With God's help

"This one selects one, and that one selects one, and the two of them select yet another one for themselves."

Prologue

About a year ago we were informed in hushed tones that, with the agreement of all the great figures of the nation from one end to the other (Rabbis Ovadia, Elyashiv, Shapira, Eliyahu, and the rabbis of the Edah Haredit, according to that version of the 'distant rumor'), the Sanhedrin had been happily and auspiciously established. I rub my astonished eyes, tug at my stunned ears, and stand marveling before the wonder of the realization of the vision, and a leopard shall lie down with a kid. ("the leopard shall lie down with the kid"). But to my sorrow I suddenly discovered that there was no vision, and where there is no vision the people run wild. I had to lower my eyes to the latter half of the verse: and a little child shall lead them. ("and a little child shall lead them").

At this very moment, after about a year of extensive activity in leading the nation and issuing rulings of Jewish law to the ends of the earth, the founding of the Sanhedrin (registered association) is being celebrated in grand public style. Newspaper notices invited the public to this party, and to an analytical conference on the renewal of the Sanhedrin in our day that was held before the said celebration. And I, humble as I am, with a bit less astonishment and a bit more ridicule, wonder how far the disappointment of grown Jews can go—some of whom, at least, know their way around a text, and who have been endowed with an excess of fiery, even delusional, messianic expectations.

I would not have bothered to address this deranged anecdote, were it not for the fact that a few fairly well-known Jews are involved in it, and were it not for the unsettled state of the Religious Zionist public in the post-disengagement era, which provides fertile ground for the dangerous realization of messianic expectations (see below).

In other words: I am writing these superfluous remarks only because someone may yet, God forbid, actually carry out some instruction of those 'ordained judges' and that 'Sanhedrin,' and we may come to regret deeply the quiet chuckle with which we all sufficed upon hearing of this children's game. To allow readers to judge for themselves, I am writing some of the following in the form of reportage, and not as journalism or as theoretical analysis. Let us begin with a demonstration.

'The Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State'

The respected institution mentioned above has established, among other things, the 'Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State,' which has since published several 'rulings.' Beyond that, newspaper notices informed us that at the anniversary celebration they were to establish, among other things, the 'Supreme Council for Noahides.' So if you, dear reader, know some son or daughter of Noah who does not know his or her duty in this world (Bush, Abu Mazen, Condoleezza Rice, or the Pope), thank God they now have an address.

A few weeks before the gathering of the righteous in question, a 'judgment' reached me that had emerged from the pen of the 'Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State under the auspices of the Sanhedrin (registered association),' in which they instruct a 17-year-old girl, Tzviya Sharial, who is sitting in Neve Tirza prison, not to turn to the courts of the State of Israel (=gentile courts) and to have no contact with them, but rather to continue sitting in prison.

A quick inquiry revealed to me, to my astonishment, that this was not the first instruction of the said 'court.' A similar instruction was also given to three other girls (see box).

The Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State   –  Jerusalem, 32 Misgav Ladakh St., Under the auspices of the Sanhedrin, the Great Court of 71, registered association With God's help, Case 3/5765 Response to a request for a ruling of Jewish law   To the daughters of Israel in the detention center:   Hila Mantinband, Hodaya Ben Abraham, Leah Haas.   Decision: May you be blessed by the Lord!   We have received your letter regarding your refusal to be tried in courts that do not operate according to the Torah, and your willingness to be judged solely in a court that adjudicates according to the Torah of Moses. Indeed, you have acted well, for thus Maimonides ruled in Laws of Sanhedrin 26:7: "Anyone who brings a case before gentile judges and in their courts, even if their laws are like the laws of Israel, is wicked, and it is as though he blasphemed and reviled and raised his hand against the Torah of Moses our teacher, as it is said: 'And these are the ordinances that you shall set before them'—before them, and not before gentiles; before them, and not before laymen!" And so it is brought in Shulchan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 26:1. And it is stated in Tanhuma (Mishpatim, sec. 3:3): "Anyone who abandons the judges of Israel and goes before idolaters has first denied the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterward denied the Torah… And concerning the statutes of the idolaters it is said… 'I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live' (Ezekiel 20). But to Israel I gave good commandments and statutes, as it is said (Leviticus 18): 'You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them'… The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: If you practice justice and do not bring yourselves before idolaters, I will build for you the Temple, and the Sanhedrin will sit in it, as it is said (Isaiah 1): 'And I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.'". We therefore have no option but to strengthen your hands, and we hereby instruct you to continue your refusal. And may He who releases the bound release you from your imprisonment, as it is written: The Lord releases the bound.. And may the words of Isaiah be fulfilled in you and in the rest of the prisoners of Zion: "to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to the bound". With the blessing: be strong and courageous Issued on 10 Elul 5765 in the court, in the holy city of Jerusalem, may it be rebuilt and established: Signed: Rabbi Israel Ariel – presiding judge, Rabbi Dov Meir Stein, Rabbi Dov Abraham Ben Shor, Rabbi Hillel Weiss, Rabbi Yehuda Adri, Rabbi Yishai Babad, Rabbi Mordechai Avrahami,

As every child knows, this 'ruling' has no basis in Jewish law. Even if someone is in litigation with a person who is unwilling to appear with him before a Jewish religious court, he is permitted (with the permission of the court) to go to gentile courts in order to recover money that is lawfully his. Jewish law is not prepared to allow someone who is not subject to it to enjoy advantages because of that.

Hence it is clear that whoever signed this ruling is nothing but an ignoramus, or a person so disappointed by the disengagement that the disappointment has driven him out of his mind. The problem is that these ignoramuses may cause young and innocent girls to sit in prison in far from ideal company, instead of going to school and living among their families. I, humble as I am, immediately sent a letter to Tzviya Sharial, in which I clarified to her that she can of course demonstrate against the actions of the government and the judicial system, but she must not think that Jewish law requires this of her, nor should she allow herself to be swept away by the 'rulings' of pushy amateurs masquerading as 'ordained judges' and as a 'Sanhedrin' (registered association, of course).

Following an inquiry (through an intermediary) that I conducted with the 'presiding judge,' Rabbi Israel Ariel, it became clear to me (and later I saw this, to my astonishment, written as an admission against interest by Rabbi Ariel himself, in an article in 'Makor Rishon' on 2 Heshvan) that he knows that the above 'ruling' is not correct from the standpoint of Jewish law (yes, indeed!), but he issued it because Tzviya Sharial asked him to do so (yes, indeed!!!). The 'Great Sanhedrin,' the aspiration of every God-fearing Jew for some two thousand years, issues an incorrect ruling simply because a 17-year-old girl asked it to.

From a telephone conversation I held with another of the signatory 'ordained judges,' I received the opposite version. According to him, all the signatories (including Rabbi Ariel) really believe that this ruling is in fact correct. He added that he would bring my remarks before the forum, and if they are mistaken, they will bring a bull-offering for an erroneous communal ruling (so he said!).[2]

And I, humble as I am, a boor and not a man, an amateur and not an ordained judge, wonder: what is worse—ignorance that leads to an erroneous ruling instructing innocent girls to sit in prison and not leave, or erroneous and misleading 'rulings' that are issued deliberately at the political request of a 17-year-old girl.

I have in my possession additional 'rulings' from the same 'court.' Some of them rant about the disengagement and mix that into their 'rulings of Jewish law.' Some of them encourage the petitioners to turn to the courts in order to salvage whatever can be rescued from them (compensation and the like). How does that square with the previous 'ruling'? Let the 'ordained judges' explain (apparently money is more important than the body, as it is said: "'with all your wealth' – even if He takes your life").

It is clear from all the verbiage surrounding this institution that this farce feeds primarily on the frustrations of the disengagement (despite the fact that, as was written in the 'Makor Rishon' article, the president of the 'Sanhedrin,' Rabbi Steinsaltz, holds a different view on this matter). This also emerges from the excerpts of the speeches at the above conference (as reported in the 'Makor Rishon' article).

As background, it is worth noting that some of the initiators of this institution were partners in initiating the 'Hakhel' conference, another bizarre messianic initiative, in 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, apparently, they were still not 'gentile courts,' since they merely desecrated the Sabbath, had relations with menstruant women, and led the children of Israel away from their religion and convictions, but did not, heaven forbid, surrender territory from the Land of Israel for one consideration or another.[3]

As stated, the whole affair looks like a kindergarten game, and ostensibly there is no reason at all to occupy ourselves with it. The problem is that there may certainly be people, or boys and girls, who will sit in prison and think that they are gaining their eternal world in their lifetime and sacrificing themselves for the sanctification of His blessed name, whereas the only duty incumbent upon them is to go back to studying and being educated in their school. Here utterly baseless nonsense about Jewish law is being spoken as a 'ruling of the Great Court,' and frustrated youths may draw from it all sorts of strange and bizarre conclusions.

I fear that the day is not far off when the 'court' will begin trying capital cases, in the manner of a Sanhedrin, and I am not sure that some fool will not be found to carry out their 'instructions' (see below the remarks of Rabbi Israel Ariel about the powers of the Sanhedrin).

A brief background in Jewish law and history

As is known, for a full Torah judicial system to exist, the judges must possess classical ordination, transmitted from person to person back to Moses our teacher. In practice, the sages possessing such ordination judged Israel from the giving of the Torah until several hundred years after the destruction of the Second Temple (there are disputes about the exact dating). Afterwards, following the exile and oppressive conditions, ordination ceased, and the ordained disappeared from Israel. Since then we have had no ability to adjudicate capital cases or punishments in general, and there are quite a few limitations on the ability of Jewish religious courts to judge according to Torah law.

Now Maimonides, in his broad intellectual vision, proposed a major and disputed innovation in Jewish law, according to which ordination can be renewed ex nihilo by the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel. As is known, in the days of Maran, the author of the Shulchan Arukh (sixteenth-century Safed), Rabbi Joseph Karo, there was an attempt to renew ordination in reliance on Maimonides's innovation. The first to be ordained was Rabbi Yaakov Beirav, the teacher of the author, regarded by many as the greatest sage of that generation, and he ordained several of his students, including the author himself. The ordination continued for several generations, but already in the days of the author himself it was clear that this attempt had failed. Evidence of this is his own remark in his book Beit Yosef, where he writes that 'in our time there are no ordained judges,' despite the fact that he himself had been among those ordained by Rabbi Yaakov Beirav.[4]

The question of renewing the Sanhedrin was raised again after the establishment of the State as well, but it was clear that without broad agreement this could not be done. Such agreement was not obtained, and the matter faded away.[5]

This 'Sanhedrin'[6]

About a year ago, a few activists arose and sent letters to everyone who might be called a 'rabbi' (according to a criterion they themselves decided upon), asking for his consent to the renewal of ordination and the establishment of a Sanhedrin, and even proposing names of candidates for 'ordination.'

I can testify to at least one case that I knew personally, of one rabbi who received such a letter and threw it directly into the trash, saying, 'Am I lacking madmen?' (the wording is mine). I assume that this is what almost all the other rabbis who received that letter did as well. In any event, in recent weeks, when I looked into the matter a bit, I heard about several more of the important decisors in our land who related to these things in a similar fashion.

As I heard, the senders of the letters, without batting an eye, decided that the agreement of the rabbis of the Land of Israel is to be defined only within the group of rabbis who bothered to reply to the aforementioned deranged letter.[7] Rabbi Ariel says this explicitly in the above interview with 'Makor Rishon':

"If the leading sages of the generation do not wish to participate in establishing the Sanhedrin, they have excluded themselves from the collective. Their non-participation does not nullify the commandment…".

The reader will certainly be surprised to hear that in this poll a stunning result was obtained: the decision to renew ordination was passed by an overwhelming majority, and with wondrous consensus. By the way, such surprises occur in Syrian elections too from time to time.

This agreement was regarded by these lunatics as constituting ordination for some first individual (whose name I shall not mention because of the prohibition of slander, especially since I have not checked the details). He immediately ordained several of his friends, and together they promptly renewed (more accurately: established) the institution of the 'Sanhedrin.'

This institution established under its auspices the above-mentioned 'Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State,' as well as the 'Supreme Council for Noahides,' so that it sees it as its role to issue instructions to the entire world. Rabbi Israel Ariel himself even explains in the 'Makor Rishon' article that:

"Before the Sanhedrin everything is justiciable. Including the monarchy, which is bound by Torah law.[8] Even the king must consult the Sanhedrin and present to it his political and legal problems, such as going out to war. The king is not all-powerful, he says…the Sanhedrin is a supreme authority over the monarchy, over the high priesthood. This is the highest judicial system of the State of Israel".

Well then, Rabbi Elyashiv, Rabbi Shapira, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and—mutatis mutandis—Arik Sharon and Amir Peretz: at long last we have someone to decide about just and unjust wars, or about the appointment of a high priest: the 'Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and State.'

Now all that remains is to begin adjudicating capital cases (that too is a Torah commandment, and if the leading sages of the generation do not participate, then our 'ordained judges' can judge even without them). Beware, you accursed leftists, sundering Judaism and the Land! The rod and strap (and perhaps the sword as well) of the judges are already raised over your buttocks.

And one more anecdote. The 'Great Court,' whose role is to issue instructions to the whole of the Jewish people, is a 'registered association' under the supervision of the Registrar of Associations. Just for comparison, think about the following expression: The Knesset – the legislature (registered association). Needless to say, a 'Sanhedrin' that has no authority at all, in which a few adult-children reeling from redemption fantasies and the disappointments of exile play make-believe, is not an institution that can issue instructions.

A few brazen Jews, some of whom know how to learn (and also how to err) and some of whom do not, rise and rush to the front and proclaim themselves a 'Sanhedrin' before all the decisors and judges who laugh them to scorn, and they issue instructions to innocent children and adults whose frustration drives them out of their minds. This is a dangerous phenomenon, and the rabbinic world ought to regain its composure and send them for urgent counseling.

In the above article in 'Makor Rishon,' Rabbi Israel Ariel explains to us that the ordained judges need not be the greatest sages of the generation. "It is enough that they know how to ask and clarify Jewish law," in his words. So I have a few novelties for the 'presiding judge.' His definition is the definition of lay judges who can judge monetary matters by rabbinic authority in the absence of ordained judges. By contrast, Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin 4:8, writes as follows:

And they may appoint whomever they wish for particular matters, provided that he is fit for all matters. How so?an outstanding sage who is fit to issue rulings on the entire TorahA religious court may ordain him and grant him authority to judge, but not to rule on what is forbidden and permitted; or they may grant him authority regarding what is forbidden and permitted, but not to judge monetary cases; or they may grant him authority for both this and that, but not to judge penalty cases…

These are the requirements for receiving ordination to judge. The requirements for membership in the Great Court are far more stringent still (see there in chapter 2). This is especially true of the first man ordained in Israel, for there, certainly, he must meet the most stringent criteria, since the entire continuation of the judicial system and the system of Jewish law in Israel is entrusted to his hand. As we recall, the sages of Safed ordained Rabbi Yaakov Beirav and Maran, the author of the Shulchan Arukh. As we saw above, this court does not know how to rule even on a matter that every child understands. So which of the participants in this farce is a wondrous sage fit to instruct in the entire Torah?

There is, in Jewish law, a court selected by the method of "This one selects one and that one selects one, and the two of them select yet another one for themselves.". Here, indeed, we have a buddies' court. But this is not the Great Court. We can conclude only with the words of Maimonides there at the end of the chapter (law 15):[9]

One who is unfit to judge, whether because he does not know enough or because he is not of proper character—if the Exilarch appointed him and granted him authority, or if the religious court erred and granted him authority, that authority is of no use to him whatsoever until he is fit; for if one consecrates a blemished animal for the altar, the holiness does not take effect upon it.

Epilogue: On 'messianism' as a pejorative

As stated, I am ashamed that there is any need at all to polemicize with this farce, but the need definitely exists. Once innocent girls are instructed to sit in prison, capital cases too may come knocking at our door.

One of the reasons for the silence of the rabbinic world in the face of this brazen farce is probably the fear of being accused of lacking genuine faith in redemption and in the renewal of the Sanhedrin. As if the rationalist's faith were mere lip service, since when he is offered a chance to take part in bringing redemption he refuses, and even obstructs it, heaven forbid.

To accuse someone of being 'messianic' carries more than a whiff of secular condescension. But what can one do? There truly is a pathological and deranged messianism. And what can one do? Faith and hope for the coming of the Messiah are not necessarily bound up with turning every pushy amateur into the Messiah or the king of Israel. One can believe in the coming of the Messiah and in redemption, and even work for them, without trampling every standard of sanity, decency, and Jewish law.

I, for example, believe in the coming of the Messiah and in the renewal of the Sanhedrin, but I certainly do not undertake to recognize my house cat as the Messiah son of David, even if he establishes a registered association for that purpose…

[1] Registered association.

[2] I explained to him that, in order to bring a bull-offering for an erroneous communal ruling, it is not enough that there was a mistake. It is also required that the one who errs be a court. A minor point, but important to note.

[3] See my article in 'Tzohar' 22.

[4] The polemic in the sixteenth century revolved mainly around two questions: (a) whether Maimonides was indeed correct, and ordination can be renewed by the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel. (b) Even if Maimonides was correct, whether everyone agreed to the men being ordained and to the renewal of ordination at that time (for the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel is required).

[5] It is known that the rabbi of Brisk (at that time the leader of Jerusalem Haredi Jewry), Rabbi Velvele (Rabbi Yitzhak Zev Soloveitchik), told Rabbi Maimon that at least he knew who the first rebellious elder would be.

[6] From here on, the term 'Sanhedrin' will be placed in quotation marks. Any connection to the original concept is entirely coincidental, and is the sole responsibility of the reader.

[7] This group of rabbis was apparently defined as a group according to the common assumption in set theory concerning 'the empty set.' There it is also customary to think that it, too, is a set.

[8] See Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin 2:5. This law apparently escaped the notice of the 'presiding judge'.

[9] Of course, in the matter discussed here there is no prohibition at all, for Maimonides does not prohibit engaging in games of 'as-if Sanhedrin'. The words are brought only for illustrative effect.