Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Among the reasons that this topic may be considered controversial is the lack of source material for the most recent attempt and the difficulty in supporting statements about it. Specific reasons for controversy have to do claims of following or not following Jewish law and procedure, political affiliations of its members or comments they may have made, labeling the group by politically charged terminology, and the changing and dynamic nature of the group itself. The casual editor should be warned that small changes made in this article, innocently stated, may fuel a sensitive debate.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents 1 Introduction and Background 2 Proposed Changes to Text 3 History of Disputes 4 Restoring version of Prayers 5 Reform and other Liberal Attitudes 6 Title Paragraph 7 Authority of Sanhedrin 8 The Sanhedrin's recent actions 9 Conflicts with Israeli government 10 Partisan website? 10.1 The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics

[edit] Introduction and Background

Gentlemen, we need to get a couple things out here if we are going to continue this in a civilized manner. I request that each of you sign below this text that you agree to the following statements. I consider these to be essential and mandatory to our progress here:

• Anything you add to this article has to be verifiable through reliable sources. Adding unverifiable text to this article is useless to serious readers.
• Adding and removing text from this article to make a point is plain disruptive, and likewise useless.
• Protecting pages harms the encyclopedia when it can be prevented through thoughtful discourse - that's what we're supposed to be doing here.
• We are not going to edit disputed sections of the article until we agree on wording here on the talk page.

I'll be the first one to agree. :)

• --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• --Historian2 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I'll be the second
• -- — Rickyrab | Talk 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) I, who am coming in from the wild, I, who happen to be Reform and think this Sanhedrin is, pardon my French, bullshit, shall be the third, as I believe that honorable editing is a Wikimitzvah.

[edit] Proposed Changes to Text

For the sake of organization, this page is divided into two sections. The top section is to to contain ONLY sections for discussing changes in the text in a consistent format. "Discussion:section name". If you want to discuss a new section, please start an appropriately named heading and follow the examples already there. Please archive the discussion when it is closed.

[edit] History of Disputes

• The text concerning Rabbi Shach about Rabbi Steinsaltz (the nasi, or president, of the New Sanhedrin) as "evil" (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text concerning Litvish opposition to Rabbi Steinsaltz is held by all groups of Hareidim (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text concerning concerning Rabbi Ariel's books being "poison" (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text concerning Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron being respected only by minor and controversial groups (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text concerning personal comments by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman that Rabbi Levanoni is "lying"(CLOSED, not in text)
• The text concerning "will ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace." (CLOSED still in text)
• The text concerning Yated Newspaper in it's opeds is the official mouthpiece of the leadership of the Litvish leadership. (CLOSED still in text)
• The text concerning "there is clear opposition in the Hareidi camp to the new Sanhedrin" (CLOSED, no interest, still in text)
• The text saying the Sanhedrin ascended the Temple Mouint (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text "a few of the "main scholars"" (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text labeling the new 'Sanhedrin' as a National Religious institution, leading to discussion of definition of what is National Religious, Haredi, Hardal, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, etc. (CLOSED, not in text)
• The text "All Haredi Rabbis forbid ascent to the Temple Mount" (CLOSED by compromise text)
• The text "Waiting to establish a Sanhedrin in every city" (CLOSED as unsupported, not in text)
• The text "Sanhedrin does not see it self as the Great Sanhedrin" (CLOSED as unsupported, not in text)
• The text "Temple Mount Faithful movement to loses interest" (CLOSED by compromise text)
• General comment, no specific text, Daniel1575 disputes entire article as POV (CLOSED)
• The paragraph "The debate stirred within the Haredi camp" (CLOSED, need to fold in text from talk page)
• Deleting 'Rambamist' section (DISPUTED as OR, CLOSED need to fold in sources from talk page)
• The debate stirred within the Haredi camp (CLOSED, probably POV, but no interest to change)
• Deleting 'Rambamist' section, (CLOSED by compromise text "Yemenite Opinion")
• General Change Proposed, delete claims to "Sanhedrin", (CLOSED, change would be POV)

[edit] Restoring version of Prayers

I haven't had time to look into this, but there is else something going on in terms of trying to come up with a new formula for prayers. See here. Its not actually being done by the new Sanhedrin, but by Rav David Bar Hayim "in cooperation with the nascent Sanhedrin". I wish there were 25 hours in a day. --Historian2 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC

What is the Sanhedrin going to do next, publish an Orthodox Gates of Prayer? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reform and other Liberal Attitudes

Reading the articles right now = the first I even heard of this New Sanhedrin. I wonder if most Reform and Conservative Jews have even heard of it, especially on my side of the Pond (America). Has anyone from the frei camps had opinions on this, or is this practically an entirely frum debate? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It consists entirely of Orthodox rabbis. Adin Steinzaltz, its Nasi, is a well-known figure outside the Orthodox world, I doubt anyone else would be well-known. There have been people with Modern Orthodox etc. leanings who have proposed a revived Sanhedrin in the past as a way to permit clarifying interpretations and limited halachic change in a fashion that would be generally acceptable. There was a great diversity of views expressed in the Talmud, and many issues of contemporary interest had minortiy as well as majority views. A Sanhedrin, while not having the power to make up its own views, would have the power to revote and turn a former minority opinion into the new majority. Even this would likely be of little interest in the Reform and most of the Conservative worlds. However, the current body appears not to be composed of people interested in revisiting such questions. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The nascient Sanhedrin has indeed asserted a power to change Jewish law, a power that might be thought welcome from a liberal perspective. But I think these three documents are likely to provide a flavor for how the actual nascient Sanhedrin (as opposed to a theoretical concept of one) is likely to be regarded by Jews from the more liberal denominations: [1], [2], [3]. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'authority' it claims rests with medieval scholars and the Shulchan Aruch so I would be surprized if it were otherwise. On the one hand its agenda includes several "towards unity and healing among the various divisions of the people of Israel". On the other hand it is clear that it wants to do this 'healing' from a strictly orthodox POV. --Historian2 10:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title Paragraph

This article's title paragraph needs to be summarized. It is simply not enciclopedic to have such a long opening paragraph. Chavatshimshon 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Many wikipedia articles are this long, it is essentially a subheading of Sanhedrin. Do you have a suggestion? --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authority of Sanhedrin

We had discussed earlier whether and to what extent a revised Sanhedrin would have the power to change Jewish law. The current Sanhedrin has declared itself to have such a power, stating that "The Sanhedrin has the authority, in certain cases, to rule differently than is currently in Jewish law." Given that it has expressly taken upon itself the war power of a sovereign traditional Sanhedrin, any doubts as to whether it thinks itself as really a Sanhedrin or not should be laid to rest. One may agree or disagree with its POV, but it is not waiting for every city to have a lesser Sanhedrin, or for any of the other events that have been proposed, before assuming to itself an authority that only a Great Sanhedrin can have. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sanhedrin's recent actions

The original text was "Recent military operations have come under scrutiny by the new Sanhedrin (generally for being too dovish)", now it says "Its opinions, in the exercise of this claim to authority, have been quite hawkish". The former was an attempt to describe its actions relative to the Sanhedrin's point of view. The latter sound like a judgment. Perhaps we can come up with a better description? --Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts with Israeli government

Added section given recent Isreali government actions in response to the group's calls on soldiers and policemen to disobey orders etc. --Shirahadasha 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That may happen in the future, but this particular arrest was a little different. An IDF officer had issued restraining orders to someone living in the West Bank from entering the West Bank (ostensively to prevent trouble). This settler appealed to the Sanhedrin as a court. The court requested the IDF officer to appear before them and explain his actions. But the officer refused to appear before the Sanhedrin. So, as is customary in these situations, the officer was placed in a mild form of "cherem" where a letter was sent to his synagogue requesting that he not be honored with be called to the reading of the Torah. This letter was considered incitement by the israel government and they summoned Rabbi Ariel for questioning. He agreed to questioning, but not at the police station. After several summons, the police came and "escorted" him to the station for questioning, although it was not really an arrest. Go figure. [4][5][6] Although the reaction of the new Sanhedrin was defiant.[7]--Historian2 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Will move this to "The Sanhedrin's recent actions" section --Historian2 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan website?

"The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics - Can't use a partisan website to make a claim about notability or claim a statement as a fact)" I seem to be missing something here, the quote said the 'Sanhedrin' formed a 'high council', so I brought a link from the 'high council's website itself. There could just as well be a link to A7 or to Vendyl Jones' website. What is a partisan website in this context? I recommend a revert. Is there any reason to doubt they made such a council with the people involved? --Historian2 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Vendyl Jones is the "best-known" individual is a notability claim, and a notability claim can't be based on a partisan website. A claim about how well-known an individual is has to be based on a third-party source. I reworded the paragraph to erase just this one point, I didn't delete the whole thing. It can be put back in if there's a reliable third-party source for it. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I had never heard about Vendyl Jones until this event. The claim that that Vendyl Jones is the "best-known" individualthis is directly from the wording of Arutz-7: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/96347 --Historian2 07:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics

"Christian apocalyptic and eschatalogical claims about the End Times, the Last Judgment, and the End of the World, have inspired a wide a range of conspiracy theories..."

Please explain why the above (final) paragraph is here? It has absolutley NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (Sanhedrin). It is used without footnotes or citations as well. Dump the final paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mg196 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

A google search on "noahide sanhedrin antichrist" yields about 27,200 results.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html http://www.revisionisthistory.org http://www.stormfront.org http://www.samliquidation.com/noahidenews495.htm http://jesus-messiah.com/html/noahide.html http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2234 http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/syn.html http://www.talmudlies.com/ http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/noachide.htm http://www.watch.pair.com/law.html http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/newlaw.htm and thousands more.

IMHO This is a significant reaction to the attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin. It is definitely relevant. How would you word a paragraph describing this kind of reaction without promoting fringe websites. --Historian2 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Google searches do not in any way replace research. The final paragraph does not even reference the Sanhedrin. Several of the websites' TITLES that Historian2 quoted are outright racist and shouldn't be considered evidence of anything other than that racism exists. Stormfront.org is a Neo-Nazi site for cryin' out loud! So now Wiki accepts Neo-Nazi propaganda as references? The bottom line is that the final paragraph makes outrageous claims without ANY citations or references to ANY legitimate source. --mg196 11:26, 20 March 2007

Hal Lindsey is a source respected by many people, and has written a book about this. Here is a reference www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42898. The final paragraph does reference the Sanhedrin.

The point of the paragraph is that some people see the new Sanhedrin as a sign of the end of the world. No one denies that these are outrageous claims. The use of the title "Sanhedrin" by this group invites all sorts of religious connotations and historical, prophetic and end-times associations, and IMHO that is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article about this "Sanhedrin".

Sites like these are sources quoted by wiki. Stormfront even has its own wikipedia entry. Please look at Conspiracy theories and the discussion on the talk page and the talk pages of the conspiracies referenced. See the sources they quote there. Conspiracy theories are usually, by their nature, not from legitimate sources.

But I am open to suggestions. I would like to invite other wikipedians to comment. Do you agree that this final paragraph is relevant and/or necessary to the article?

I agree --Historian2 08:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)