On the new "Sanhedrin"

With God’s help

Point – 2005

Tractate Sanhedrin (AR)[1]:

"This one chooses one for himself and that one chooses one for himself and they both choose another one for themselves"

prologue

About a year ago, we were informed in a faint voice that with the consent of all the great men of the nation from end to end (Rabbis Ovadia, Elyashiv, Shapira, Eliyahu, and the rabbis of the Haredi community, as a 'distant rumor' described it) the Sanhedrin had been established at a good and successful time. I rub my astonished eyes, pluck my bruised ears, and stand in awe of the miracle of the realization of the vision, "And a leopard with a kid shall lie down." But to my surprise, I suddenly discovered that there was no vision, and in its absence a people would be destroyed. I had to lower my eyes to the end of the verse: "And a little boy shall lead them."

Now, after about a year of extensive activity in leading the nation and instructing the halachic people to all corners of the world, the establishment of the Sanhedrin (R.) was celebrated with great enthusiasm. Advertisements in the press invited the public to this party, and to a seminar on the renewal of the Sanhedrin in our time, which took place before the party in question. And I, the little one, with a little less astonishment and a little more ridicule, wonder how far the disappointment of older Jews, some of whom at least know what a book is, and who are endowed with an excess of fervent, even delusional, messianic expectations, can go.

I wouldn't bother to address this sleepwalking anecdote if it weren't for the involvement of several fairly well-known Jews, and the precarious situation of the religious Zionist public in the post-disengagement days, which constitutes a fertile ground for the dangerous realization of messianic expectations (see below).

In other words: I am writing these unnecessary things only because someone might, God forbid, still carry out some instruction of those 'nearby' and that 'Sanhedrin', and we might regret very much the silent laughter with which we were all content at the sound of this children's game. In order to allow readers to make their own impressions, I am writing some of the things in the form of a report, and not in a journalistic form, or in the form of a theoretical study. Let's start with a demonstration.

'The Court for the Affairs of the People and the State'

The aforementioned respected institution established, among other things, the 'Court for People and State Affairs,' which has since published several 'rulings.' Furthermore, it was announced in press announcements that, among other things, the 'Supreme Council for the Children of Noah' is to be established at this year's party. So if you, dear reader, know a child of Noah who doesn't know what his/her duty is in this world (Bush, Abu Mazen, Condoleezza Rice or the Pope), now God has an address for them.

A few weeks before this gathering of the righteous, I received a 'ruling' from the pen of the 'Court for National and State Affairs under the auspices of the Sanhedrin (AR),' in which they instruct a 17-year-old girl who is in prison in Neve Tirzah, Tzvia Shariel, not to apply to the courts of the State of Israel (= courts of gentiles) and not to establish any contact with them, but to continue to sit in prison.

Following a quick investigation, I learned to my astonishment that this was not the first order of the aforementioned 'court'. A similar order was also given to three other girls (see box).

The Court for the Affairs of the People and the State – Jerusalem,

32 Misgav Ladach St.,

Under the auspices of the Sanhedrin, a large court of 71 square meters

2015 Case C/5765

Response to a request for a legal ruling

To build Israel in the house of detention:

Hila Mantinband,

Hodiya Ben Avraham,

Leah Haas.

decision:

I will give blessings to God!

We received your letter regarding your refusal to be tried in courts that are not according to the Torah, and your willingness to be tried only in a court that judges according to the Torah of Moses.

Indeed, you did well, for the Maimonides ruled in the Sanhedrin Laws 26:7: "Anyone who judges Gentile judges and their courts, even though their laws were the laws of Israel, is wicked and as if he had insulted and blasphemed and raised his hand against the Torah of Moses our Lord, as it is said: And these are the judgments that you shall set before them! – before them – and not before Gentiles! Before them – and not before laymen!" And so it is stated in the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 26:1.

And it is stated in Tahchumah (Mishpatim, 3:3): 'Everyone who abandons the judges of Israel and goes before the Akkadians, first atones for the Holy One, blessed be He, and then atones for the Torah... And in the Akkadian laws it is said... And I also gave them bad laws and judgments, and they shall not live by them (Ezekiel 20). But to Israel I gave them good commandments and laws, as it is said (Leviticus 18): And you shall keep my statutes and my judgments, which a man shall do and live by them... The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: If you have done the right thing and you do not need it before the Akkadians, I will build you a temple and a Sanhedrin will sit in it, as it is said (Isaiah 1): And I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as at the beginning. After that you shall be called the city of justice, a faithful city.'

We have no choice, therefore, but to strengthen your hand, and we instruct you to continue your refusal.

And He who releases the captives will release you from your prison, as it is written: The Lord releases the captives. And the words of Isaiah will be fulfilled in you and in the rest of the captives of Zion: 'To proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to the bound.'

With the blessing of strengthening and embracing

Given on the 10th of Elul 5765 in the Jerusalem Court of Appeals:

To the undersigned:

Rabbi Yisrael Ariel – Av Beit Din,

Rabbi Dov Meir Stein,

Rabbi Dov Avraham ben Shor, 

Rabbi Hillel Weiss,

Rabbi Yehuda Edri,

Rabbi Yishai Babeddin,

Rabbi Mordechai Avrahami,

 

As every child knows, this 'ruling' has no halakhic basis. Even if someone is getting tough on a case with someone who is not willing to argue with him in an Israeli court, he is permitted (with the permission of the court) to go argue with him in gentile courts in order to save the money he is owed in the case. Halakhic law is not prepared to allow someone who is not subject to it to enjoy advantages because of this.

Therefore, it is clear that whoever signed this ruling is nothing more than a people of the land, or a disappointed disengagement whose disappointment has taken him by surprise. The problem is that the people of these countries are liable to cause young and innocent girls to sit in prison in a not-so-recommended society, instead of going to school and living among their family members. As a little girl, I immediately sent a letter to Tzvia Shariel, in which I made it clear to her that she can of course demonstrate against the actions of the government and the legal system, but she should not think that the law requires it of her, and she should not follow the 'rulings' of the laymen who jump to their heads pretending to be 'neighbors' and the 'Sanhedrin' (of course).

Following an inquiry (through an intermediary) that I conducted with the 'Av Beit Din', Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, it was clarified to me (and later, to my astonishment, I saw this written as a confession by Rabbi Ariel himself, in an article in Makor Rishon in the second month of Chashvan), that he knew that the above 'ruling' was not correct from a halakhic perspective (so!), but he gave it because Tzvia Shariel asked him for it (so!!!). The 'Great Sanhedrin', the soul's desire of every Jew who worships God for about two thousand years, rules an incorrect halakhic ruling just because a 17-year-old girl asks it of her.

In a telephone conversation I had with someone else among the "close" signatories, I was given the opposite version. According to him, all the signatories (including Rabbi Ariel) do indeed believe that this ruling is truly correct. He added that he would bring my words before the forum, and if they were wrong, they would bring the matter to the attention of the public (like that!).[2]

And little me, a firebrand and not a man, a layman and not a neighbor, wonders: What is worse, a false flag that leads to a wrong ruling that orders innocent girls to sit in jail and never leave, or wrong and misleading 'rulings' that are deliberately given at the political behest of a 17-year-old girl.

I have additional 'rulings' from the same 'Beit Din'. Some of them are vociferous about the disengagement and include it in their 'halakhic' rulings. Some of them encourage those who apply to the courts to save what is possible from their hands (compensation, etc.). How does this reconcile with the previous 'ruling'? For 'closer' solutions (apparently money is more important than the body, as it is said: "'With all that you have' - even if it takes your life").

It is clear from all the rhetoric surrounding this institution that this farce is fueled primarily by the frustrations of disengagement (although, as written in the article in Makor Rishon, the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Steinsaltz, has a different view on this matter). This is also evident from the citations of the speeches at the aforementioned conference (as reported in the article in Makor Rishon).

As background, it is worth noting that some of the initiators of this institution were partners in initiating the 'HaKhal' conference, another illusory messianic initiative, at which the President of the State stood on stage with the President of the Supreme Court and read the Torah before the entire Jewish people. At that time, they were probably not yet 'courts of gentiles,' since they only desecrated the Sabbath, had ablutions, and forced the children of Israel to change their religion and opinion, but did not cede territory from the Land of Israel to the Almighty for one reason or another.[3]

As mentioned, the whole thing seems like a game for children in kindergarten, and there seems to be no point in engaging in it. The problem is that there could certainly be people, or boys, who will sit in prison and think that they are inheriting their world in their lives and sacrificing their souls for the sanctity of God's name, while the only obligation they have is to return to study and be educated in their school. Unfounded halachic nonsense is being stated here as a 'ruling from the Great Court,' and frustrated boys may draw various and strange conclusions from this.

I fear that the day will not be far off when the 'Beit Din' will begin to adjudicate personal cases, in the manner of the Sanhedrin, and I am not sure that there will not be some fool who will carry out their 'instructions' (see below the words of Rabbi Yisrael Ariel on the powers of the Sanhedrin).

Brief halachic-historical background

As is known, in order for a full Torah legal system to exist, the judges must be 'close' from one person to another until Moses our Lord. In practice, the close sages judged Israel from the giving of the Torah until several hundred years after the destruction of the Second Temple (there is debate about the exact dating). After that, following the exile and the oppressive wrath, the ordination ceased, and the close judges were removed from Israel. Since then, we have not been able to judge personal and penal laws at all, and there are quite a few limitations on the ability of Israel's courts to judge according to Torah law.

And here, Maimonides, in his broad opinion, introduced a major, and even controversial, halachic innovation, according to which the ordination can be renewed from scratch with the consent of all the sages of the Land of Israel. As is known, in the days of the author's Maran (of the Shulchan Aruch, 16th century in Safed), Rabbi Yosef Karo, there was an attempt to renew the ordination while relying on Maimonides' innovation. The first ordination was Rabbi Yaakov Beirav, the author's rabbi, considered by many to be the greatest of that generation, and he ordained several of his students, including the author himself. The ordination continued for several generations, but even in the author's own time it was clear that this attempt had failed. Evidence of this is his own words in his book Beit Yosef, where he writes that "in our time there are no ordinations," even though he himself was one of the ordinations by Mahar"i Beirav.[4]

Even after the establishment of the state, the question of renewing the Sanhedrin arose, but it was clear that this could not be done without broad consensus. Such consensus was not achieved, and the matter died down.[5]

The Sanhedrin in question[6]

About a year ago, several activists arose and sent letters to anyone who was called a "rabbi" (according to criteria they decided on themselves), asking for his consent to renew the ordination and establish a Sanhedrin, and even suggesting names of candidates for "ordination."

I can testify to at least one case that I personally knew of one of the rabbis who received such a letter and threw it straight into the trash, saying, "I'm crazy, I'm crazy" (the wording is mine). I assume that most of the other rabbis who received this letter did the same. In any case, in recent weeks, when I did a little research on the situation, I heard about several other prominent rabbis in our country who addressed things in a similar way.

As I heard, the senders of the letters, without any confusion, decided that the consent of the rabbis of the Land of Israel is defined only within the group of rabbis who bothered to respond to the aforementioned sleepwalking letter.[7] Rabbi Ariel says this explicitly in the aforementioned interview with Makor Rishon:

"If the great men of the generation do not want to participate in the establishment of the Sanhedrin, they have excluded themselves from the rule. Their non-participation does not nullify the mitzvah..."

The reader will probably be surprised to hear that this referendum yielded a sensational result: the decision to renew the mandate was made by an overwhelming majority, and with a miraculous consensus. Incidentally, such surprises often occur in elections in Syria as well.

This agreement was considered by the Sahraurim Danan as an authorization for someone first (I will not mention his name due to the prohibition of slander, and especially since I did not check the details). He immediately authorized several of his friends, and together they renewed (or rather: established) the institution of the 'Sanhedrin' in Shatuma.

This institution established under its auspices the aforementioned 'Court for the Affairs of the People and the State', as well as the 'Supreme Council for the Children of Noah', so it sees its role as issuing directives to the entire world. Rabbi Yisrael Ariel himself even explains in an article in 'Makor Rishon' that:

"Before the Sanhedrin, everything is judged. Including the monarchy, which is bound by Torah law.[8] The king must also consult the Sanhedrin and present his political and halakhic problems, such as going to war. The king is not omnipotent, he says… The Sanhedrin is a superpower over the monarchy, over the high priesthood. It is the supreme legal system of the State of Israel."

Well, Rabbi Elyashiv, Rabbi Shapira, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and unlike Arik Sharon and Amir Peretz: we finally have someone who will decide on just and unjust wars, or on the appointment of a High Priest: the 'Court for the Affairs of the People and the State.'

Now all that remains is to begin adjudicating personal matters (this is also a commandment from the Torah, and if the great men of the generation do not participate, then our 'close ones' can adjudicate without them). Woe to you, you damned leftists, who are severing Judaism and the land! The stick and the whip (and perhaps also the sword) of the judges are already being raised against your backsides.

And another anecdote. The 'Great Court', whose function is to issue directives for all of Israel, is a 'registered association' under the supervision of the Registrar of Associations. Just for comparison, please consider the following expression: Knesset – the legislature (ar). Needless to say, a 'Sanhedrin' that has no authority, and in which a few child-adults, dreaming of redemption and the disappointment of exile, play 'It seems to me', is not an institution that can issue directives.

Some impudent Jews, some who know how to learn (and also to make mistakes) and some who do not, stand up and jump up and declare themselves 'Sanhedrin' in front of all the judges and residents of Midian who laugh at their sabbath, and teach instructions to innocent children and adults, whose frustration drives them crazy. This is a dangerous phenomenon, and the rabbinical world must come to its senses and send them for urgent counseling.

In the aforementioned article in Makor Rishon, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel explains to us that the samachim do not have to be the greatest of the generation. "It is enough that they know how to ask and inquire into halacha," as he put it. So I have some innovations for the 'Ab Beit Din'. His definition is a definition for laypeople who can discuss with rabbis the laws of money, without samachim. In contrast, Rambam, the Sanhedrin, p. 4, writes as follows:

And they can appoint anyone they want for individual matters, and he must be worthy of all matters, just as a wonderful sage who is worthy of instructing the entire Torah should be entrusted to a court and given permission to rule and not to rule on prohibitions and permissiveness, or they will give him permission to rule on prohibitions and permissiveness but not to rule on the laws of money, or they will give permission to this and that but not to rule on the laws of fines…

These are the requirements for receiving a ordination to judge. The requirements for membership in the Grand Court are even more stringent (see ibid., p. 2). In particular, these things are said about the first ordination in Israel, who certainly must meet the most stringent criteria, since the entire continuation of the legal system and halakhah in Israel is entrusted to him. As we recall, the sages of Safed ordained Mahari Beirav and Maran Ha-Havevar. As we saw above, this court does not know how to instruct even in something that a child understands. So who among the participants in this farce is a "wonderful sage who deserves to instruct in the entire Torah"?

There is a court in Halacha that is elected in the manner of 'one selects one for himself, and the other selects one for himself, and both select another for themselves.' So we have the court of the elders. But this is not the great court. We can only conclude with the words of the Rambam there later in the chapter (Halacha 15):[9]

Someone who is not worthy to judge because he does not know or because he is not decent, who has passed through exile and given him permission, or the court erred and gave him permission, the permission does not benefit him at all until he is worthy. Whoever dedicates a blemished person to the altar does not have holiness applied to him.

Epilogue: On 'Messianism' as a Derogatory Term

As mentioned, I feel ashamed that there is even a need to debate this farce, but the need certainly exists. After innocent girls are ordered to sit in prison, the law of the soul may also come to our doorstep.

One of the reasons for the rabbinical world's silence in the face of this brazen farce is apparently the fear of being accused of lacking true faith in redemption and the renewal of the Sanhedrin. As if faith in the rationalist is all lip service, for when he is offered to take part in bringing about redemption, he refuses, and even interferes with us.

Accusing someone of being a 'messianic' has more than a secular connotation. But what can we do about the fact that there is indeed a sick and sleepwalking messianism. And what can we do about the fact that belief and hope in the coming of the Messiah do not necessarily involve turning every layman who jumps headlong into the Messiah or the King of Israel. It is possible to believe in the coming of the Messiah and the redemption, and even to act for them, even without trampling on all the standards of sanity, of good manners, and of Halacha.

I, for example, believe in the coming of the Messiah and the renewal of the Sanhedrin, but I certainly do not commit to recognizing my pet cat as the Messiah, even if he establishes a registered association for that purpose...

[1] Registered association.

[2] I explained to him that in order to bring a public matter to the attention of the public, it is not enough that there was a mistake. It is also necessary that the person who made the mistake be a witness. A minor point, but it is important to pay attention to it.

[3] See my article on this in Zohar 22.

[4] The polemic in the 16th century revolved mainly around two questions: A. Is Maimonides correct, and can the ordination be renewed with the consent of all the sages of the Land of Israel? B. Even if Maimonides is correct, does everyone agree to the ordination and the renewal of the ordination at that time (since the consent of all the sages of the Land of Israel is required).

[5] It is known that the Rabbi of Brisk (at the time the leader of Jerusalem's Haredi community), Rabbi Welwela (the Gerizim), told Rabbi Maimon that he at least knew who the first Elder of Mamre would be.

[6] From now on, the term 'Sanhedrin' will be enclosed in quotation marks. Any connection to the original term is purely coincidental, and the reader's sole responsibility.

[7] This group of rabbis was probably defined as a group, according to the accepted assumption in group theory about the 'empty group.' There it is accepted to think that it is also a group.

[8] See Rambam, Sanhedrin, 2nd ed. This halacha was apparently omitted from Av Beit Din.

[9] Of course, there is no prohibition in what is being discussed here, since Maimonides does not prohibit engaging in games of 'as if Sanhedrin'. The things are presented only for impression purposes.