פטר חמור at 23:26, 20 March 2024

2024-03-20T23:26:38Z

WikSysop at 09:44, 22 March 2007

2007-03-22T09:44:01Z

Show changes

WikSysop: updated from wikipedia

2006-12-11T14:59:28Z

updated from wikipedia

Show changes

BillyJDial: /* The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics */

2006-08-23T23:40:26Z

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

WikSysop at 09:51, 18 August 2006

2006-08-18T09:51:52Z

Show changes

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ;Renewal of Semicha
-For a year, Rabbi Yakov Beirav discussed the issues of re-establishment institution of [[semicha]] with the scholars of Safed. After much discussion the scholars at Safed came to the conclusion that [[Maimonides]]' view was correct, and that there was a pressing need to re-establish the Sanhedrin. In 1538 twenty-five Rabbis met in an assembly at Safed and ordained Rabbi Yakov Beirav, giving him the right to ordain others who would then form a Sanhedrin. After sending a delegation to Jerusalem, Rabbi Yakov Beirav expounded on Shabbat before all the scholars of Safed the halachic basis of the re-establishment of semicha and its implications, with an intent to dispel any remaining doubts. On hearing of this event, approximately two hundred scholars, most of the scholars in Land of Israel, also expressed their consent. To obtain the good-will of the scholars of Jerusalem, Rabbi Yakov Beirav sent Rabbi Shlomo Chazan to inform them of the reinstitution of semicha and to obtain their approval. He extended semicha to the chief Rabbi at Jerusalem, Levi ben Yakov ibn Chaviv, ([[Levi Ibn Chaviv|Ralbach]]).
+For a year, Rabbi Yakov Beirav discussed the issues of re-establishment institution of [[semicha]] with the scholars of Safed. After much discussion the scholars at Safed came to the conclusion that [[Maimonides]]' view was correct, and that there was a pressing need to re-establish the Sanhedrin. In 1538 twenty-five Rabbis met in an assembly at Safed and ordained Rabbi Yakov Beirav, giving him the right to ordain others who would then form a Sanhedrin. After sending a delegation to Jerusalem, Rabbi Yakov Beirav expounded on Shabbat before all the scholars of Safed the halachic basis of the re-establishment of semicha and its implications, with an intent to dispel any remaining doubts. On hearing of this event, approximately two hundred scholars, most of the scholars in Land of Israel, also expressed their consent. To obtain the good-will of the scholars of Jerusalem, Rabbi Yakov Beirav sent Rabbi Shelomo Chazan to inform them of the reinstitution of semicha and to obtain their approval. He extended semicha to the chief Rabbi at Jerusalem, Levi ben Yakov ibn Chaviv, ([[Levi Ibn Chaviv|Ralbach]]).
 ;The dispute
@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 The lack of response by the leadership has given pause, but has generally reinforced the feeling in the Haredi world that the 'Sanhedrin' is a complete non-issue, and it 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 do not 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 do not belong to any group, and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever."{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
-The members of the new Sanhedrin are not considered as belonging to the Haredi community.  The Lithuanian Haredi [[Yated Neeman|Yated]] newspaper, which expresses the official opinion of the [[Lithuanian Jews|Lithuanian Haredi]] rabbinical establishment, has run several articles condemning Rabbi [[Yisrael Ariel]] and his '[[Temple Institute]]' using the expression "poisonous opinions".<ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5766/korach/oharhabyskrh66.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, What is Geulah?]</ref><ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/ammikdshvsc66.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Beis Din Rejects Machon Hamikdash Petition Against Yated Ne'eman]</ref> It appears, however, that this opinion is not shared by all the Haredi communities.<ref>[http://www.templeinstitute.org/rabbanim.htm The Temple Institute: The Rabbinical Guests]</ref> The Yated has also run recently run articles condemning Rabbi [[Adin Steinsaltz]], referring to strongly worded comments made by Rabbi [[Elazar Shach]] in 1989.<ref>Letter dated Erev Shabbos Kodesh Pinchos 5749, ''Michtovim Umaamorim'' vol. IV. </ref><ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5764/EKV64oeductgrs2.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, Purity in Education by Rabbi N.Z. Grossman] It is disputed whether Rabbi [[Elazar Shach]] really opposed Rabbi [[Adin Steinsaltz]] in his final days, as it is claimed that Rabbi Steinsalz met with the rabbinical court in Jerusalem (Edah HaChareidis) making required changes and thereby resolving the issue.</ref> It is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz' untraditional and 'university oriented' approach is at odds with the Haredi approach.<ref>[http://www.hadassah.org/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2006/06_may/profile.asp Hadassah Magazine: Profile: Adin Steinsaltz, by Rahel Musleah]</ref> While not all [http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/main/officers.html leading members of the Sanhedrin] have generated such controversy, and some members like Rabbi Yoel Schwartz and Rabbi Michael Shlomo Bar-Ron are generally recognized as scholars within the Haredi community, they are generally unknown figures.
+The members of the new Sanhedrin are not considered as belonging to the Haredi community.  The Lithuanian Haredi [[Yated Neeman|Yated]] newspaper, which expresses the official opinion of the [[Lithuanian Jews|Lithuanian Haredi]] rabbinical establishment, has run several articles condemning Rabbi [[Yisrael Ariel]] and his '[[Temple Institute]]' using the expression "poisonous opinions".<ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5766/korach/oharhabyskrh66.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, What is Geulah?]</ref><ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/ammikdshvsc66.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Beis Din Rejects Machon Hamikdash Petition Against Yated Ne'eman]</ref> It appears, however, that this opinion is not shared by all the Haredi communities.<ref>[http://www.templeinstitute.org/rabbanim.htm The Temple Institute: The Rabbinical Guests]</ref> The Yated has also run recently run articles condemning Rabbi [[Adin Steinsaltz]], referring to strongly worded comments made by Rabbi [[Elazar Shach]] in 1989.<ref>Letter dated Erev Shabbos Kodesh Pinchos 5749, ''Michtovim Umaamorim'' vol. IV. </ref><ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5764/EKV64oeductgrs2.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, Purity in Education by Rabbi N.Z. Grossman] It is disputed whether Rabbi [[Elazar Shach]] really opposed Rabbi [[Adin Steinsaltz]] in his final days, as it is claimed that Rabbi Steinsalz met with the rabbinical court in Jerusalem (Edah HaChareidis) making required changes and thereby resolving the issue.</ref> It is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz' untraditional and 'university oriented' approach is at odds with the Haredi approach.<ref>[http://www.hadassah.org/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2006/06_may/profile.asp Hadassah Magazine: Profile: Adin Steinsaltz, by Rahel Musleah]</ref> While not all [http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/main/officers.html leading members of the Sanhedrin] have generated such controversy, and some members like Rabbi Yoel Schwartz and Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron are generally recognized as scholars within the Haredi community, they are generally unknown figures.
 In addition, the new Sanhedrin is seen as identifying with the extreme-right factions of the [[Mizrachi (Religious Zionism)|National Religious]] movement because some of it's members ascended to a portion of the Temple Mount. While there is disagreement between various orthodox groups on this point,<ref>[[Temple Mount#Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site|Temple Mount: Jewish Religious Law Concerning Entry to the Site]]</ref> and [[Maimonides]]<ref>Maimonides specifically states that there are areas on the temple mount that we are permitted to enter today even when all Jews are ritually unclean. He writes that in 1165 he visited Jerusalem and went up on to the Temple Mount and prayed in the great, holy house (probably the Al-Aqsa mosque). (Sefer HaCharedim Mitzvat Tshuva Chapter 3)</ref> and the [[Radbaz]]<ref>''Shaarey Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 561:1'', cf. ''Teshuvot Radbaz 691''</ref> 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."<ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5759/vayigash/conspic.htm Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, Don't Be Conspicuous, by Yisroel Spiegel]</ref><ref>[http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5766/korach/oharhabyskrh66.htm  Dei'ah veDibur: Opinion & Comment, What is Geulah?]</ref>

@@ Line 241: / Line 241: @@
 Some Christians, like evangelist [[Hal Lindsey]] and David Ketter[http://davidketter.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/the-sanhedrin-and-the-church-part-i/], see the reinstated Sanhedrin as good news, believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the Temple, which would eventually be desecrated by the false [[Messiah]] during the [[Christian eschatology|end times]] and inhabited by the true [[Messiah]] during the period of Christian eschatology referred to as the [[Millennialism|Millenial Reign]].
-The Sanhedrin has also selected a group of non-Jewish advisors, scholars and teachers from the [[Noahide Law|Noachide]] movement - the best-known of these is Dr. [[Vendyl Jones]], to form a [[High Council of B'nei Noah|High Council of Noahides]] responsible for outreach education from within the non-Jewish world.
+The Sanhedrin has also selected a group of non-Jewish advisors, scholars and teachers from the [[Noahide Law|Noachide]] movement to form a [[High Council of B'nei Noah|High Council of Noahides]] responsible for outreach education from within the non-Jewish world.
 Based on Christian apocalyptic and eschatalogical claims about the end times, the Last Judgment, and the end of the world have inspired a range of conspiracy theories. Many of these deal with the Antichrist, the foremost figure of worldly evil from the Book of Revelation. This Antichrist, often reported to be a Jew, is supposed to be a leader who will create a world empire and oppress Christians. The new Sanhedrin and its connection with the [[Noahide Law|Noachide]] movement have become the subject of speculation by numerous [[List of alleged conspiracy theories#Apocalyptic prophecies|apocalyptic conspiracy theories]] on the internet.  This view has been espoused by some fringe Catholic groups as well.

Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin - Revision history

פטר חמור at 23:26, 20 March 2024

WikSysop at 09:44, 22 March 2007

WikSysop: updated from wikipedia

BillyJDial: /* The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics */

WikSysop at 09:51, 18 August 2006