On the “New Sanhedrin”

With God’s help

Nekuda – 2005

Tractate Sanhedrin (registered association)[1]:

"One party chooses one, the other party chooses one, and the two of them choose one more" (‘One party chooses one, the other party chooses one, and the two of them choose one more’)

Prologue

About a year ago we were informed, in faint and subdued tones, that with the agreement of all the great men of the nation from one end to the other (Rabbis Ovadia, Elyashiv, Shapira, Eliyahu, and the rabbis of the Edah Haredit, according to the version retailed by that ‘distant rumor’), the Sanhedrin had at long last been duly established. I rub my astonished eyes, tug at my stunned ears, and stand amazed before the wonder of the realization of the vision "the leopard shall lie down with the kid" (‘the leopard shall lie down with the kid’). But to my sorrow I suddenly discovered that there was no vision, and in its absence a people runs wild. I had to lower my eyes to the end of the verse: "and a little child shall lead them" (‘and a little child shall lead them’).

At present, after about a year of vigorous activity in leading the nation and issuing rulings in Jewish law to all corners of the earth, the establishment of the Sanhedrin (registered association) is being celebrated with great public fanfare. Newspaper notices invited the public to this celebration, and to a symposium on the renewal of the Sanhedrin in our time that took place before the celebration in question. And I, insignificant as I am, with a bit less astonishment and a bit more derision, wonder how far the disappointment of grown Jews can go—some of whom, at least, know what a book is—and who are endowed with an excess of burning, even bizarre, messianic expectations.

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

In other words: I am writing these unnecessary remarks only because someone may still, God forbid, actually carry out some instruction of those ‘classically ordained’ men and that ‘Sanhedrin,’ and we may come to regret deeply the quiet ridicule with which we all contented ourselves when we heard of this children’s game. In order to allow readers to form their own impression, I am writing some of this in the form of reportage, rather than as polemic or theoretical analysis. Let us begin with an illustration.

‘The Court for Matters of the People and the State’

This august institution established, among other things, the ‘Court for Matters of the People and the State,’ which has since published several ‘rulings.’ Beyond that, newspaper notices announced that at the anniversary celebration they were also about 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 this gathering of saints, a ‘judgment’ reached me that had emerged from the pen of the ‘Court for Matters of the People and the State under the auspices of the Sanhedrin (registered association),’ in which they instruct a 17-year-old girl sitting in Neve Tirtza Prison, Tzvia Sheriel, not to turn to the courts of the State of Israel (= gentile courts) and not to have any contact with them, but rather to continue sitting in prison.

Following a quick inquiry, I learned to my astonishment that this was not the first instruction of that ‘court.’ A similar instruction was also given to three other girls (see box).

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

32 Misgav Ladakh St.,

Under the auspices of the Sanhedrin, Great Court of 71 (registered association)

With God’s help, File G/5765

Response to a request for a ruling in Jewish law

To the daughters of Israel in the detention center:

Hila Mantinband,

Hodaya Ben Avraham,

Leah Haas.

Decision:

Blessed are you before God!

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

Indeed, you have acted well, for thus ruled Maimonides in Laws of Sanhedrin 26:7: Whoever litigates before gentile judges and in their courts, even if their laws are the same as the laws of Israel, is wicked, and it is as though he has blasphemed and insulted and raised a hand against the Torah of Moses our teacher, as it is said: ‘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 brought in Tanhuma (Mishpatim, sec. 3:3): Whoever abandons the judges of Israel and goes before idolaters first denies the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterward denies the Torah… And regarding the laws of the idolaters it is said… ‘I too 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 if a person does he shall live by them’… The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: If you uphold justice and do not bring yourselves before idolaters, I will build for you the 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 in the beginning; afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.’

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

May the Releaser of prisoners release you from your imprisonment, as it is written: The Lord releases the prisoners. And may Isaiah’s words be fulfilled in you and in the rest of the prisoners of Zion: to proclaim liberty to the captives and opening of the eyes to the bound.

With the blessing: Be strong and courageous

Given on 10 Elul 5765 in the holy city of Jerusalem, may it be rebuilt and established:

Signed:

Rabbi Israel Ariel – Head of the Court,

Rabbi Dov Meir Stein,

Rabbi Dov Avraham Ben-Shor,

Rabbi Hillel Weiss,

Rabbi Yehuda Aderi,

Rabbi Yishai Babad,

Rabbi Mordechai Avrahami,

 

As every child knows, this ‘ruling’ has no basis whatsoever in Jewish law. Even if someone is in a legal dispute with a person who is unwilling to litigate with him before a Jewish court, he is permitted (with the court’s authorization) to go litigate with him in 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.

It is therefore clear that whoever signed this ruling is nothing but an ignoramus, or a person whose disappointment over the Disengagement has driven him out of his mind. The problem is that these ignoramuses may cause young and innocent girls to sit in prison in company that is not exactly recommended, instead of going to school and living among their families. I, insignificant as I am, immediately sent a letter to Tzvia Sheriel, in which I made clear to her that she can of course demonstrate against the actions of the government and the judicial system, but she should not think that Jewish law requires this of her, and she should not allow herself to be led captive by the ‘rulings’ of pushy laymen masquerading as ‘classically ordained’ men and as a ‘Sanhedrin’ (registered association, of course).

Following an inquiry (through an intermediary) that I conducted with the ‘head of the court,’ Rabbi Israel Ariel, it became clear to me (and afterward I saw this, to my astonishment, written as a litigant’s admission 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!), but he issued it because Tzvia Sheriel asked him for it (yes!!!). The ‘Great Sanhedrin,’ the aspiration of every God-fearing Jew for nearly two thousand years, issues an incorrect ruling in Jewish law simply because a 17-year-old girl asks it to.

From a telephone conversation that I conducted with another of the ‘classically ordained’ signatories, I was given the opposite version. According to him, all the signatories (including Rabbi Ariel) do indeed believe that this ruling is actually correct. He added that he would bring my remarks before the forum, and if they were mistaken, they would bring the bull-offering for an erroneous communal ruling (so he said!).[2]

And I, insignificant as I am—boorish and no man, a layman and not classically ordained—wonder: what is worse, ignorance that leads to a mistaken ruling instructing innocent girls to sit in prison and not leave it, or mistaken and misleading ‘rulings’ that are issued deliberately at the political request of a 17-year-old girl?

I have additional ‘rulings’ from that same ‘court.’ Some of them rant about the Disengagement and mix it into their ‘legal’ decisions. Some of them encourage petitioners to go to the civil courts in order to recover whatever can be recovered from them (compensation and the like). How is that consistent with the previous ‘ruling’? Let the ‘classically ordained’ explain (apparently money is more important than the body, as though it were said: "with all your might" – even if He takes your life).

It is clear from all the verbiage surrounding this institution that this farce draws its sustenance mainly from the frustrations of the Disengagement (although, 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 aforementioned conference (as reported in the Makor Rishon article).

By way of 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 the stage with the President of the Supreme Court and read the Torah before all the Jewish people. At that point they were apparently still not ‘gentile courts,’ since they merely desecrated the Sabbath, slept with menstruants, and led the children of Israel astray from their religion and their reason, but had not, God forbid, surrendered territory from the Land of Israel for one consideration or another.[3]

As stated, the whole matter looks like a kindergarten game, and apparently there would be no point in dealing with it. The problem is that there may very well be people, or boys and girls, who will sit in prison and think they are winning their eternal portion already in this life and sacrificing themselves for the sanctification of His name, while the only duty imposed upon them is to return to study and be educated in their school. Nonsensical legal absurdities are being uttered here as ‘a ruling from the Great Court,’ and frustrated youths may draw from this all sorts of bizarre conclusions.

I fear that the day is not far off when the ‘court’ will begin adjudicating capital cases, in the manner of a Sanhedrin, and I am not sure that some fool will not be found who actually carries out their ‘instructions’ (see below Rabbi Israel Ariel’s words about the powers of the Sanhedrin).

A brief legal-historical background

As is well known, for a full Torah judicial system to exist, the judges must be ‘classically ordained,’ in an unbroken chain from master to disciple back to Moses our teacher. In practice, classically ordained sages judged Israel from the giving of the Torah until several hundred years after the destruction of the Second Temple (there are disputes about the precise dating). Thereafter, as a result of exile and oppressive persecution, ordination ceased, and no classically ordained judges remained in Israel. Since then we have had no possibility of adjudicating capital cases or punishments at all, and there are quite a few limitations on the ability of Jewish courts to judge according to Torah law.

Yet Maimonides, in his broad vision, introduced a great and controversial legal innovation, according to which ordination can be renewed ex nihilo with the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel. As is known, in the days of Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Arukh (sixteenth-century Safed), there was an attempt to renew ordination in reliance on Maimonides’ innovation. The first man ordained was Rabbi Yaakov Beirav, the teacher of Karo, whom many regarded as the greatest sage of that generation, and he ordained several of his students, including Karo himself. The ordination continued for several generations, but already in Karo’s own lifetime it was clear that this attempt had failed. Evidence for this is his own statement in his Beit Yosef, where he writes "there are no classically ordained judges in our day" (‘there are no classically ordained judges in our day’), despite the fact that he himself had been ordained by Rabbi Yaakov Beirav.[4]

Even after the establishment of the State, the question of renewing the Sanhedrin resurfaced, but it was clear that this could not be done without broad agreement. 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 could be called ‘rabbi’ (according to a criterion they themselves decided upon), asking for his agreement to the renewal of ordination and the establishment of a Sanhedrin, and even proposing names of candidates for ‘ordination.’

I can testify, at least regarding one case that I knew personally, of a rabbi who received such a letter and threw it directly into the trash, saying, ‘Do I lack 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 of several other important decisors in our land who related to it in a similar way.

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

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

The reader will no doubt be surprised to hear that in this poll a startling result was obtained: the decision to renew ordination passed by an overwhelming majority, and out of a marvelous consensus. Incidentally, elections in Syria also produce such surprises from time to time.

This agreement was regarded by these eccentrics as ordination for some first individual (I will not mention his name because of the prohibition of slander, especially since I have not checked the details). He immediately ordained several of his friends, and together they ‘renewed’ (more accurately: established) the institution of the ‘Sanhedrin’ with great festivity.

This institution established under its auspices the aforementioned ‘Court for Matters of the People and the State,’ and also the ‘Supreme Council for Noahides,’ so that it sees as its task the issuing of 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 government, which is bound by Torah law.[8] The king too must consult the Sanhedrin and present his political and legal problems, such as going to war. The king is not all-powerful, he says… The Sanhedrin is a super-authority over the monarchy and over the high priesthood. This is the supreme judicial system of the State of Israel."

Well then, Rabbi Elyashiv, Rabbi Shapira, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, and, on the other side of the divide, Arik Sharon and Amir Peretz: at last we have someone to decide on just and unjust wars, or on the appointment of a High Priest: the ‘Court for Matters of the People and the State.’

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

And one more anecdote. The ‘Great Court,’ whose role is to issue instructions to all Israel, is a ‘registered association’ under the supervision of the Registrar of Associations. Just for comparison, think about the following phrase: the Knesset – the legislature (registered association). Needless to say, a ‘Sanhedrin’ that has no authority at all, and in which a few grown-up children stunned by redemption and by 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, jump to the front and proclaim themselves a ‘Sanhedrin’ before all the decisors and judges, who laugh them to scorn, and then 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 come to its senses and send them for urgent counseling.

In the aforementioned article in Makor Rishon, Rabbi Israel Ariel explains to us that those who are classically ordained need not be the leading 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 ‘head of the court.’ His definition is the definition of laymen who can adjudicate monetary law by rabbinic warrant in the absence of classically ordained judges. By contrast, in Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin ch. 4, law 8, it is written as follows:

They may appoint whomever they wish for specific matters, provided that he is fit for all matters. How so? An exceptional sage who is fit to rule on the whole Torah—the court may ordain him and authorize him to judge but not to rule on matters of prohibition and permission, or they may authorize him in matters of prohibition and permission but not to judge monetary cases, or they may authorize him for both this and that but not to judge cases involving fines…

These are the requirements for receiving ordination to judge. The requirements for membership in the Great Court are much more stringent still (see there in ch. 2). This is especially true of the first man ordained in Israel, where certainly and all the more so he must meet the most stringent criteria, for the entire continuation of the judicial and legal system in Israel is entrusted to his hands. As noted, the sages of Safed ordained Rabbi Yaakov Beirav and Rabbi Yosef Karo. As we saw above, this court does not know how to rule even on a matter that every child understands. So which among the participants in this farce is a "an exceptional sage fit to rule on the whole Torah" (‘an exceptional sage fit to rule on the whole Torah’)?

In Jewish law there is a court selected by the procedure "One party chooses one, the other party chooses one, and the two of them choose one more". Here we indeed have a buddies’ court. But this is not the Great Court. We can do no better than conclude with Maimonides’ words there later in the chapter (law 15):[9]

One who is unfit to judge, whether because he lacks knowledge or because he is improper in character—if the Exilarch overstepped and granted him authority, or if a court erred and granted him authority, that authority is of no use to him at all until he is fit, for if one consecrates a blemished animal to the altar, the sanctity does not take effect upon it.

Epilogue: on ‘messianism’ as a term of abuse

As stated, I am embarrassed that there is any need at all to polemicize with this farce, but the need certainly 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 apparently the fear of being accused of lacking genuine faith in redemption and in the renewal of the Sanhedrin. As though the faith of the rationalist were merely lip service, since when he is offered a chance to take part in bringing redemption he refuses, and even hinders it, Heaven forfend.

To accuse someone of being ‘messianic’ carries more than a secular whiff. But what can one do? There really is a diseased and deranged messianism. And what can one do? Faith and hope in the coming of the Messiah are not necessarily bound up with turning every pushy layman into the Messiah or the king of Israel. One can believe in the coming of the Messiah and in redemption, and even work toward 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 the 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 marginal point, but one worth noting.

[3] See my article in Tzohar 22.

[4] The controversy in the sixteenth century revolved mainly around two questions: (a) whether Maimonides is indeed correct, and ordination can be renewed with the agreement of all the sages of the Land of Israel; (b) even if Maimonides is correct, whether everyone agreed to the candidates for ordination 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 Brisker Rav (at that time the leader of Jerusalem Haredi Jewry), Rabbi Velvele (Rabbi Yitzhak Zev Soloveitchik), told Rabbi Maimon that he at least knew who the first rebellious elder would be.

[6] From this point onward, the term ‘Sanhedrin’ will be placed in quotation marks. Any connection to the original concept is entirely coincidental, and solely the reader’s responsibility.

[7] This group of rabbis was apparently defined as a group according to the standard assumption in set theory regarding the ’empty set.’ There too it is customary to think that it is a set.

[8] See Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin ch. 2, law 5. This law apparently escaped the notice of the ‘head of the court.’

[9] Of course, in the present case there is no prohibition at all, for Maimonides does not forbid engaging in games of ‘as-if Sanhedrin.’ The remarks are brought only for impression.