Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

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)

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)

Name Change

Before this wiki page gets linked to too many pages, can I request consensus on changing the name from "Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin" to "Modern attempt to revive the Sanhedrin" (no 's) thus limiting discussion to the most recent attempt? Do people agree to this name change? --Historian2 11:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I would prefer to see all modern attempts moved here, everything of R' Beirav down, as irrelevant to the original institution that lapsed over 2000 years ago. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1648 years ago :-) --Historian2 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanhedrin proper surely lapsed with the Churban of 70CE, if not earlier. All the 3rd century stuff was no longer the real thing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The Sanhedrin proper lasted at least until 358 CE when Hillel II, at the perhaps last clandestine meeting of the Sanhedrin, received approval for his calendar - which has such authority that it is halachicly binding for all Jews today. There were many attempts to re-establish the Sanhedrin after that: under Julian, 480s, 525s, 600s, 800s, after the crusades, not to mention 1538, 1830, 1901, 1940 and now 2004 (forgetting Napolean). [This is important because it proves by the way that the Sanhedrin does not need the Temple to be in existence for it to be binding]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian2 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Crzrussian. --Daniel575 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin article states that there have been multiple attempts; at the very least we have the Napoleonic attempt and then the current attempt. There seem to be two things at play here - whether to use the term "modern" and whether to recognize multiple attempts. Toward this end, please consider:

• Are you comfortable with using the term "modern" in this context, and
• Do sufficient verifiable citations exist in the article text to support multiple attempts?

If yes to both, we can move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"modern" certainly doesn't apply from a string of attempts from the 5th century until today. Speaking strictly in terms of logistics, if the discussion of the most recent attempt exceeds say 2000 words, it will be unwieldy to include other attempts. The Sanhedrin page was repeatedly criticized for being too long. I recommend we keep the word "modern" and concentrate only on the most recent attempt. Although I get the feeling that anything I recommend will face an uphill climb to be accepted. Some of the people discussing this page seem to have strong POV. I feel outnumbered, any other historians out there? --Historian2 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm unable to move on very much since I just got engaged and am planning a LOT of things right now, on top of which we have a 25-hour day of fasting and prayer (Tisha b'Av) starting in an hour from now. I'm sorry for not being able to contribute very much right now. Probably I will be able to write more on Saturday night. --Daniel575 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian2, why did you place your comment above mine instead of below? Next I would everybody to take a look at this article which follows and is about this original article from a few weeks ago. Historian2, you can now read that the latter article indeed contains the view of the gedolim. As it says: "At the request of the rabbonim of Yated Ne'eman's Vaada Ruchanit..." and "The beis din praised the Yated Ne'eman article and rejected the petition. According to the ruling on 28 Tammuz, since the role of Yated Ne'eman is to publicize the Torah-based worldview and the opinions of gedolei Torah the newspaper conducted itself properly and fulfilled its mission." And also "The beis din also noted "Rabbi Ariel, in both the past and the present, has not acted in accordance with poskei hador."" Thus, the first article does indeed contain the view of the Litvishe gedolim. As we say in Dutch, you can jump as high or low as you want, but that doesn't change the facts. The opinion of the Litvishe gedolim is that Yisrael Ariel and his Kefirah Institute are "not worthy of any support for his activities", the seforim "are not worthy to be purchased" and the one who wrote these seforim has "poisonous opinions". --Daniel575 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And here [1] you can see that the Yated is back by, amongst other, Rav Aharon Leib Steinman, Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Chaim Kanievsky. --Daniel575 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel575 - nice to see you! I'm glad you were able to come and comment. I am a little unclear about your statements above; are you referencing the name change discussion? It looks like you may be addressing one of the other points that Historian2 made, but I need a little more clarification if you have time. For organization's sake, I'd rather we only talk about the article name under this heading, and then we can start a new heading to talk about the Criticism section. Sound good? --Aguerriero (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how would everyone feel about removing the word "modern" from the title? We all seem to be in agreement that there have been multiple attempts; I'd hate to get stuck on the definition of one word in the title if we can just remove it. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Daniel575 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, for reasons stated above --Historian2 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you have stated previously that the Sanhedrin was too long, where do you propose other attempts be covered? Perhaps they should each be treated in a separate article? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful to have 2 articles, Historical attempts to revive the Sanhedrin with everything but the last one (and a very short summary of the last one with link), and Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin, with the last one only. The Sanhedrin article would cover the original one only with a short summary and links to both articles on revival attempts. --Shirahadasha 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The history of the Sanhedrin is generally considered divided into six sections

1. Before the Second Temple period, before 187 BCE
2. During the Second Temple period 187 BCE-70 CE
3. The "wandering" Sanhedrin, 70-358 CE
4. Maimonides, semicha by consensus, 1204 until present
5. Other Rabbinic attempts, 358 CE until present (Sanhedrin of the Gaonim, R Shklov, R Maimon)
6. Other non Rabbinic attempts, 358 CE until present (Julian, Napolean, Arabia, etc)

I would have the entire history in the Sanhedrin main page, which any section more than 500 words given its own page. Take Napoleon's 'Sanhedrin' for instance, it should be reduced to a summary and broken off into its own page. --Historian2 12:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Since some historical attempts are more notable than others, there may be merit in giving prominent individual attempts their own articles, but would advise against an article per historical period. Under the 3-article proposal, I believe 1,2, and 3 would represent the "original" Sanhedrin and belong in Sanhedrin. I believe 5-6 (except for 2004+) would represent "Historical" attempts. 2004+ would represent the "Modern" attempt. I realize legal theory about Sanhedrin-revival could be placed in either of the two articles since they underly Rabbinic attempts. Perhaps some mention of Maimonides/Rambam's views should go in both articles, with a brief mention in the "Historical" and a more detailed discussion in the "Modern" article since this view underlies the current effort. I also believe putting theory in the Modern article would be more relevant to contemporary events and the interests of a contemporary audience. --Shirahadasha 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been three proposals on the table so far, a single Sanhedrin article with a separate article for each notable revival attempt, a three-article (Sanhedrin/Historical attempts/Modern attempts) and the present 2-article approach. Which do people preferr? --Shirahadasha 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we really talk about this now? There is so much content missing. If I had the time to document the history of each of the ten locations of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Temple, and each attempt from Julian to Rav Halberstam, it would require a separate wiki page for each section. But this is not what we have now, and no one is adding historical information except me. I think what we have now is fine. --Historian2 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian2, please consider that introducing discussion of what content is missing may be muddying the waters a bit too much at this phase. Right now, we are trying to manage what content currently exists - which is all anyone can be expected to do at present. If a particular section or page expands significantly, it certainly can be broken out to its own article. For now, it looks like a consensus is forming to use the 3-article approach (Sanhedrin/Historical attempts/Modern attempts). Will you agree to that as a first step in organizing this content? --Aguerriero (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - anything is fine at this stage. --Historian2 19:06, 6 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)

Documenting Opposition

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)

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)

Understanding that there may be limited material in English, has a halakhic responsa on this subject been issued in Hebrew by any Haredi rabbi or Beis Din? --Shirahadasha 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This is not 'my legal analysis', it is the basis for teachings and quoted by the Rabbi Beirav, Rabbi Yosef Karo, Rabbi Aharon Mendel haCohen and Rabbi Zvi Kovsker, in their works. It is also a plausible reason why the leading Rabbis have not opposed the current effort or even commented on it. The roots of this effort go very deep in Jewish law, and there are 'heavy weights' on both sides of the argument. Documenting the basis in Jewish law for these actions is essential to understanding their approach and how they have been received (ignoring of course remarks from those who are not knowledgeable).

I think it is impossible, without quoting original research, to document the opinions of contemporary factions. The best we can hope for is to list the issues. For example Daniel575 said to the effect "The Sanhedrin's ideology is contrary to Hareidi ideology" But where did he document or even explain the ideology of either? How can he source such a statement? It would be like writing and article to explaining the workings of the the United States Senate, by showing the pastimes and activities of Sen. Kennedy. --Historian2 18:14, 6 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)

Dispute status

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)

I don't know, I am the only one writing anything --Historian2 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am being totally MIA. I am sorry. I have some issues to deal with. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• I dispute the comments from Rabbi Shach about Rabbi Steinsaltz as "evil"
• I dispute intense Litvish opposition to Rabbi Steinsaltz is held by all groups of Hareidim
• I dispute the comments about Rabbi Ariel's books being "poison"
• I dispute is his claim that the Yated Newspaper in it's opeds is the official mouthpiece of the leadership of the Litvish leadership.
• I dispute his new comments by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman that Rabbi Levanoni is "lying"
• I dispute the premise that "there is great opposition in the Hareidi camp to the new Sanhedrin"
• I dispute comments about Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron being respected only by minor and controversial groups

The current text does not reflect the disputed comments, but reflects an attempt at a compromise wording. My approach to compromise wording has been to tone down the rhetoric, provide an alternative view, and provide much more context. --Historian2 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also dispute such comments. They where NOT given in reaction to being part of the Sanhedrin. Most of them where as serious as Rabbi Ovidiah Yosef's joke about Ashkenazim. 203.217.54.74 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Has anyone read Irgot HaSemichza?!?!?

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)

Additions by 203.217.54.74

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)

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)

Discussion: Comments of Rabbi Shach

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Rabbi Elazar Shach, the primary leader of the Litvish Jewish world until his passing in 2001, referred to Steinsaltz in 1989 (although not by name) as "one who has been inspired by the evil inclination (yetzer hora)". 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. 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 that 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 lawsuits and some groups don't like him.

I don't see how it supports the conclusion of the paragraph "there has been no indication that this 'Sanhedrin', as an institution, will ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace." which is a toned down version of the original quote (and even so involves crystal ball gazing that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia).

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, that proving that one section 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. 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. --Historian2 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)