![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I haven't had time to look into this, but there is else something going on in terms of trying to come up with a new formula for prayers. See here. Its not actually being done by the new Sanhedrin, but by Rav David Bar Hayim "in cooperation with the nascent Sanhedrin". I wish there were 25 hours in a day. -- Historian2 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC
Reading the articles right now = the first I even heard of this New Sanhedrin. I wonder if most Reform and Conservative Jews have even heard of it, especially on my side of the Pond (America). Has anyone from the frei camps had opinions on this, or is this practically an entirely frum debate? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It consists entirely of Orthodox rabbis. Adin Steinzaltz, its Nasi, is a well-known figure outside the Orthodox world, I doubt anyone else would be well-known. There have been people with Modern Orthodox etc. leanings who have proposed a revived Sanhedrin in the past as a way to permit clarifying interpretations and limited halachic change in a fashion that would be generally acceptable. There was a great diversity of views expressed in the Talmud, and many issues of contemporary interest had minortiy as well as majority views. A Sanhedrin, while not having the power to make up its own views, would have the power to revote and turn a former minority opinion into the new majority. Even this would likely be of little interest in the Reform and most of the Conservative worlds. However, the current body appears not to be composed of people interested in revisiting such questions. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article's title paragraph needs to be summarized. It is simply not enciclopedic to have such a long opening paragraph. Chavatshimshon 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We had discussed earlier whether and to what extent a revised Sanhedrin would have the power to change Jewish law. The current Sanhedrin has declared itself to have such a power, stating that "The Sanhedrin has the authority, in certain cases, to rule differently than is currently in Jewish law." Given that it has expressly taken upon itself the war power of a sovereign traditional Sanhedrin, any doubts as to whether it thinks itself as really a Sanhedrin or not should be laid to rest. One may agree or disagree with its POV, but it is not waiting for every city to have a lesser Sanhedrin, or for any of the other events that have been proposed, before assuming to itself an authority that only a Great Sanhedrin can have. Best, -- Shirahadasha 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The original text was "Recent military operations have come under scrutiny by the new Sanhedrin (generally for being too dovish)", now it says "Its opinions, in the exercise of this claim to authority, have been quite hawkish". The former was an attempt to describe its actions relative to the Sanhedrin's point of view. The latter sound like a judgment. Perhaps we can come up with a better description? -- Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Added section given recent Isreali government actions in response to the group's calls on soldiers and policemen to disobey orders etc. -- Shirahadasha 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics - Can't use a partisan website to make a claim about notability or claim a statement as a fact)" I seem to be missing something here, the quote said the 'Sanhedrin' formed a 'high council', so I brought a link from the 'high council's website itself. There could just as well be a link to A7 or to Vendyl Jones' website. What is a partisan website in this context? I recommend a revert. Is there any reason to doubt they made such a council with the people involved? -- Historian2 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"Christian apocalyptic and eschatalogical claims about the End Times, the Last Judgment, and the End of the World, have inspired a wide a range of conspiracy theories..."
Please explain why the above (final) paragraph is here? It has absolutley NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (Sanhedrin). It is used without footnotes or citations as well. Dump the final paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mg196 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
A google search on "noahide sanhedrin antichrist" yields about 27,200 results. http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html http://www.revisionisthistory.org http://www.stormfront.org http://www.samliquidation.com/noahidenews495.htm http://jesus-messiah.com/html/noahide.html http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2234 http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/syn.html http://www.talmudlies.com/ http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/noachide.htm http://www.watch.pair.com/law.html http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/newlaw.htm and thousands more. IMHO This is a significant reaction to the attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin. It is definitely relevant. How would you word a paragraph describing this kind of reaction without promoting fringe websites. -- Historian2 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Google searches do not in any way replace research. The final paragraph does not even reference the Sanhedrin. Several of the websites' TITLES that Historian2 quoted are outright racist and shouldn't be considered evidence of anything other than that racism exists. Stormfront.org is a Neo-Nazi site for cryin' out loud! So now Wiki accepts Neo-Nazi propaganda as references? The bottom line is that the final paragraph makes outrageous claims without ANY citations or references to ANY legitimate source. -- mg196 11:26, 20 March 2007
This quote is under discussion:
There is simply no source for the word "all Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis", and IMHO there was no reason for our dutch speaking Bear and Dragon to add this text. I believe that the previous word "some rabbis permit it" is less POV. -- Historian2 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: User:Bear and Dragon is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned User:Daniel575 See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th) -- Shirahadasha 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Bear and Dragon has marked this section under dispute: Daniel, please explain what is under dispute. Everything is sourced. Perhaps the comment "Events as portrayed by the media, however, have not always fit this idealic picture"? Do you want this removed? -- Historian2 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I will write something here, but I did not see this section previously. I will make a short list here of issues that need attention. First of all, the issue being discussed above. As I noted, the vast majority of halachic authorities, from all walks of life, from extreme Haredi to modern-Orthodox, from anti-Zionist to strongly Zionist, have prohibited Jews from accessing the Temple Mount. That includes the entire range of Ashkenazi Haredi authorities. It includes the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. It includes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (leader of the Sefardi Haredim and leader of Shas). To then be using the wording that "some authorities permit it" is weasel wording. The correct wording is that the vast majority of halachic authorities forbid it. -- Bear and Dragon 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss the biography. What added value does it give to copy Rabbi Halberstam's entire biography here? If we do so, why not copy the biography of the Chazon Ish as well? If you revert it, then that is indeed what I will do. -- Bear and Dragon 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from editing this page. The banned and aggressive user Daniel575 has taken over the page and I have neither the time or energy to defend the wikipage from his self proclaimed "Opinion of the Dutch extreme anti-Zionist" agenda. [12] -- Historian2 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I haven't had time to look into this, but there is else something going on in terms of trying to come up with a new formula for prayers. See here. Its not actually being done by the new Sanhedrin, but by Rav David Bar Hayim "in cooperation with the nascent Sanhedrin". I wish there were 25 hours in a day. -- Historian2 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC
Reading the articles right now = the first I even heard of this New Sanhedrin. I wonder if most Reform and Conservative Jews have even heard of it, especially on my side of the Pond (America). Has anyone from the frei camps had opinions on this, or is this practically an entirely frum debate? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It consists entirely of Orthodox rabbis. Adin Steinzaltz, its Nasi, is a well-known figure outside the Orthodox world, I doubt anyone else would be well-known. There have been people with Modern Orthodox etc. leanings who have proposed a revived Sanhedrin in the past as a way to permit clarifying interpretations and limited halachic change in a fashion that would be generally acceptable. There was a great diversity of views expressed in the Talmud, and many issues of contemporary interest had minortiy as well as majority views. A Sanhedrin, while not having the power to make up its own views, would have the power to revote and turn a former minority opinion into the new majority. Even this would likely be of little interest in the Reform and most of the Conservative worlds. However, the current body appears not to be composed of people interested in revisiting such questions. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article's title paragraph needs to be summarized. It is simply not enciclopedic to have such a long opening paragraph. Chavatshimshon 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We had discussed earlier whether and to what extent a revised Sanhedrin would have the power to change Jewish law. The current Sanhedrin has declared itself to have such a power, stating that "The Sanhedrin has the authority, in certain cases, to rule differently than is currently in Jewish law." Given that it has expressly taken upon itself the war power of a sovereign traditional Sanhedrin, any doubts as to whether it thinks itself as really a Sanhedrin or not should be laid to rest. One may agree or disagree with its POV, but it is not waiting for every city to have a lesser Sanhedrin, or for any of the other events that have been proposed, before assuming to itself an authority that only a Great Sanhedrin can have. Best, -- Shirahadasha 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The original text was "Recent military operations have come under scrutiny by the new Sanhedrin (generally for being too dovish)", now it says "Its opinions, in the exercise of this claim to authority, have been quite hawkish". The former was an attempt to describe its actions relative to the Sanhedrin's point of view. The latter sound like a judgment. Perhaps we can come up with a better description? -- Historian2 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Added section given recent Isreali government actions in response to the group's calls on soldiers and policemen to disobey orders etc. -- Shirahadasha 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics - Can't use a partisan website to make a claim about notability or claim a statement as a fact)" I seem to be missing something here, the quote said the 'Sanhedrin' formed a 'high council', so I brought a link from the 'high council's website itself. There could just as well be a link to A7 or to Vendyl Jones' website. What is a partisan website in this context? I recommend a revert. Is there any reason to doubt they made such a council with the people involved? -- Historian2 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
"Christian apocalyptic and eschatalogical claims about the End Times, the Last Judgment, and the End of the World, have inspired a wide a range of conspiracy theories..."
Please explain why the above (final) paragraph is here? It has absolutley NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (Sanhedrin). It is used without footnotes or citations as well. Dump the final paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mg196 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
A google search on "noahide sanhedrin antichrist" yields about 27,200 results. http://www.come-and-hear.com/navigate.html http://www.revisionisthistory.org http://www.stormfront.org http://www.samliquidation.com/noahidenews495.htm http://jesus-messiah.com/html/noahide.html http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2234 http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/syn.html http://www.talmudlies.com/ http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/noachide.htm http://www.watch.pair.com/law.html http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/newlaw.htm and thousands more. IMHO This is a significant reaction to the attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin. It is definitely relevant. How would you word a paragraph describing this kind of reaction without promoting fringe websites. -- Historian2 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Google searches do not in any way replace research. The final paragraph does not even reference the Sanhedrin. Several of the websites' TITLES that Historian2 quoted are outright racist and shouldn't be considered evidence of anything other than that racism exists. Stormfront.org is a Neo-Nazi site for cryin' out loud! So now Wiki accepts Neo-Nazi propaganda as references? The bottom line is that the final paragraph makes outrageous claims without ANY citations or references to ANY legitimate source. -- mg196 11:26, 20 March 2007
This quote is under discussion:
There is simply no source for the word "all Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis", and IMHO there was no reason for our dutch speaking Bear and Dragon to add this text. I believe that the previous word "some rabbis permit it" is less POV. -- Historian2 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: User:Bear and Dragon is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned User:Daniel575 See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th) -- Shirahadasha 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Bear and Dragon has marked this section under dispute: Daniel, please explain what is under dispute. Everything is sourced. Perhaps the comment "Events as portrayed by the media, however, have not always fit this idealic picture"? Do you want this removed? -- Historian2 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I will write something here, but I did not see this section previously. I will make a short list here of issues that need attention. First of all, the issue being discussed above. As I noted, the vast majority of halachic authorities, from all walks of life, from extreme Haredi to modern-Orthodox, from anti-Zionist to strongly Zionist, have prohibited Jews from accessing the Temple Mount. That includes the entire range of Ashkenazi Haredi authorities. It includes the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. It includes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (leader of the Sefardi Haredim and leader of Shas). To then be using the wording that "some authorities permit it" is weasel wording. The correct wording is that the vast majority of halachic authorities forbid it. -- Bear and Dragon 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss the biography. What added value does it give to copy Rabbi Halberstam's entire biography here? If we do so, why not copy the biography of the Chazon Ish as well? If you revert it, then that is indeed what I will do. -- Bear and Dragon 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from editing this page. The banned and aggressive user Daniel575 has taken over the page and I have neither the time or energy to defend the wikipage from his self proclaimed "Opinion of the Dutch extreme anti-Zionist" agenda. [12] -- Historian2 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)