Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

How about some organization?

For the sake of organization (and my sanity), I have created a subpage at Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Section discussions to contain ONLY sections for discussing changes in a consistent format. So, I have moved any such sections from this page to that one. These sections all begin with "Discussion:section name". As far as I can tell, we have only really come to agreement on one of them, which is the one about "Clear Haredi Opposition". Significant work still needs to be done on the others.

If you want to discuss a new section, please start an appropriately named heading and follow the examples already there. There is already a heading about the "lies, total lies" segment, so discussion of that should go back there. Daniel575, if you want to open a section about other text that you see as unverifiable, please do.

I strongly suggest that everyone consider removing text from this article that is unverifiable by a reliable secondary source. Otherwise, this article is useless to serious readers and researchers. Remember, that is the goal here. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They can't remove anything, AG, it's fullprotected. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, by "consider removing" I mean "discuss removing and then do so when consensus is reached". But now that you mention it, I think we've had a sufficient cool-off period. I am unprotecting, and hoping we can avoid further edit warring or 3RR issues. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have archived a little bit of text. I recommend to archive any closed or non-active discussion and bring the "Discussion" sections back to this talk page where people can see it. I think the "Discussions" on Rabbi Ariel and Rabbi Steinsaltz are closed with the compromise text and can be removed. The page structure and defining the relationship between this group and the Haredi community is under active discussion, and could be added. --Historian2 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Clear Haredi Opposition

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

However, although there is clear Haredi opposition to the new 'Sanhedrin'

I dispute the premise that there is great opposition in the Hareidi camp to the new Sanhedrin. I contend that there have been no sources to support this comment. The only sources have been Lithuanian, which is less than 10% of the Haredi community. These questionable sources (and one being almost 20 years old) are against two leaders on unrelated matters. Lets document what the other 90% say. --Historian2 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian is not 10% of Haredi Judaism. It is closer to 50%, probably more. Definitely not 50%. --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you discount Sefardim and underestimate Chassidim.--Historian2 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the truth is that the Haredi community doesn't take it seriously and hasn't lifted a finger to oppose it. (Of course I agree with those who claim that this is because there are major supporters in the leadership of the Haredi camp, but I'm not going to put that im just yet, until they make it public). Based on Daniel575's revealing wording above, I would propose this compromise wording:

"The new 'Sanhedrin' is a complete non-issue in the Haredi world, 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 don't 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 don't belong to any group, and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.'".

While this comment would be hard to source, I think it is accurate and would not dispute it. --Historian2 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Looks perfectly fine to me. We have a solution!!! --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am not for the new Sanhedrin or against it, I have taken great pains to formulate 20 pages of information as NPOV as possible. I have brought in many comments against the new Sanhedrin in addition to many supporting it, if you will check the logs --Historian2 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments in support seemed to be much stronger than those against. That was the difficulty. --Daniel575 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot read the 20 pages of material I prepared and ignore that fact that throughout I have documented dissenting opinions at every stage, and that NO group is holding by it. Try reading it again, from start to finish. I said quite prominently "The organization which calls itself Sanhedrin is not recognized by any wing of Judaism." How much more explicit do you want to get? You do not need to sling dirt and bring inflammatory comments about unrelated issues, discrediting people along the way, to get your point across. It is not academic and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This idea is not heresy and it is not new, its one of a long chain of attempts, as Rabbi Kaganoff said, even if we do not agree, even if it is folly, it should inspire us 'to daven with more kavanah when reciting the bracha Hoshiva shofteinu k’varishonah, “Return our judges like the ones we had originally,” as a result of T’ka b’shofar gadol licheiruseinu, “Blow the Great Shofar that will free us.”' . --Historian2 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I claim this that "clear Haredi opposition" is unsourced. I would prefer the text "Haredi indifference" or the sentence deleted entirely. --Historian2 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else seems interested in this and I don't feel strongly about it, so I am closing the issue. --Historian2 07:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Ascending the Temple Mount

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

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 , 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."

I think the statement "While there is disagreement between the some factions of the Modern Orthodox and the Haredim on this point..." is not correct here. As far as I can find sources, the "Modern Orthodox" as a group do not allow ascending to the Temple Mount. Individual Rabbis from various right wing groups support this, but not any group as a whole - as far as I can document. In an attempt to answer Daniel575's objection to this text, I recommend the following compromise text, with two new source references: "Historically, important Rabbis like Maimonides and the Radbaz ascended to the Temple Mount, and gave advice to others on how to do so, however modern Haredi legal opinions as well as..."

The Sanhedrin DID NOT acsend the Mount. A group of about 50 smuchim acsended the mount (most of which where not on the Sanhedrin). Most were not on the Sanhedrin and most members of the Sanhedrin opposed it rather preferring of investigating the area using modern technology. Not even the media suggested the Sanhedrin acsended to the mount. 50 smuchim != the Sanhedrin. 203.217.83.31 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, according to this[1] the wording "its leadership ascended" should be changed to "several members ascended". The heading of the article says "unpublicized move", so perhaps that means that no official 'statement' was meant? --Historian2 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with these two changes? 1) "its leadership ascended" -> "several members ascended", add reference. 2) "While there is disagreement between the some factions of the Modern Orthodox and the Haredim on this point..." -> Historically, important Rabbis like Maimonides and the Radbaz ascended to the Temple Mount, and gave advice to others on how to do so, however modern Haredi legal opinions as well as..." adding two references. --Historian2 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Debate in the Rambamist Camp

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Many members of this forum[2], while supporting the formation of a Sanhedrin in principle, do not recognize what is claimed to be Rabbi Yosef Karo's interpretation of Maimonides, but rather follow a more textual interpretation, insisting that the vast majority of all the scholars of the Land of Israel must be assembled at one time to reinstate the semikha, rather than contacting a few of the "main scholars" via letters as was done.

In an attempt to answer 203.217.83.31 objection to this text, I recommend the following compromise text: "rather than contacting many scholars via letters, phone and individual visits as was done." --Historian2 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: The Sanhedrin is not Haredi! (it is National Religious)

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Perhaps it will function as a religious council for the National Religious, similar to how the Eda HaCharedis functions for the Haredim

Just to be clear: they go on the Temple Mount (which is forbidden according to all Haredim), they opposed the evacuation of Amona (which is a total non-issue to Haredim), they opposed the evacuation of part of Hebron (which is a total non-issue to Haredim), they virulently opposed the Gaza Disengagement (which is a total non-issue to Haredim).

On the contrary, quite a few Haredi groups think it is wonderful that the Zionists are finally getting what they deserve from their own government. I quote Rav Aharon of Satmar, who said, "we should rejoice in the Gaza Disengagement".

Next, your claim of things being discusses on 'forums' is ridiculous. The forums you are apparently referring to are 'Rambamist' (a strange break-away sect from Orthodox Judaism), 'Temple Mount Faithful' and similar (which is totally opposed to the policy of both the Haredi and Religious-Zionist leadership). --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of Haredim that applies only to Neturei Karta and completely leaves out Shas and Agudat Israel who also opposed the disengagement. Chabad (=Hareidim) virulently opposed the disengagement. Haredim means "ultra-orthodox" it does not just mean learners or Satmar. The Sanhedrin "let down" the National Religious by not "virulently opposing" it. Instead their declarations were very similar to what Rav Ovadia Yosef said. --Historian2 10:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about globalyeshiva.org, aishdas.org, hashkafah.com, ou.org, shemayisrael.co.il, moreshet.co.il and the likes. What are you talking about? If you dispute the point I can bring much better sources than a couple of forums --Historian2 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the anti-Zionists who rejoice in the destruction of the Jewish State and go to Iran to be interviewed on Iranian television, then these are truly the "strange break-away sect from Orthodox Judaism", not the other way around --Historian2 10:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop attacking each other's religious beliefs. What Daniel is talking about is 100% of the Hasidim sans Chabad and >>50% of the Yeshiva Lithuanians, not just Neturei Karta. I am not prepared to speak about the Sephardim (Shas) and Agudat Yisrael represents what we call "Orthodox" here on WP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, Agudat Israel opposed the disengagement and split with Degel over this. But as this has no direct bearing on the text, I am not going to argue the matter. --Historian2 10:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agudat Yisrael did not oppose the disengagement to the extent that the religious zionists / 'Sanhedrin' did. There is a significant difference there. Let me just quote from the 'Sanhedrin' website: "The Prime Minister's program of uprooting stands in direct contradiction to the Torah of Israel." [3] That whole 'decision' is plain incitement to hatred against the Haredi gedolim, about whom it declares that 'in the future [they] will be judged for this sin'.

It also gives one main goal of this 'Sanhedrin', which it considers a very important political subject: 'strengthening of settlements'. [4] If you want to defend that as a 'Haredi' position, good luck.

http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/legal/psak5766Iyyar6.html Here] it says that: "the commandment 'to inherit and reside' in the Land of Israel. It is an fundamental right granted by the Torah that can not be appealed." That is straight Religious Zionist talk.

Anybody who claims that this 'Sanhedrin' is a Haredi institution needs help. It is a totally RELIGIOUS-ZIONIST thing, in which a few persons wearing black jackets and hats also participate. Its decisions are directly contrary to the Daas Torah of the Haredi gedolim, from Rav Elazar Shach to the Edah HaChareidis, all across the Haredi spectrum. Anybody who joins this 'Sanhedrin', even if he wears a jacket and a hat, is simply a Religious Zionist. That is what they are, and by aligning yourself with those who speak about 'the commandment to settle the Land of Israel', the importance of strengthening settlements, by saying that those Haredi gedolim who do not oppose disengagements (Rav Eliashiv, Rav Karelitz) will be 'in the future be judged by God for their sins', you are CUTTING YOURSELF OFF from the Haredi world. Anybody with even the most fundamental knowledge of the Haredi world will agree on this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And what the ....... As it said in the Yated Neeman article from parashas Korach:

As one example, in his Siddur Hamikdash (and the newly published Siddur Hamikdash Le'Eim Ulebas Yisroel) Rabbi Ariel eliminates the traditional Nacheim prayer said on Tisha B'Av and substitutes one to his liking that does not suffer from what he calls an ungrateful attitude towards the bounty of Hashem.[5]

And what do I just read while browsing the 'Sanhedrin' website. [6] -> [7] Hebrew only. Here, the 'Sanhedrin' has decided to change the liturgy which has been handed down to us by tradition and which has been used for 2000 years and which is used by all Haredim in the entire world as well as by 90% of non-Haredim. Now if this does not show the plain idiocy of this whole 'Sanhedrin' thing, I don't know what does. This is plain extreme-right wing Religious Zionist talk. Here, they accuse all Haredim in the world, including the Haredi gedolim, of speaking lies every Tisha b'Av. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all that was withdrawn (see the forum). But the principlal is not non-Hareidi, what about the Baal Hatanya's Siddur? He extensively changed the Siddur. Was he not Hareidi? --Historian2 08:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant difference there in multiple forms. He changed the form of prayers, not the content. This here is a total reversal of a prayer. It is totally, completely different. You cannot compare this to the different nuschaot that have always existed. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, What are you talking about? Shas opposed the government and said exactly the same things that the "Sanhedrin" did. Are you saying that Shas is against Daas Torah or not part of it? There was NO Daas Torah issued on the disengagement and Agudah and Degal split because of it. All the Gedolim agreed that disengagement was wrong and should be opposed politically, but Degel felt that for the sake of the funding the educational institutions it was prudent to stay in the government. As this has no bearing on the text, i see no need to discuss this further. The Sanhedrin is not Haredi, it is not National Religious, it is not Modern Orthodox, it is not Sefardi, it is none of them because it contains elements of all of them. --Historian2 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all Gedolim opposed the disengagement. Did you ask for the opinions of chassidishe poskim? Satmar, Dushinsky, Bobov, etc? And those who did oppose it did so primarily out of humanitarian concerns, because it is horrible for 10.000 Jews to be thrown out of their houses. It was not because they agreed with the Zionist ideology. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so offensive. Are you saying my Rabbonim who do support the Sanhedrin are not Haredim? They were considered Haredim before the Sanhedrin. Does the very fact they support the Sanhedrin because it is a mitzvah to have a Sanhedrin make them no longer Haredim? Daniel: your comment is offensive. 203.217.83.31 06:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be true, and I agree with you. But in all honesty I think the text is ok. It says that the Hareidi leadership has not declared for or against it, and some/most Hareidim "on the street" dispute it. The leadership has made no public statement, and hareidim "on the street" don't make verifiable quotes and neither do your Rabbonim, so a general statement is probably fine here even if it is not 100% accurate. --Historian2 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. I must also note that you changed, in the article, the text which said that "some religious-zionist rabbis permit going on the Temple Mount" with "many rabbis...". You are not showing a neutral point of view. Anybody slightly familiar with the Orthodox / Haredi world knows that this is not true. All contemporary Haredi gedolim (with the single exception of the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt'l) have declared it to be forbidden, as have Israeli's current and the vast majority of past Chief Rabbis, representing the vast majority of the religious-zionist world.

If your rabbonim support this Sanhedrin, they are not regular Haredim. They are Hardalim: very strictly observant religious zionists. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, please leave the "zionist" political overtones out, this group definitely doesn't support the secular "State of Israel". There is a new dynamic happening in Israel, National Religious becoming un-national, and Anti-Zionists becoming an integral part and moving force in the government (or in this case an alternative government). There are new things happening here and to use the old terms with all their political overtones is not appropriate. The political machinations in Israel are creating new alliances that we have never seen before. Lets stick to general statements and sourced text. --Historian2 08:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So Daniel decides weither you are a Zionist, Heradi, or something else. That belongs in the Middle Ages not here today. 203.217.83.31 10:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

With 'Zionist' I am not referring to the State. I am referring to their attitude concerning these things:

• Will having a state hasten or bring about the redemption?
• Are Jews allowed to have a state?
• What is the attitude towards the Occupied Territories?

If the answers are 'yes', that movement is Zionist. If no, it is probably Haredi. The Haredi opinion is that there should not have been a state. Everybody knows that and everybody agrees on that, even Lubavitch. Now that the state does exist, opinions differ on how to deal with it - support it or not, and for both answers, to what extent? For example, the Gerrer Hasidim have taken a pro-state stance and moderately opposed the disengagement. Nevertheless, if we look back in history a little bit, we can see what the Sfas Emes wrote [8], which is definitely not positive about Zionism.

Or take the Belzer Hassidim, whose attitude is also not the most positive [9]. When I was at Belz on Purim, several kids were dressed up as 'settler kids', with knitted yarmulkes and 'Gush Katif' shirts. That was their Purim outfit: making fun of settlers.

You seem to be totally confused between Zionism and anti-Zionism. Yes, there are settlers who oppose the State. Some people, for reasons I do not understand, then immediately equate them with for example Neturei Karta, who are also against the State. The settlers themselves do so! However, it cannot be emphasized how big the difference is. The Haredi anti-Zionist opinion has nothing to do with the (non-)religiosity of the State. It has to do with there being a State in the first place. Neturei Karta wants the state to be dismantled and the land to be given to Hamas, which will then be allowed to decide on what to do with the Jews there. NK leaders recently travelled both to Iran and to Ramallah to offer support to Ahmedinejad and Haniyeh. Satmar, which is slightly less extreme but a thousand times bigger, holds that the state should be dismantled by the United Nations and taken over by them - since the Zionists have sufficiently inflamed the Arabs that they would kill us whenever they get a chance.

Now we are going to compare this to the anti-state settlers. Do they also support giving the Land of Israel over to Hamas or to the United Nations? Do they agree that Jews are forbidden to have a state before the Messiah comes?

Equating Haredi anti-Zionism with extreme-right wing settlers (Kach etc.) who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the State is plain ridiculous. It is so silly that I barely understand how to respond to this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Haredi anti-Zionism and anti-state Zionism.

• Haredi anti-Zionism: The state should be demolished, we should submit ourselves to the Arabs, we should hand all of the weapons of the IDF over to Hamas, we should ship all secular Jews out of here back to Russia. All settlements should be destroyed and handed over to Hamas. It is the Zionists who are behind the Holocaust. The Zionists are the biggest evil in the world, they have defiled the entire world with their impurity. The cursed Zionists, may their names and memories be wiped out of history, are worse than anything we have ever seen - worse than the Christians, worse than the Karaites, worse than the followers of Shabbetai Tzvi, worse than Reform. It is they who are responsible for all troubles that have befallen us. We should immediately try to correct this and hand over the land to the Arabs, and beg them to allow us to live here humbly in peace as dhimmis.

Now compare.

• Anti-state Zionism: The State should be dismantled. It should be replaced by a theocratic state governed by Kach rabbis. All Arabs should be thrown out of the land; they will get 48 hours to leave and those who won't leave will be shot dead. The al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock should be demolished and replaced by the Third Temple which we will build with our own hands.

Now if you do not see the difference between these two forms (I intentionally summarized the most extreme on both sides) of anti-state activism, I do not know how to clarify it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again you leave out the Sefardim. Let's leave these terms behind. You are not providing any sources. --Historian2 09:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I repeat what i said above, I claim that the Sanhedrin is not Haredi, it is not National Religious, it is not Modern Orthodox, it is not Sefardi, it is none of them because it contains elements of all of them. You can not source any group claiming the 'Sanhedrin' as its own. Its public press releases fit the 'Haredi' definition you give above. Currently the wikipage does not say anywhere that the new 'Sanhedrin' is a National Religious institution. Do you dispute an existing text or do you have a compromise text to propose? --Historian2 11:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you say? Its public press releases fit the description of 'Haredi anti-Zionism' that I wrote above? I think you need medications, then. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal comments are not really appropriate. Do you dispute an existing text or do you have a compromise text to propose? Or is this section closed? --Historian2 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have (or hopefully, pretend to have) the brains of a fish, you may get comments about that. If you think this 'Sanhedrin' is closer to Neturei Karta than to Kach, as you said above, you do indeed have the brain of a fish. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Brain's of a fish comment aside (CrazyRussian where are you now?) I think politically the new 'Sanhedrin' is closer to Shas and Agudah than Neturei Karta is. I think Chabad is closer to Kach than the new 'Sanhedrin' is. But let's get back to the point, Daniel what text are you disputing? I want to close and archive this section, this page is getting too long. You say it is not Haredi, I say it is not Haredi, so we agree? So don't insist on labeling it as National Religious (there is no quote from the National Religious movement to support you) and we can call this closed, no? --Historian2 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To summarize my point: The Sanhedrin is not Haredi, it is not National Religious, it is not Modern Orthodox, it is not Sefardi, it is none of them because it contains elements of all of them. There is a new dynamic happening in Israel, National Religious becoming un-national, and Anti-Zionists becoming an integral part and moving force in the government (or in this case an alternative government). There are new things happening here and to use the old terms with all their political overtones is not appropriate. The political machinations in Israel are creating new alliances that we have never seen before. Lets stick to general statements and sourced text. --Historian2 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The plain truth is that you are hallucinating. The only thing that happened, is that some Religious Zionists do not see this state as a holy thing any more. That's all that happened. There is a huge difference between hating this state because it is secular and disengaged from Gaza/northern Samaria, and hating the state because a Jewish state is a despicable concept.

I personally agree with the second concept, if practically feasible. If the Arabs were not sure to kill us, we would immediately have to turn the Land of Israel over to the Arabs. What we can do: We must demolish the 'Western Wall plaza' and rebuild the Moroccan Quarter. We must evacuate all settlements, destroy them, and punish those settlers who refuse.

Now if you think this is like Kach, you need to be checked out, and that is a fact. You are hallucinating with your thoughts that this 'Sanhedrin' is closer to the Agudah than to Kach. IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT. IT IS NOT. If you don't get this, you have the brains of a fish, and I am not apologizing for nor retracting that statement. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. --Historian2 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO on a spectrum of those who oppose the secular state on the question of "zionism", I would list them like this: Kach, Chabad, 'Sanhedrin', Shas, Agudah, Degel, Neturei Karta. But this is clearly WP:OR and is of no relevance here. CAN THIS SECTION BE CLOSED? --Historian2 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Name Change, Structure of Page

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 [10] 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)

Splitting out R. Beirav

Propose splitting out into its own article. It's cramping us out, and needs space to grow and be referenced. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The modern attempt is an attempt to duplicate the Rabbi Beirav's attempt, so I think it is necessary to understand one to understand the other. I recommend splitting off the dispute section. This has precedent in many other wikipages. --Historian2 07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we make a 'Sanhedrin' template for all pages related to Sanhedrin stuff (Sanhedrin, 2004 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin, 1948 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin etc.) and link them up that way? --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)