Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Discussion: The debate stirred within the Haredi camp

This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:

Haredi Leadership

When Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon in 1949 tried to form a Sanhedrin out of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, leading rabbis of the Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition in a number of declarations. The Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish and the Lubavitcher Rebbe were some of the more vocal opponents of that initiative. Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, (Chazon Ish) quotes the Radvaz that no one is fit to renew the Sanhedrin. He concluded that any discussion of the topic in this "orphaned generation" is ludicrous.

By contrast, there has been no official response to the current Sanhedrin issued by any Haredi leader or Jewish Court, though many in the Haredi world are skeptical about the project. It has mostly been met, in public at least, by silence. The 'Sanhedrin' itself claims that the current attempt is very different than the previous attempt and that leading sages like Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, who passed away in April 2006, have expressed support for, and consented to, the renewal of Semicha. To date, none of these Rabbis have commented on these claims. However, people close to Rabbi Eliashiv and Rabbi Halberstam have denied that either ever gave any support to the 'Sanhedrin' or the renewal of Semicha.

Haredi Community & Media

The Lithuanian Haredi Yated newspaper, a major mouthpiece for the Lithuanian Haredi rabbinical establishment, has run several articles condemning Rabbi Yisrael Ariel and his 'Temple Institute' using the expression "poisonous opinions".

It appears, however, that this opinion is not shared by all the Haredi communities. The Yated has also run recently run articles condemning Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, referring to strongly worded comments made by Rabbi Elazar Shach in 1989.

Many of the figures involved in the Sanhedrin are perceived as being affiliated with the National Religious movement because some of its members ascended to a portion of the Temple Mount. While there is disagreement between various orthodox groups on this point, and Maimonides and the Radbaz ascended to the Temple Mount, nearly all modern Haredi legal opinions as well as most National-Religious authorities, including the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, do not allow this. Also, a religious newspaper, the Yated Neeman, wrote "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it."

Meshulam proposes deleting major portions of this text claiming see [WP:NPOV], specifically "let the facts speak for themselves." --Historian2 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these changes make sense. In the article the way it is now, there are conclusions being made left and right. Many of these conclusions are not only not-verified - they are not verifiable! It looks like someone who agrees with Yated just sprinkled Yated quotes through the article in lieu of doing any real research. But to call Yated the mouthpiece of the Hareidi world is a little naive. My proposal eliminates the POV, and strips the article down to the facts. That way, readers can "let the facts speak for themselves."

Have you looked at the archives? There was a lot of vigorous discussion on this text. I also opposed this text, but I also recognize that there is difficulty with this subject because it is obvious many people have strong opinions about this "new Sanhedrin" and not much is available online. To "do any real research" would be WP:OR and also not allowed. Do you think enough information is left that the readers are left with a coherent and readable text? --Historian2 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In my rendition? Or in the current one? --Meshulam 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 wrote this paragraph a month ago and he was quite emphatic about it. It would be nice to hear his opinion so we don't start edit wars again. Personally, I don't have problems with your proposed text, however, I think your proposed text is less readable that the current text. --Historian2 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can work on its readability. The text as it stands has tons of POV issues (not to mention accuracy issues). There are a number of things that are plain unverified.--Meshulam 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just altered the above. I think it is more readable now. --Meshulam 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, maybe wait a day or two for comments --Historian2 13:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Added some more, made a few little changes. Historian, from where do you get that claim that Steinsaltz had solved anything with the Edah after his fight with Rav Shach? That smells like OR to me. Same OR of which I just added some. Both of it marked with a fact-tag. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OR? Maybe <fact>. The Eda HaCharedis doesn't usually store their files online, but it is verifiable in principle, and it would be possible to obtain the docket number. There is a garbled version of this event in the Jerusalem post here, search for "Yet, despite this recognition, Steinsaltz capitulated to demands by Rabbi Eliezer Shach"... Do you dispute this? BTW Daniel575, I am not involved in these changes, see Meshulam. I reverted his changes for the time being and moved them here so we could all talk civilly. --Historian2 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We had our July Edit War and August Edit War but we haven't had our September Edit War yet :-) --Historian2 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed back to my version here. Concerning what that Steinsaltz link says, perhaps you didn't read it all the way. It ends with: "... although, in response to public outcry, the work was eventually published." In other words, Steinsaltz did not capitulate to Rav Shach's demands. He intended to do so, but then others - I presume Lubavitchers - put huge pressure on him not to give in, and it was published anyway, despite Rav Shach's objections. Further, it says nothing anywhere about anything with the Edah HaCharedis. So that's totally unverifiable and total OR. Just like my addition is: "However, people close to Rabbi Eliashiv and Rabbi Halberstam have denied that either ever gave any support to the 'Sanhedrin' or the renewal of Semicha.". Also OR. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is OR, it should be deleted. --Meshulam 00:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How could claim about Rabbi Fischer of the Eda HaCharedis "clearing the name" of Rabbi Steinsaltz be OR? It should not be a problem to get a verifiable reference to a public document. Also, it is only incidental to the whole issue and buried in a footnote. --Historian2 07:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 your claim that the whole "new Sanhedrin" is a "pack of lies" is conspiracy theory, unfounded, unexplained and based on a private conversation between you and your Rav. (as you said "I have no source. It is personal, this rabbi lives across the street and I asked him in person. I will remove all instances of non-verifiable claims in the article.") --Historian2 07:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Meshulam, what is happening in this dispute? I do not object to the current text or your proposed text. --Historian2 07:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting 'Rambamist' section

This is not a serious movement. It consists of maybe 50 people on a few internet fora. There is no serious movement like this. The manager of the forum 'ronware' is a Lubavitcher who happens (like the Lubavitcher Rebbe and all Lubavitchers) to be completely focused on the Rambam. But they do abide by the Shulchan Aruch, generally (except when it comes to practicing idolatry, for some of them). There is absolutely no need for a section here discussing what a few members of a forum think about this. If I start a forum with 5 members and we say we oppose the Sanhedrin, we are also worthy of a section in this article? Come on. Nonsense. It should be deleted because it fails any and all requirements for notability. There are SEVEN (7) users with more than 50 posts on that forum. You call that notable? Come on. Laughable. I am deleting a large part of that section. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about Rambamist or "Maimonideans" are incorrect see here and irrelevant. They are one of the few groups who have opposed the new Sanhedrin on grounds of Jewish law. Their views are important and significant. This negative section is important to provide a balanced picture both pro and con of this subject. --Historian2 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Hope you like the new section. It's going to be a lot of fun, including every group in the Jewish world that has 6 anonymous members in this article, don't you think? We could also just stick to serious notable groups. By the way, I assure you that Jews Against Zionism Netherlands has more than 6 members, so it belongs in the article even more than the 'ronware' forum. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is vandalism! --Historian2 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Jews Against Zionism Netherlands has more than 6 members. Most of them never or rarely use the internet (Haredim are forbidden from using the internet- I am actually committing a sin by being here). That forum you cite as the representative opinion of 'the Rambamist world' which is supposedly very big and important has 6 members. So what are you talking about, 'vandalism'? Delete both and we're happy. Include your crazy little 'Rambamist' sect and my movement will be mentioned with a subsection also. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about Rambamist or "Maimonideans" are incorrect see here and irrelevant. The fact that you don't count Yemenites doesn't make your opinion correct. --Historian2 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See here for the member list of your oh so noteworthy forum with 6 active members. Your calling my edits 'vandalism' is plain pathetic. If you think my edits here are 'vandalism', you need medication. An internet forum with 6 anonymous members is neither a source for a Wikipedia article nor is it relevant for inclusion. If you think it is, you are hallucinating.

I fully count Yemenites. There are no sources for any Yemenite response to this 'Sanhedrin'. The people on the forum you bring are lay persons, and are not Yemenites. I know that the forum owner (ron) is an American Ashkenazi Lubavitcher, who happens to love the Rambam. That's not a Yemenite and his view does not represent the Yemenite community, just as much as my view does not represent the Argentinean Jewish community. My 'opinion' is not an opinion but a fact. An anonymous internet forum with 6 people on it is not a source nor notable for a Wikipedia article. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then lets discuss this in good faith. Stop with the insults. Stop with the vandalism. It is not a problem to provide other sources. --Historian2 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the one vandalizing here. An anonymous internet forum with 6 members is not a source nor notable enough for a Wikipedia article (how many times have I said this by now?). Even my movement, which is not all that big, is more notable, since my movement has more members than this 'ronware' forum. You do not derive the opinion of the Yemenite community from an English-language internet forum with 6 members which is run by an American Ashkenazi Lubavitcher. That is just plain laughable. You include that tiny sect, you include mine also. Delete mine, we delete yours. Get it? It works both ways. You insist on listing irrelevant tiny little groups, then fine, we will include every tiny little group that has an anonymous internet forum with 6 members. Happy now? Or maybe, just maybe we should rather stick to established movements? If you can bring any opinions from real Yemenites from verifiable sources, fine. It does not appear to me that any of the 6 members of that forum are Yemenites. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least four websites that I know of, three forums, hundreds of uses and thousands of posts. I can bring information from the websites themselves, and from the literary sources. Why do this vandalism? Why throw insults? I give up. --Historian2 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are so many sources, POST THEM. Instead of an anonymous internet forum with 6 members, none of whom are Yemenites. Sigh. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All of this should have been discussed first on the talk page, rather than just changed in the article. Historian claims that there are sources to back up the "Rambamist" camp claims made in the article. I don't know anything about these guys. I feel like I would know something about them if they were notable, but I could be wrong. When Historian gets off block, he should verify the info he posted. The inclusion of the Dutch Anti-Zionists is obviously just a tactic to annoy and antagonize. Lets be adults. --Meshulam 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the admin of the "ronware" forum. Without going into any discusion of the other matters discussed here, I would like to correct the misinformation about me. I am not a Lubavitcher nor have I ever been one, so the discussion centering on that is completely off-base. (ron, 10 Sep 2006

I did not write the sections as it currently stands so I can't speak for its content. But the original point of the section was this:

• The Rambamists or "Maimonideans" is a small but significant community in terms of numbers.
• In Jewish Law the Rambamist view is a significant alternative view discussed by many important authorities including Rabbi Yosef Karo.
• The Rambamists, according to their approach, support the formation of a literal Sanhedrin in our day
• The few forums associated with the Rambamists have opposed the new 'Sanhedrin' claiming that the Rambam's advice was not properly followed (they did not assemble ALL scholars)

I think this is a very relevant issue concerning the new 'Sanhedrin', one that should be included in the discussion as it is unique. Yemenite views are important even if Daniel has not heard of them or thinks they are not notable. I believe that there should not be a problem with documenting these points with verifiable sources. The paragraph as it stands does not have enough citations, but I believe it deserves a <fact> tag, not deletion. As we have handled all other disputes in an orderly fashion, let's propose new text here and get some comment and consensus before posting it on the main page. Maybe it should be deleted? I am open to suggestions. Ron, welcome to the discussion, what do you think? --Historian2 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Historian2 - I believe that much of the material you are attempting to assemble concerning the "Rambamist" approach can be gleaned from the discussions on my board, even though it is not presented in a unified manner. I would like to mention that there are a great many (by far the majority) students of the Rambam who do not post on my board, either because their English is not sufficient, or because they are spending their time in talmud-torah, or because they haven't access to a computer. And yes, in some cases -- maybe even many -- they think posting there is a waste of their time. I myself don't post too often to my board. It is a mistake to extrapolate from the number of posters on my board to the number of people who "hold by the Rambam", and an even bigger mistake to extrapolate from my posters to the general level of scholarship among the so-called "Rambamists" in general. RonAaron 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Ron. This conversation may not be a good enough citation under Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, but your answers may help us determine how fruitful a further search for citations will be. How many Rambamists are you? Is there a school affiliated with your movement? Is there any info you can give us that will help us determine if your orgnaization is mainstream enough to make it onto the article. As Daniel said, if we let in a group with 6 members, we'll have to expand the article considerable to let in all the other groups that have expressed their opinions on the subject. I'm not interested in doing that. I (for one) will take your answers on face value, and that will govern how I vote regarding keeping or deleting the Rambamist section for now. --Meshulam 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Meshulam - I don't know how many "Rambamists" there might be. In general, Baladi Yemenites live by the Mishne Torah lema`aseh, as do some Portuguese and Sephardic groups. Clearly the numbers are much smaller than the "mainstream" groups. Outside these `edoth, there are some within the Hareidi camp who also "hold by the Rambam", and there are of course those individuals such as I who try to "live by the Rambam". I personally know about a dozen such (most of whom are actually not on my discussion board), but I assume there are many others I don't know. There is no formal school or organization, so there is no real way to gauge numbers. Unlike the "mainstream" groups, we have no "rebbes" or "gedolim" or other leaders to be held up for public scrutiny. There are currently 57 registered members of my board, of whom about ten are regularly active. There are many more who "lurk".

As far as how "serious" we are or not, it should be noted that the secretary of the quasi-sanhedrin spent quite a bit of time discussing on our board, as has one of the people active with them. Neither are "Rambamists", but they seem to be interested in what we are saying. The reason for that is, I think, that we are concerned with getting the halachah right rather than any political or other considerations.

I don't know if this helps you or not. Anyway, kol tuv. RonAaron 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It helps quite a bit. Thanks. You mentioned that certain Yemenite Edot and other Edot follow Mishne Torah (I imagine you mean as opposed to the Shulchan Aruch). Do you have anything in print you can cite to that veifies that fact? If there are these groups, one would imagine that they have Rebbeim (meaning Morei Horah, not Admorim). One would aslo imagine that they receive formal training in a school that fits their unique outlook. Are any of these things verifiable? What info do you have on them? I am inclined to vote to keep the section if these things can be procured, and satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks for your input, Ron. --Meshulam 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any formal documentation, but you might take a look at 'avqath-rochel (the Sh"ut of Maran Beith Yosef) 33 (I think it is lamed-gimmel, it's around there anyway). There, the B"Y refers to numerous communities (in his day) who all followed M"T as halachah lema`aseh.

As far as formal training and morei hora'ah etc, I recommend you contact the webmaster of mechon-mamre.org ... he is extremely knowledgable and can answer these kinds of questions far better than can I. kol tuv, RonAaron 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In my text above I cite four sources. The wikipedia article on Yemenites is pretty good. It discusses "Rambamists" and wants to say that all Yemenites were originally "Rambamists". If you do a search on google on "Rambamist", and look at where it is mentioned, you can see that it is not "a movement of 6 people". I believe the Rambamist movement is as big as any of the minor chassidic movements, say Bubov or Slonim. But more importantly than their numbers is the recognition of their "school of thought" as an alternative halachic view (see Avkat Rochel para 32). The chayas.org reference I gave is *not* a forum and probably a perfectly acceptable wikipedia source. I think it is fair to quote ron's forum if it is clearly labeled as such. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems fair. This information is very critical of the new 'Sanhedrin' from the standpoint of Jewish law and I think for a balanced presentation it shouldn't be left out. --Historian2 07:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Meshulam 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agree --Shirahadasha 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 14:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rambamist section is completely OR

The debate stirred within the Rambamist camp

Rambam-oriented websites on the Internet, particularly those associated with Rabbi Yosef Kapach (former chief Rabbi of Yemenite Jews and widely respected by students of the Rambam)Several articles about Rabbi Kapach, claim they were some of the first and most ardent supporters of the formation of a Sanhedrin according to the halachah detailed by Rambam.

Many members of this forumLiving by the Rambam Forum, while supporting the formation of a Sanhedrin, do not recognize what is claimed to be Rabbi Yosef Karo's interpretation of Rambam, but rather follow a more literal 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 scholars via letters as was done.

A few forum members want to see the Rambam's Mishne Torah selected as the base of all halakhic decisions instead of the Shulchan Arukh. The majority of students of the Rambam, however, while not recognizing the validity of the "semikha" as it was established, have a more complex view on the functionings of a real Torah system and understand that the reinstatement of legitimate rabbinical authority (through a real Sanhedrin) could produce adjustments in the Law as detailed in Rambam's Mishne Torah. According to this point of view, the Mishne Torah is not an eternal code that must be adopted by a future Sanhedrin, but rather a compilation of the last binding rulings and traditions of the Court, which can be modified (in the case of rabbinical rulings) or temporarily suspended (in the case of Torah law) by a future Sanhedrin.

This entire section is OR. Its only source is an anonymous internet forum with 6 members. I have deleted the section from the article because of this reason. (I also removed the ref tags here because this is the talk page.) I look forward to thoughts of others, and I will not agree with reinstating this section in the article. It consists only and completely of OR. We cannot base whole sections of a Wikipedia article on the supposed thoughts of 6 members of an anonymous internet forum. Also, the link to articles about Rabbi Kapach says nothing about a Sanhedrin. The word Sanhedrin is not even mentioned anywhere in any of those articles. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, there is a entire discussion about this above, please re-read it. I happen to agree with you that the Rambamist section is mostly OR as it stands. I did not write the sections as it currently stands so I can't speak for its content. But the original point of the section was this:

• The Rambamists or "Maimonideans" is a small but significant community in terms of numbers (Wikipedia: Yemenite_Jews Religious groups).
• In Jewish Law the Rambamist view is a significant alternative view discussed by many important authorities including Rabbi Yosef Karo (Avkat Rochel, responsa of the Beis Yosef, para 32).
• The Rambamists, according to their approach, support the formation of a literal Sanhedrin in our day (Rabbi Yosef Kapach, former Chief Rabbi of Yemen and one of the most foremost Rabman authorities, in his commentary on Mishne Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin)
• The few forums associated with the Rambamists have opposed the new 'Sanhedrin' claiming that the Rambam's advice was not properly followed (they did not assemble ALL scholars) (http://ronware.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pub:Sanhedrin#Deconstruction_of_the_Responses ronware.org) (http://www.chayas.com)

And there was a consensus of opinion that this section should stay, albeit rewritten. Now you have gone and deleted it against consensus. Daniel575 I give up, have it your way.

--Historian2 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Better not to use ref tags on talk pages. I have seen no source for saying that this is a 'significant community in terms of numbers'. I personally have in my entire year that I live in Israel seen 1 (one) synagogue of them, in Petach Tikvah. The section is entirely OR. Whether they supported or opposed it does not matter. I do not believe the claim that they are a 'numerically significant community'. And also, most sources don't say all that much. Regarding Chareidi groups, I have seen estimates of Chabad ranging from 10,000 to 300,000 and of Satmar ranging from 15,000 to 250,000. That says enough about the credibility of such estimates. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, I think if you follow consensus you will be a much better editor. The section you have erased only needed sources. I have provided five above. We just haven't had time to fold it in yet. This was discussed above and agreed upon that it should not be deleted. Against consensus you deleted it. User:Meshulam placed the section back with the comment "There was already a consensus here. Please resolve this in the talk page through further consensus. For now, the consensus was to keep these sections." and you reply "fine, so then this section returns also. else, quit your vandalism. OR=OR=forbidden." and you belligerently add a section about the "Opinion of the Dutch extreme anti-Zionist". Don't you realize this kind of behavior might get you banned from wikipedia? It has been called wikisuicide[1]. You have an open Request for Comment on Civility concerning this behavior and its sounding overwhelming negative. Please take this into consideration. You could be a great editor if you just knew when to hold back. --Historian2 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Stop pretending I am a loose projectile while pretending you are a sweet little lamb. There are still no sources. I see no source anywhere that tells me 1) how many Yemenite Chareidim there are, or 2) what their opinion on this 'Sanhedrin' thing is. Who does 'chayas.com' represent? What I find on that website about this 'Sanhedrin' is explicitly (it says so) the opinion of the webmaster of that site. I have not seen any source yet. Zero. Nothing. There are no sources for the entire 'Rambamist' section. There is still NO source. All you have provided is a bunch of empty links which provide no information on anything related to our subject.

Further, the line about the 'Sanhedrin' statements regarding the elections being in line with support for Chazit of Baruch Marzel is pure OR. Whenever a sentence starts with 'It seems', this sentence is OR. 'It seems' does not belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is based on facts, not on interpretations. 'It seems' is an interpretation. That sentence seems like it was obviously written by a Chazit supporter who is interested in convincing everybody that the 'Sanhedrin' supports Chazit. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine your links, one by one.

• The Rambamists or "Maimonideans" is a small but significant community in terms of numbers (Wikipedia: Yemenite_Jews Religious groups).
  • All that I find there about numbers is that there were 30,000 of them in Yemen about a hundred years ago. "At the beginning of the nineteenth century they are said to have numbered 30,000, and to have lived principally in Aden (200), Sana (10,000), Sada (1,000), Dhamar (1,000), and the desert of Beda (2,000)."

• In Jewish Law the Rambamist view is a significant alternative view discussed by many important authorities including Rabbi Yosef Karo (Avkat Rochel, responsa of the Beis Yosef, para 32).

• • Correct, it is a significant alternative view, and not one that we follow. Only Yemenites follow the Rambam lehalachah. And see above about the number of Yemenites. There is no evidence at all that suggests that there are so many of them. Everyone else follows the Shulchan Aruch.

• The Rambamists, according to their approach, support the formation of a literal Sanhedrin in our day (Rabbi Yosef Kapach, former Chief Rabbi of Yemen and one of the most foremost Rabman authorities, in his commentary on Mishne Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin)

• • More exact source? Otherwise, okay, if he really said this it is worth mentioning. I will reinstate this.

• The few forums associated with the Rambamists have opposed the new 'Sanhedrin' claiming that the Rambam's advice was not properly followed (they did not assemble ALL scholars) (http://ronware.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pub:Sanhedrin#Deconstruction_of_the_Responses ronware.org) (http://www.chayas.com)

• • 'Few forums', of which only 1 is given, which has 6 active members. 6 anonymous active members, none of whom appear to be Yemenites, and thus none of them follow the Rambam lehalachah. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the section to the following:

Yemenite opinion Rabbi Yosef Kapach, former Chief Rabbi of Yemen, wrote in his commentary to the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin that it would be a very good thing to reinstate the Sanhedrin in our days. However, he held, according to the position of the Rambam, that this could only be done by assembling all leading Torah scholars physically together in one time.

Hope everyone agrees that there is no OR here. I believe that he wrote that in his Mishnah commentary. Now, we have no websites of highly questionable (or let's just say unworthy) value. For the 1000th time: an anonymous internet forum with 6 members is not a source. The other sources said nothing about Rav Kapach. Perhaps I will start an article about him based on that collection of biographies from newspaper, which has no place here but definitely has a place in the article about him. I hope we can work from this - without OR. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I created an article on Rav Yosef Kapach. Now if the others here would also be willing to put some energy into this, we could make that a great article, using the information from the articles on the Chayas.com link. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 - I would have hoped that יום הכיפורים would have effected some change in your desire to misrepresent other Jews. You consider my website of "highly questionable" value. Fine. Why not let others, perhaps older and wiser than you, decide on its own merits? You say that "none of them follow the Rambam lehalachah". In this you are absolutely incorrect. I personally know many (much more than six, רחמנא לצלן!) who follow the Rambam להלכה as scrupulously as possible. I am one of them. You ask how many "Yemenite Chareidim" there are. Since "Charedim" in the modern sense is an Ashkenazi phenomenon, that is a pointless and somewhat ludicrous question. Why not ask how many Dutch anti-Zionist Jews work in the Sochnut?

You seem to have this idea that only Yemenites follow Rambam למעשה. That is incorrect, as I pointed out before. You also seem to think that noone on my site is Yemeni. You are wrong as well, about that. Perhaps you would do well to spend time reviewing the laws concerning אהבת ישראל (the people, not the country), as well as "כך דברי תורה, אינן נמצאין בגסי הרוח ולא בלב כל גבה לב; אלא בדכא ושפל רוח שמתאבק בעפר רגלי החכמים" (Laws of Torah Study, 3:8[9]). RonAaron 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah

Given that the Mishna permits the Shofar to be blown on Shabbat in the presence of the Court of 71, and Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat this year, does anyone know if the New Sanhedrin had a shofar-blowing this year for first day of Rosh Hashanah? Best, --Shirahadasha 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes they did. The translation of an article from Haaretz is here. (There is a great description of the group there that I'm sure Daniel575 would love "Most of the worshipers were Hareidim: Two belonged to Chassidut 'Toldos Aharon', four were from Chassidut 'Ger', two were Litvish, two were Sefardic, two were 'Knitted-Kipah' and the reset were American or French.") There are good explanations of why they did it here, here and here. As someone wrote in, it was not to change, simplify or cancel Jewish custom but the logical result of claiming to have semicha and a Sanhedrin. Unfortunately I don't have anytime to write about it now, maybe someone else can? --Historian2 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Toldos Aharon is that these people are crazy Zionist heretics who are not worthy of any attention at all. The fact that two men who have succumbed to the yetzer hora (devilish inclination) joined them does not change this fact. This 'Sanhedrin' consists of a bunch of heretics, whose activities should immediately be put to an end in any possible way. For any further information, contact HaRav Meir Brandsdorfer shlita. I have his phone number if you want. (Have to note that he is TAY, not TA, but their opinions on this issue and on most others are the same - simply what Reb Arele said.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a sentence on the event to Rosh Hashanah. --Shirahadasha 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where, I didn't see it? --Historian2 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah#Traditions and customs, end of first paragraph

What's the difference btw haredi, National Religious, etc.? They all seem "ultra-Orthodox" to me. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

General Change Proposed

From what I see, this article refers to this controversial organization as the "Sanhedrin" or "new Sanhedrin," despite the fact that the majority of the Jewish community has not recognized this organization as such. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this organization would qualify as a real Sanhedrin. The article is therefore asseting this organization's "authority" and indirectly arguing for it. My general proposed change would therefore be to change the mention "Sanhedrin" to "self-proclaimed *Sanhedrin*" or "this organization" or "movement for the restoration of the *Sanhedrin*" whichever is more appropriate. Referring to this body as the "Sanhedrin" would give undue weight to a specific POV and may confuse occassional readers who are not familiar with the issue. --Danezra 11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims such as "there is no evidence that this organization would qualify as a real Sanhedrin." represent a point of view which its proponents disagree with. One can claim the group isn't notable to begin with and ask to have the article deleted. It sounds like this is what you are arguing, and WP:Afd is the place to make this argument. But if the article is kept, one has to call the group by what it calls itself, and then deal with the arguments of its supporters and detractors. --Shirahadasha 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article will not be deleted. It is sufficiently notable. An AfD is senseless. Rather, the article must represent the truth. For me, the issue here is that I am aware of the truth. I am aware that the article contains blatant lies. How do I know this? OR. Original Research. This includes the fact that Rav Moshe Halberstam zt'l has NEVER had ANYTHING to do with this 'Sanhedrin'. He has never given them any support, blessing or cooperation. The same applies to Rav Eliashiv. Claims to the contrary are simple and plain lies. My sources: HaRav Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, a (former) colleague of Rav Halberstam, who called the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' of Rav Halberstam's support for them "lies, plain lies", and Mordechai Plaut of the Yated, who said that any claim of Rav Eliashiv supporting them is a plain, disgusting lie. I do not appreciate it when gedolim like Rav Halberstam zt'l or Rav Eliashiv shlita are lied about. Especially not when the lie consists of claiming that these gedolim gave their support to a body that consists of extreme-right wing Zionists.

The article contains several very major lies. Aside from that, Historian2's attitude of considering the 'Yemenite-style Rambamists' equally important to the Ashkenazi Chareidi world is disgusting. The former has at most a few thousand adherents; the latter has hundreds of thousands. This should be reflected in the article. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all in the first place to suggest any kind of support for this 'Sanhedrin' from that Yemenite-Rambamist corner in any case. Further, the whole sections about the 'Temple Mount Faithful' and also about the 'Rambamist' and about others are completely, 100% OR. However, as soon as I delete any of these sections, Historian2 comes along crying that I am a vandal. Yet when he doesn't like my contributions, he just deletes them 'because of OR'. Apparently he is allowed to do OR and I am not, and when I revert his OR, he just accuses me of being a 'vandal', of carrying out 'personal attacks' and of having an 'anti-zionist neturei karta POV'. I am now removing all OR regarding the 'Rambamist' and 'Temple Mount Faithful' from the article. The 'sanhedrin' forum, nor the 'ronware' Rambamist forum qualify as sources for Wikipedia. A forum with 6 active members does not qualify as a notable source. Also note how when I in response to Historian2's reversion of my deletion of the 'Rambamist' section added a section on 'Dutch anti-Zionists' (an organization in which I have a major role and of which I am the webmaster), he deleted my section on the grounds that it was a 'non-notable group' and 'OR', while his section on the Rambamists, which has as its only source a forum with 6 members, he does consider notable and reliable.

I look forward to what the others think about this. Right now I am deleting all unverifiable information, including information for which the only source available is an anonymous internet forum with 6 members and the thoughts of a Yemenite Rabbi who died years before anyone was thinking of this 'Sanhedrin' and who never said anything relevant about reinstating a 'Sanhedrin'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)