Template:DelistedGAbecause There are some major inaccuracies in this article, no matter what scholarly position one holds on controversial issues.

An important binary in the New Testament is the opposition between law and love. Also the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, despite that it was predominantly Sadducees at the time. Accordingly, the New Testament presents the Pharisees as obsessed with man-made rules (especially concerning purity) whereas Jesus is more concerned with God’s love; the Pharisees scorn sinners whereas Jesus seeks them out. Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers, and because most scholars agree that the gospels place the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on a large faction of Pharisees, the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. Jews today, who ascribe to Pharisaic Judaism, typically find this insulting if not anti-Semitic.

--metta, The Sunborn ☥ 06:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The line "the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, despite that it was predominantly Sadducees at the time." still speaks to the topic, introduces the two groups. I put it back in where it would tie two concepts together.

--Jndrline 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Surely the following is highly POV: However, the Gospels and the acts of the Apostles are actual, personal, accounts of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and are presumed to have been based on earlier sources. Though scholars may dispute their bias, they are not works of fiction. It is by no means undisputed that the gospels are "not works of fiction" (c.f. Historicity of Jesus for both sides of the argument). As such I have removed the passage. Dewrad 15:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This was actually something I edited so that it wouldn't be based on POV, when I separated the religious accounts from the scholarly accounts. (Prior, both were mixed together, and very confusing to read.) It seems that people have edited the statement so that it actually reads differently.

I think the objection isn't with the statement as a whole, but with a misunderstanding of "they are not works of fiction." I meant to say that they exist today, and that someone wrote them. I don't remember my orignal phrasing, but "actual,personal" was also pointing to the same. They are really accounts, and they were written by people — regardless of their content.

Under this assumption I have put it back and rephrased:

Personally, I think they're all fiction, but I didn't think staying objective would've been as hard as it has; thanks for calling it to attention.

>Personally, I think they're all fiction> You are patently wrong. The name of roman governor Pontius Pilate is absolutely not mentioned in any other source but the Bible. It was so stated he must have been an invented personality and thus the New Testament is a work of fiction. However, a few years ago a very minor sidewalk was found during archeological excavations in Jerusalem and one of its stones bore the inscription that it was built by the order and at the expense of governor Pontius Pilate. This single evidence alone shows that the New Testament contains genuine non-fiction information.

Apparently Pilate was in office for no more than 2.5 years maximum and so left little lasting effect except the execution of Jesus. 195.70.32.136 12:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Jndrline 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

The authority of this body is not recognized by the Israeli government or by non-traditional streams of Judaism. This language, which originally read "non-hareidi streams of Judaism", is misleading. What is "traditional"? Are the Modern Orthodox, Yeshiva University-types "traditional"? As far as I am aware they have not recognized the authority of the modern Sanhedrin. In the US there is a growing "Traditional" movement, that certainly has not recognized them. Who are the members of this Sanhedrin? Does anyone have a list? I'll accept that "non-haredi" may be inaccurate to the extent that some members are not hareidim per se, but this language is not acceptable either. --Briangotts 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was removed from the article because it didn't have anything to do with the actual sanhedrin:

(perhaps it could be compared to the reaction of the Chinese government to Falun Gong). seems to me POV and beside the point. I'm deleting it. --Ori.livneh 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Thanks.  

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     23:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospels don't say Jesus was found guilty by the Romans of treason. This section is obviously a kind of online battleground over points of faith, and so wording is touchy but should not be inaccurate.

--josephconklin 13 August 2005

The original did not simply say that he was guilty of treason. It said "Whereas the Sanhedrin was a legitimate body representing an existing religion, sanctioned under Roman law, starting a new religion was seen by the Romans as a treasonous means to overthrow their leadership." Dwrad felt that this was me lying: "starting a new religion was not seen by Romans as treason." Since I no longer have my source, I let it be. When you came to it, the sentance had become disjointed from its explanation.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that this article is prone to POV. It brings up the touchy (esp for me) subject of whether Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     00:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also touchy for me, but I believe truth should be the standard. Jesus made claims that were considered blasphemous by Jewish religious leaders. He made it clear several times that being crucified fulfilled His mission. If it was the Jewish authorities who instigated it, then that's just the facts. Got to go with the facts. Regardless of quibbling, the Gospels are the closest to witness we have of these events, and they say it was the Sanhedrin that instigated the crucifixion. Barring irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to go with the Gospel accounts.

josephconklin 8 September 2005

The recent edit that the portrayal of the Sanhedrin in the Gospels is not "generally" taken as historical fact, versus "universally," reflects extreme POV on the part of the editor. Any dispute with the Gospel accounts is not "generally" accepted at all. We can go back and forth on this, but the fact is that the Gospels are generally viewed as historical by those reading them, but not universally.

josephconklin 8 September 2005

I think "extreme pov" is a bit of an overreaction. The diction of universally versus generally is really meaningless. These reversions are pointless. freestylefrappe 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The "diction" is definitely not meaningless. "The portrayal is not generally taken as historical fact" implies that there is a majority opinion against it. "The portrayal is not universally taken as historical fact" implies simply that there is a dispute. josephconklin September 11, 2005

>XY saw it as good news >Believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple

Which of course would mean WWIII, since the same location is now occupied by the building of the golden-roof mosque, the third holiest place in Islam. There are 900 million muslims and the judeo-christians are already in a global war with them.

A religious fanatic's wet dream of seeing mankind massacre each other entirely so that King of Hell can return does not belong to Wikipedia. Please erase the offending sentence.

If that is what this organisation believes it would amount to censorship to remove this. It's not the words that cause World Wars but the people who believe them. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why is the etymology given not once, but twice in the intro?? The first time it says "probably"; the second time seems a little more certain, but is still slightly different interpretaton of the Greek. Oughtn't these be merged better?

2. About the section entitled, "Opposition to Christian historical accounts"... (Uh,...)

I read the following: "Furthermore, it was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism." But, isn't that statement proven false by the Dead Sea Scrolls, that are agreed by all to be rather older than that, and don't the Scrolls describe the Pharisees as the dominant party already (and isn't that mainly the reason why the "Essene party" had to hide out in caves anyway?) Could someone with more expertise weigh in on this? Regards, ፈቃደ 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is given twice because the etymology is usually given right after the first use of the term. To give the whole etymology in the first line would clutter the intro. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in regards to the fact that the Pharisees were already powerful among the Israelites. They emerged out of the Babylonian Exile as Rabbi's, etc. Unlike it was with the priesthood, one did not have to be a Levite to be a Pharisee, as the Apostle Paul demonstrated in his writing (1 Corinthians). However, that is really not the reason the Essenes were in the desert. They believed that they were the rightful priesthood - true descendants of Zadok and were awaiting the day when the temple would be purified, along with Jerusalem and the land of Israel in general. That was the main reason for their own ascetic practices: to remain ritually clean. Eltinwë 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Specifically the writings of Luke and the Apostle Paul have been established as published in the 40's and 50's CE. Therefore, it is quite possible that these early Christian writings are accurate contemporary accounts of the Sanhedrin and could reflect the socio-political dynamics which surrounded this institution in Judean society."

Huh????? "Established"????? "Published"????? Since when?????

Since 1 Thessalonians is widely recognized as Paul's first work, and is widely recognized as having been written in about 51 AD, how does this article get away with pushing a date of "40s." Furthermore, Luke's Gospel is dated by the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of scholars to the mid-80s. The generally accepted dates for the writings of the New Testament are Mark 65-75 (much controversy, of course, as to whether or not pre- or post-70); Luke and Acts (volumes 1 and 2 of a single, complete work) roughly 85; Matthew anywhere from 75 to 90, depending on whom one reads; John 90-100; Paul's letters 51-67 (I won't go into individual letters and dates here). If there were pre-existent written Christian documents, such as the speculated "Q" or "Aramaic Matthew," their date and contents are mostly conjecture.

Let me say: this does not make the Gospel accounts useless as clues to 1st Century Sanhedrin practice. That's a whole interesting other argument. But whatever one's position on that, let's not take the rather wild, fringe opinions of a couple of scholars (with agendas) and call them "established." Amherst5282 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we can honestly say YOU don't have an agenda? Frankly, I think the uncharacteristically Jewish nature of the Gospel of Matthew certainly provides evidence for an early dating. Also, if the Gospels were written AFTER 70 A.D., would they not have mentioned the Fall of the Temple considereding THREE of the FOUR Gospel writers were Hebrews? Not only that, Jesus' own predictions concerning the Temple's fall would make any human writer put it in there for the sake of proving the point. The Gospels don't do that but the history speaks for itself. Even Bruce Metzger, liberal that he is, argues that the Scriptures are historically early.

Could someone knowledable about this subject stop by God's Learning Channel and see if the language introducing Rabbi Chaim Richman is accurate and NPOV (and fix it if it isn't). Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the details of Jesus' trial sensitive? Are there really people getting violent somewhere over this kind of trivial detail?

Liastnir 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to this question, and because I haven't been to this page in a while and have seen some pretty bad edits, and many revertings . . . I have added the Template:Controversial to the Talk page, and an explanation that should warn the newbie to be aware.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    

O.k., for the last time, "Sanhedrin" is NOT a headache medicine.

69.39.172.17 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not? Oh man, what're these meds I've been taking? Lol j/k I guess people are confusing it with hedrin, a cure for lice, ephedrin, a botanical drug, or most likely sudafedrin cold medicine, and so on. Some people are just stupid, I doubt it needed a talk comment but oh well. SF2K1

• LOL. Pseudoephedrine.

Users seem to be reverted BCE/CE back to BC/AD. While I support BC/AD myself, as a courtesy to the Jewish people (of whom I have a deep respect), I have put them back and ask any users to cease these pointless edits. -DavidK 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] it should be nice to get the quote of the Muslims.. etc. if anyone has time.... 203.214.153.235 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After your 24hr blocks expire, both warriors are invited to make their first (!) contribution to this talk page. It seems two versions have developed, each one laden with pro- and anti- Sanhedrin POV. Let's examine these versions assertion by assertion and literally catalog them out. We can then examine the sources adduced in support and neutral parties will decide whether they merit inclusion or not. I am not neutral of course, since I am pretty much squarely on the Haredi side of this debate - so I will call in a gentile w/ no vested interest to adjudicate this. Deal? (I know you can't respond now - it's ok. We'll start tomorrow or after Shabbos.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crzrussian and AmiDaniel Before anyone "unprotect"s the page and allow editing to continue, per wikipedia rules you should allow us to work out a text on the the talk pages first. Here is the guideline I was following for reversing Daniel575's edits.

3RR Rules: Reverting potentially libellous 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. Historian3 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've forgotten, let me remind you: You're blocked! Brazen sockpuppetry to evade a block does not enhance the strength of your arguments, to say the least. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I only registed Historian3 for one purpose, to contact the sysop Crzrussian and tell him I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, another sysop was already handling the situation. (It seems he didn't read my explanation on my talk page before I was blocked) Check the logs and see for yourself. -- Historian2 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion most the crap here is orginal research (i.e. quoting a statement by the Chazan Ish who is LONG DEAD is no matter what orginal research). Using random blogs as sources are not notable. IMO, for crticism Rabbi Rabbonivitch's criticism is the only noteworthy one as far as I know. Random idiots are not notable on either side. 203.217.35.51 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel575, A criticism section is definitely needed for this controversial development. I would encourage you, in presenting the arguments against a modern-day Sanhedrin in the absence of Moshiach, to provide something of the substantive argument -- perhaps a full description of Rav Kook's thinking -- and to avoid using statements such as "Adin Steinsaltz is influenced by the Evil Inclination." Although I don't have the legal knowledge to know whether religious statements such as these might be considered libellous or not, nonetheless they are unhelpful and distracting in explaining the underlying nature of the debate to a general audience, and are unencyclopedic and should be avoided. --Shirahadasha 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Chazon Ish, although deceased, was an extremely influential scholar of Jewish religious law, and an exposition of his views as to the advisability of a modern Sanhedrin would definitely help inform the debate and explain why people today take the positions that they do. I don't believe citing his opinion would constitute Original Research. Also, references to websites of well-known figures is permissable for the narrow purpose of presenting the views of those figures (it's discussed in "Partisan websites" under WP:RS), as long as those figures' notability and relevance can be independently established. --Shirahadasha 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shirahadasha, I think I agree with both your points. The Chazon Ish's opinion is important, also its should be afforded its context and alternatives. The Sanhedrin and Semicha pages both need a lot of work. The hebrew version of wikipedia has split of the modern Sanhedrin to its own page to allow more information to be added. Its probably not fitting that such a controversial subject should overshadow (in pure number of words) the rest of the Sanhedrin entry.--Historian2 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be appropriate to make a separate article on the modern Sanhedrin, with only a brief mention and link in the main Sanhedrin article. The Temple Institute's work on a Third Temple was similarly separated from the main Temple in Jerusalem article due to its controversial nature and tendency of folks to want to write a lot about it as compared with the historical Temples. --Shirahadasha 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see anyone disprove any part of the 'Criticism' section that I wrote. I will quote it here:

OK --Historian2 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Criticism====

The organization which calls itself Sanhedrin is not recognized by any wing of Haredi Judaism.

This is not in dispute. But neither is it opposed. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest rabbis of the Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition to those who wanted to establish a Sanhedrin before Moshiach, the Jewish messiah, would come.

And the greatest rabbis also voiced their strong support for forming a Sanhedrin before Moshiach, for example see the writings of Rabbi Yisroel Shklover's (Pe'at ha-Shulḥan), talmid muvhak and with the full support of the the Vilna Gaon. See also Rav Teichtal. Not to mention the Beis Yosef, the Alsheich, R' Hayyim Vital, the Riaf (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto) and of course the Rambam himself. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rashi on the Gemora (Megillah 17b) states that the Sanhedrin will be restored after a partial ingathering of the Jewish exiles, but before Jerusalem is completely rebuilt and restored. Also other sources state (Eruvin 43b; Maharatz Chajas ad loc; Rashash to Sanhedrin 13b) that Elijah the Prophet will present himself before a duly-ordained Sanhedrin when he announces the coming of the Messiah. This seems to indicates that a Sanhedrin is a pre-, not post-messianic institution. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this opposition from the Haredi world, the disputed Sanhedrin is likely to remain a primarily religious Zionist organ which does not have any ties to Haredi Orthodox Judaism. It could fulfill a role similar to that of the Edah HaChareidis in Jerusalem's extreme Orthodox world.

This is opinion --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbis of the organization which calls itself Sanhedrin ascended on the Temple Mount, which is forbidden according to all Haredi poskim (halachic decisors).

This is not true, it is forbidden as a gezerah lest someone cross over the holy of holies, whose location is not exactly known. It is known that from the Tannaitic period and at least until the fifteenth century, there were Jews who entered and even prayed on the Temple Mount. The Rambam himself prayed on the Temple Mount. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to these poskim, the prohibition against ascending to the Temple Mount involves the punishment of koreis (karet), meaning spiritual death and excision from the Jewish people as well as a young physical death through natural means. As the Haredi Yated Neeman newspaper writes, "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it." [2][3]

This is lumping a bunch of halachas, gezeras, and minhagim in one mixed up paragraph. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chazon Ish, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, wrote that it is impossible to renew the Sanhedrin, and that any discussion concerning the matter nowadays is ludicrous. Chazon Ish: Choshen Mishpat Likutim 1[4]

His main objection was not on these grounds, rather that the Rabbi Maimon's Rabbinut turned Sanhedrin (which was not based on reinstituing semicha) would be become the puppet of the government. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Haredi Yated Neeman newspaper, which is controlled by the leaders of the Lithuanian ('Litvish') faction of Haredi Judaism and portrays their opinions, in July 2006 published an article strongly attacking Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of the Temple Institute (Machon HaMikdash). While the article does not explicitly forbid buying the books he wrote on behalf of the Machon HaMikdash, it refers to them as 'unworthy of being purchased' and refers to the content of the books as 'poisonous.' [5]

The books of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a senior figure in the 'Sanhedrin', were declared to be unfit for the Haredi public to read because of doubtful material contained in them. Rabbi Elazar Shach, the primary leader of the Litvish Jewish world until his passing in 2001, referred to Steinsaltz as "one who has been inspired by the evil inclination (yetzer hora)". [6]

The references to Steinsaltz as influenced by the yetzer hora and Ariel having poisonous opinions: this is not my personal opinion. These are quotes from the Yated, as the "around" it clearly show.

I claim that the Yated is not a reliable source for any Chabad Rabbi. As I have mentioned it has run scathing reviews on Rav Landau, one of the most respected Rabbonim of our generation. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Yated accurately portrays the view of the Litvishe gedoilim (such as Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Aharon Shteinman, Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz, Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg).

The Yated is not accurate. Firstly it ONLY represents the Litvish world, which is not entire Hareidi world. It is more a tabloid of the latest gossip in the Hareidi community. Rabbi Eliashiv not only supported, but gave his blessing to the semicha project. --Historian2 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think to correctly encapsulate this, it is necessary to distinguish between support for the reinstitution of classical semicha according to the opinion of the Rambam, the reforming of a "sanhedrin" in theory, and the setting up of a "place-holder" sanhedrin as was actually done. Most Gedolim support the reinstitution of semicha (not all, split tends to be along litvish+rambamists, chassidic+sefardic lines), they support in theory the reformation of a Sanhedrin, they do not support (but also do not oppose) a "place-holder" sanhedrin, like the one that was formed. --Historian2 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki page needs to contain objective information. Any inquiries that Daniel565 or I have done are original research and do count towards material that should be included. The only thing that can be said is there has NOT been any decisive statement by the hareidi leaders about this "sanhedrin" either pro or against. Slanderous comments from a Litvish paper about two Rabbi's who sit on this "Sanhedrin" simply does not justify the assertion that there is massive opposition from the Hareidi world. --Historian2 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Yated gives you their opinions. I do not see in what way quoting their opinion constitutes a violation of those things

First of all the Yated is not a reliable source in this area, and second you do not give the whole story. The issue with Rabbi Steinsaltz was resolved years ago. --Historian2 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned in the piece Historian2 quoted from the 3RR rules: "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." These things are not unsourced, they come from the Yated. They are very relevant. Next, Historian2 claims that "Using random blogs as sources are not notable." Historian2, the Yated is not a blog. It is the English-language version of the official news organ of the Litvishe world.

My 'Criticism' section was very carefully written. The criticisms of Ariel and Steinsaltz are very relevant since they are condemnations of these people by the Litvishe gedoilim. Showing that obviously, the Litvishe gedoilim (including Rav Eliashiv) will NEVER support this 'Sanhedrin'. I challenge anyone to read the story of Rav Eliashiv and Yisrael Ariel and then to claim that Rav Eliashiv supports Ariel's 'Sanhedrin'. --Daniel575 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel675, Suggest helping a reader understand WHY some people are opposed. Could you perhaps say more about what the Chazon Ish had to say besides simply "it is impossible to renew the Sanhedrin, and that any discussion concerning the matter nowadays is ludicrous." What were his grounds for saying this? As to the other Rabbonim you quote, it might be better simply to note their opposition and notability, and avoid the stuff about Rabbi X is under the influence of the Yetzer HaRah (evil inclination), Rabbi Y's works are poisonous and unworthy of being purchased, etc. We can report if we must that some Rabbinim are being very uncivil over this thing, but we should at least try to be civil ourselves and not let this kind of distracting and uninformative invective affect the tone of the article. --Shirahadasha 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what should be done to get consensus before the page is unprotected and more nonsense gets added?

Daniel575 your comments boil down to this:

1. Hareidim are vocal in their opposition to this "Sanhedrin"
2. The Chazan Ish said we couldn't have a "Sanhedrin" until Moshiach comes
3. Rabbi X is not fit to sit on the "Sanhedrin" because he his evil
4. Rabbi Y is not fit to sit on the "Sanhedrin" because his books are poison

All because the Yated said so. (I can quote you what the Yated has said about Rav Landau as well)

Lets start with the first point. Can you document to ANY ruling against this "Sanhedrin" by Hareidim? I tried to capsulize the attitude of the Gedolim in this statement that I placed on Semicha. It has since been watered down.

The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to political climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by various religious communities as actions against their interests. The Sanhedrin is seen as one of several attempts to form an alternative (in this case religious) leadership in Israel. However, though criticism from leading Rabbis is lacking, public support for it is equally lacking, so it remains unlikely that this particular attempt will gain acceptance within the Jewish community.

What do you think? Historian2 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more opposition to the current Sanhedrin than this proposed summary admits. Editors should be given time to identify appropriate (and more moderately-articulated) sources to evidence this opposition. --Shirahadasha 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Lets hear the sources. I have spoken with two Admorim on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, and have sent people around to collect input from the offices of various Gedolim, so I would be surprized if there was halachic opposition beyond the opposition voiced against Rabbi Beirav (the Sanhedrin must wait for Moshiach, etc). That particular halachic argument has heavyweights on both sides. --Historian2 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and these heavyweights should be mentioned and their key positions summarized. --Shirahadasha 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Kook's dream was to re-establish the Sanhedrin in his time but was not able to. His establishment of Rabbinut was meant to be a step towards the Sanhedrin. Since his death many believe Rabbinut has become just a sockpuppet of the Israeli Government or at least is controlled by some extent by the Israeli Government. Does anyone know where the source for this is? -- 203.217.35.51

Source for what? BTW It is interesting that Rabbi Kook chose to create the Rabbinut with exactly 71 rabbis. Historian2 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Semicha article also to some degree duplicates the content, and also contains some very one-sided material:

The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to moral climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by communities around the world both Jewish and Gentile. --Shirahadasha 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a garbled version of what I originally posted. I am not sure what it is supposed to mean. --Historian2 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! CrazyRussian asked me to come in and review the recent conflict regarding the modern Sanhedrin, and see if we can hammer out a consensus that everyone can agree with. First and foremost, let me state clearly that I am totally uninvolved and completely unbiased. Additionally, all I know about the subject is what I have just read in the article and its relevent related topics. I appreciate the participation and support of interested editors.

After reviewing the Talk page and history of the article, I think it is important to get one huge item out of the way first: the question of whether the article text on the modern Sanhedrin should be moved to a new article. After that is determined, we can focus on getting the text to a place where everyone can agree it is neutral and verifiable.

In thinking about this, I ask each editor to consider: Is the modern iteration of the Sanhedrin significantly similar to the ancient Sanhedrin, in both theory and practice? If your answer is "no", I suggest that moving the text to a new article may be appropriate. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose moving to a new article, with a bullet, the word support or oppose, any comments, and your signature. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move, provided that a small blurb and link remain in the main article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support precisely as BG - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Historian2's being bold again, see Nascent Sanhedrin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I've been bold as well and moved it to Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support precisely as BG, I am not being bold, as you see from my history I am new here and unfamiliar with procedure. I thought AmiDaniel was handling this page and I have been corresponding with him. I dispute CrazyRussian's handling of this situation. I claim he is biased. I think "Modern attempts" is a bit too wide as it would have to cover the several of the last six attempts. I think due to the complex nature and its controversy a title should be chosen that only relates to the most recent attempt. --Historian2 20:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being bold on Wikipedia is generally a good thing. :) Once we have everyone on board for the move, we can have a good discussion about the title. Agreed? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the inclusion of my paragraph concerning Haredi criticism. It is absolutely true that the Yated uses very harsh language. That is very relevant here, because the Yated gives the opinion of the Litvishe gedolim and apparently the Litvishe gedolim consider Ariel to be 'unworthy of any support for his activities', 'his books unworthy of being purchased', and the man himself to have 'poisonous opinions'. That indicates what the Litvishe world thinks about the people on the 'Sanhedrin', which is very relevant. --Daniel575 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. with the caveat that whether "the modern iteration of the Sanhedrin significantly similar to the ancient Sanhedrin, in both theory and practice" ia the very thing that's being hotly disputed, and WP's action shouldn't be perceived as taking a position on the issue; it simply acknowledges the existence of a dispute as to whether the two are the same or a sufficiently similar subject. --Shirahadasha 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, one hurdle out of the way. That was the easy part. I suggest at this time that we take the discussion to the new article Talk page, and as Shirahadasha suggested, try to flesh it out a little bit with a standard lead paragraph and links back to the old article. I am leaving for the evening, and I will leave you with two suggestions:

• Agree not to edit-war the criticism section until we have time to discuss it.
• Begin a discussion about the name of the new article. If you agree with the current name, fine. If not, please propose an alternative. The goal should be neutral and informative.

Thanks and have a good night. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]