on the 'National-Religious', 'Haredi', 'Rambamist', 'Temple Mount Faithful' etc. Avoiding OR will be very difficult in such a section, though. One final comment is that claiming that 'Hassidic Jews' (generalized) support the Temple Institute because of the visits by these three Rebbes is nonsense, since these three Rebbes are relatively unimportant figures in the Haredi world. Machnovka is a very small 'sect', Boston is not so big and important either, and Sadigura is of moderate size. Now if you would have the Rebbes of Belz or Satmar visit the Temple Institute, you might be able to claim more - though even that cannot lead to any conclusions about 'Hassidic Jews' in general. --Daniel575 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I intended for you to make changes to my version so that I can use wikipedia's "diff" to track changes. I think I follow all the changes and with some small changes, I will not dispute it. --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• change from "there is no basis to support these claims" to "no basis to support these claims can be found" --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from Rabbi Ulman has got to be reduced or eliminated. It is not relevant, the wikipage and its source material say that Rabbi Halberstam endorsed and accepted the reinstitution of Semicha, it does NOT say he supported the new Sanhedrin, so Rabbi Ulman's comment is not only unverifiable it is irrelevant . --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is most definitely relevant. The source material for your claims about Rabbi Halberstam are unreliable. Everything I know indicates that it is a lie, a total and plain lie. There is nothing wrong with noting this. The page says that Rabbi Halberstam was himself involved with this 'Sanhedrin' in becoming its first 'samuch' etc. That does mean that he supported the 'Sanhedrin'. Which is contradictory to everything I know. Thus, this matter needs further attention: did Rabbi Halberstam have anything to with this 'Sanhedrin', yes or no? You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Your source: the 'Sanhedrin' website and other news sources which all base their information on the 'Sanhedrin'. My source: a close associate and personal friend of Rabbi Halberstam. I have not been editing out your version, please do not edit out my version either. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it in for now, but I strongly disagree and think this is invalid and inappropriate. Continue discussion above in its section.

• I want to see the comment about disagreement concerning Rabbi Ariel back in, you can clearly see that Rabbi Ovadia wrote a letter of approbation AFTER the lithuanian declaration, and Rabbi Ovadia leads a Hareidi community probably as larger if not larger than the Lithuanians. --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, you can put the part about Rabbi Ovadia back in. I totally disagree about what you say: there is no way on earth the Sefardi Haredi community is bigger than the Litvish community. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you count only people learning full time you are right, but if you count baalei batim (Haredi does mean ultra-orthodox and not just learners), the haredim of Rav Ovadia are as big if not bigger than Lithuanian. But that is not important to this discussion. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why do you say that a post the Sanhedrin's offical forum, made by the 'Sanhedrin's Webmaster' is an invalid source for what the Sanhedrin claims? --Historian2 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not the 'Sanhedrin's' website - it belongs to the 'Friends of the Sanhedrin' which aims to provide accurate information about the 'Sanhedrin'. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. By the same argument I can delete your comment that Yated claims to represent the Lithuanian leadership. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Quick question, why is Rabbi Ulman's supposed statement still in the entry? If it hasn't been published by now, it should remain out of the entry as it is not verified. If Daniel575 claims that Rabbi Ulman really holds what he says he holds, there ought to be some sort of statement given the fact that there was plenty of time to have something written up, until then I don't think we can leave that in. I know Daniel has a POV to push, but we have to try to get past our personal bias and publish only what is verifiable.Yossiea 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So how about you start verifying Rabbi Halberstam, Rabbi Eliashiv, Rabbi Yosef's support for the 'Sanhedrin'? From neutral sources, ie, not from the 'Sanhedrin' website or from news sources whose only source is the 'Sanhedrin' itself (like newspaper articles, whose writes just copied whatever they got from there). If you delete Rabbi Ulman's statement, I am unfortunately forced to delete all references to any support for the 'Sanhedrin' by the above-mentioned rabbonim. Alternatively we just leave it the way it is, if you don't mind. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If something is in the newspaper, then it's Wikiable. If someone spoke to you and you're posting what he said, that's not by any stretch of logic acceptable in an encyclopedia entry. Quit trying to push your POV, if R' Ulman really made his statement, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a newspaper who quotes him. I'm sure the Yaated or Hamodia would be thrilled to quote him. If you don't remove his statements, and your threatening to remove valid sourced data, I will possibly go to Arbcon.Yossiea 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, an extreme right-wing religious-zionist newspaper is a very reliable source when it comes to extreme anti-zionist rabbonim, isn't it? Please act normal and constructive. I am not deleting this remark. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You're in violation of Wikirules. Either pony up the source or quit whining when someone calls you on it. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability there has to be a verified source, not that it's the truth. So the claim made in all the papers is not up to us to determine if it's true or not, but it is verifiable. That is wiki policy, if you don't like it, take it up with the Wiki admins. Yossiea 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute status

We have agreed to make changes in the "sandbox" above and not on the main page. These are my disputes with the wikipage as of today. Daniel may have his own disputes. --Historian2 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I dispute the comments by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman that Rabbi Levanoni is "lying"

Daniel, In spite of these disputes, I want to copy to your latest revision above into the main wiki page, and we will continue discuss these points here in the talk page. Do you agree? --Historian2 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Daniel575 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks fine now. Just two more things: you can put the thing about Rav Ovadia Yosef back in, and I still want to see the section about the Haredi response moved up, to above the 'Temple Mount Faithful' and 'Rambamist' responses, since those groups are so tiny that they are barely worth mentioning at all. I will move it up - if you disagree, discuss. --Daniel575 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about section ordering. Go ahead and move it. --Historian2 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Daniel: Please control yourself. Don't be offensive. 203.217.83.31 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of Sections

Next, the position of the section on Haredi criticism. The Haredi world numbers about 500,000 persons in Israel alone. The 'Rambamist' world numbers at most a few thousand, as does the 'Temple Mount Faithful' movement. That is why I moved the 'Haredi' section upwards, to directly below the 'National-Religious' section. I do not understand why you reverted this. --Daniel575 09:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The intention was to list from the most positive to most negative, but I did not revert the text for that reason, rather because you were begining to add NPOV-section tags to every section --Historian2 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Why not the other way around? I would think that listing them in order of size is the most sensible thing to do. In fact, the Haredi camp is bigger than the National-Religieus: 20% of Israel identify as 'religious', while 12% identify as Haredi. Only 8% identify as National-Religious. But since this 'Sanhedrin' is primarily a National-Religious undertaking, I don't mind putting the 'Haredi' section second. But putting it almost last, prior only to 'Reform/Conservative' responses and after the 'Rambamist' and 'Temple Mount Faithful' responses, seems very weird. The Haredi response is MOST definitely more important than those two. --Daniel575 10:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am open suggestions. What order do you propose? Does everyone reading this talk page agree? --Historian2 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel575 that the Hareidi deserves higher priority than the "Rambamists" simply because they are greater in number and represent the most extreme view against these people. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How about ordering them chronologically according to the dates of the references? I like this method for oft-disputed topics, because it automatically dismisses anyone's claims to POV. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just been following this page's history and I think Andy's suggestion a good one. In the lack of a Solomon to order cutting the baby, that seems a good plan to me. -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 11:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally intended to rank from most positive to most negative because it gives some logical flow in reading. Daniel wanted to press his point and rank by size of community. Andy's suggestion is good, however each communities opinions are not based on a single event, so there is no real "date" that can be used to rank them. I didn't have a strong opinion, so it stands as Daniel requested. --Historian2 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My order is simply the most relevant due to the fact that 12% of Israeli citizens identify as 'Haredi', which means a total of more than 600,000 people. The 'Rambamist' camp counts perhaps 1000, the 'Temple Mount Faithful' perhaps 2000. Including their views first would be like placing a remark by the leadership of the Republican Party of the US and having as the first comment not the response by the Democratic Party, but the reponse by the 'Party For A Green Bumfuck, Ohio'. Hope that's clear. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

August Edit War

What is this??????? I am now removing this from the article??? In a private phone call to wikipedian User:Daniel575, an associate of Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, denied that Rabbi Halberstam had ever supported the Sanhedrin or had anything to do with it, and called the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' "lies, total lies". WHAT do you think you are doing??? This is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not your personal playground! Please keep things serious or go back to preschool if you can't! --Daniel575 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And he just added it for the second time. STOP THIS. What kind of *CENSOR* nonsense is this? If you cannot behave as an adult, please leave. Stop adding this sort of weird nonsense. What you are doing now is plain vandalism. --Daniel575 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And the third time. This is plain and clear vandalism. I am not accepting this. --Daniel575 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed your NPOV tag at the section about 'the Haredi camp'. The whole article has an NPOV-tag, so there is no need for another NPOV tag there. If you add one there, I will add one to every other section of the article. That doesn't seem necessary, since there is already one at the top. So please do not re-add it. --Daniel575 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one threatening to delete the text, add NPOV-tags over text you have not even discussed, and remove it from the section we ARE discussion. You add a private phone calls as source material? It would behoove us all if you would act in a more professional manner. --Historian2 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

None of your text has been deleted. ALL OF IT is still there, INCLUDING things that are seriously disputed. We are supposed to be discussion on this talk page. Why do you repeatedly delete my text? --Historian2 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving this to Agueirro. A plain look in the history of the page will prove that you are hallucinating. Have fun for the rest of the day, and please leave the page as it was. So will I. --Daniel575 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for page protect, please edit the talk page instead. It would be much more beneficial if you could discuss things here on the talk page.

• You add a very strongly worded comment based on a private phone call which I suggested a compromise wording. When you deleted my text and reinserted your text, I objected to as original research. You then threatened above to delete all the text.
• In an attempt at compromise I added a qualifier that the source was a phone call, which you deleted several times.
• When I marked the section NPOV-section, you threated to add NPOV-section everywhere, and then began to do so to sections that have never been discussed here.
• In addition you delete my text and add incorrect statements saying Rabbi Ovadia (former Chief Rabbi of Israel) was a minor figure and say (incorrectly) that my source predates yours. When you look at the dates in the pictures I provided you clearly see that you are not correct.

It would be ever so much nicer if you could discuss things rationally and cooly and stop making threats. --Historian2 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not from a private phone call. Rav Ulman is my personal rabbi and I meet him daily and speak to him extensively every shabbat. I don't know where you got the 'phone call' thing from. --Daniel575 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In the talk page of Sanhedrin you said you were going to call him. Perhaps a more accurate documentation of the source would be a "private meeting between a Wikipedian and Rabbi Ulman", or we can simply call it original research -- which is what it is -- and remove it from the page. Before you threaten to delete "90% of what I have written as original research", prove that it is. --Historian2 10:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR, it's a verification of a fact, and the fact was not not only not verified by the party involved, it was rejected as true, therefore it is not true. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)