In response to criticism, a spokesperson said: The new Sanhedrin has generated a great deal of debate about its purpose and potential. While most Jews see the new Sanhedrin as an attempt by a fringe group to re-establish the Temple, some have seen it as a potential vehicle to champion a specific cause.
The debate stirred within the National Religious camp The National Religious camp took great interest in the new Sanhedrin with the hope that it may be useful in preventing the disengagement from Gaza. The Arutz-7 news service ran approximately 30 articles covering the actions of the new Sanhedrin in a positive light. The new Sanhedrin came out with several strongly worded, yet muted, rulings against "disengagement". They strongly disagreed with the government action, advocated non-violent protests, but fell short of condoning any form of stronger protest to prevent expulsion from Gaza or Hebron as had been hoped for by some members of the National Religious camp. Coverage of the new Sanhedrin since "disengagement" by the Arutz-7 news service has been almost non-existent since that event. During the
2006 Israeli elections, the new Sanhedrin was widely expected by the National Religious to fully endorse the political party of
Baruch Marzel. Instead the Sanhedrin released a general statement, echoing statements by most of the Hareidi parties, that "one is obligated to vote, and one must vote for a religious party". with mixed reactions from the National Religious camp.
The debate stirred within the Haredi camp Haredi Leadership When Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon in 1949 tried to form a Sanhedrin out of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, leading rabbis of the
Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition in a number of declarations. The
Brisker Rav, the
Chazon Ish and others were some of the more vocal opponents of that initiative. Rabbi
Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, (the
Chazon Ish) quotes the
Radvaz that no one is fit to renew the Sanhedrin. He concluded that any discussion of the topic in this "orphaned generation" is ludicrous. However, although there is clear Haredi opposition to the new 'Sanhedrin', unlike the case of Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon's attempt, there has been no official response by any Haredi leader or
Jewish Court (
Beit Din) to this 'Sanhedrin'. The 'Sanhedrin' itself claims that the current attempt is very different from the previous attempt and that leading sages like Rabbi
Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi
Moshe Halberstam, and Rabbi
Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, have expressed support for, and consented to, the renewal of Semikhah. To date, none of these Rabbis have commented on these claims. It has been met, in public at least, by silence. The new Sanhedrin itself and its supporters claim that it proves there is quiet support. The Haredi community however interprets this to mean that the new Sanhedrin is simply another fringe group not worthy of comment, or even a fabrication.
Haredi community and media 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. The members of the new Sanhedrin are not considered as belonging to the Haredi community. The Lithuanian Haredi
Yated newspaper, which expresses the official opinion of the
Lithuanian Haredi rabbinical establishment, has run several articles condemning Rabbi
Yisrael Ariel and his '
Temple Institute' using the expression "poisonous opinions". It appears, however, that this opinion is not shared by all the Haredi communities. The Yated has also run articles condemning Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, referring to strongly worded comments made by Rabbi
Elazar Shach in 1989. It is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz' untraditional and 'university oriented' approach is at odds with the Haredi approach. While not all leading members of the Sanhedrin have generated such controversy, and some members like Rabbi Yoel Schwartz 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
National Religious movement because some of its members ascended to a portion of the Temple Mount. While there is disagreement between various orthodox groups on this point, and
Maimonides and the
Radbaz ascended to the Temple Mount, modern
Haredi legal opinions as well as many National-Religious authorities, including the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, do not allow this. As Yated Neeman writes, "all halachic authorities categorically forbid it."
Conclusion Although the new Sanhedrin claims that it is in touch and even coordinating with some Haredi leaders, no basis to support these claims can be found. The overriding response to the new Sanhedrin by the Haredi community has been driven by the fact that leadership of the new Sanhedrin is unknown or controversial, and the decisions of the new Sanhedrin are perceived as identifying with the extreme wings of the
National Religious community. The Haredi community tends to simply ignore the new Sanhedrin or ridicule it.
Yemenite opinion Rabbi
Yosef Qafih, former Chief Rabbi of
Yemen, wrote in his commentary to the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin that it would be a very good thing to reinstate the Sanhedrin in our days. However, he held, according to the position of the
Rambam, that this could only be done by assembling all leading Torah scholars physically together at one time.
The debate stirred within the Kahanist camp Rabbi
Nachman Kahane is a leading member of the new Sanhedrin. His brother Rabbi
Meir Kahane was widely known for his outspoken political views. Rabbi Nachman Kahane, a graduate of
Yeshivat Mir, is not known for his political views and is generally acknowledged to be an accomplished Torah scholar by the
Mizrachi (Religious Zionism) and
Haredi communities. The new Sanhedrin is often mentioned on political websites run by movements associated with the assassinated right-wing Rabbi
Meir Kahane, and in general it seems that they support both the concept of the new Sanhedrin, and the possibility of religious government of the State of Israel.
The debate stirred within the "Temple Mount Faithful" camp In the first year of operation, the new Sanhedrin was involved with discussions about the Temple Mount. It formed a committee to collect opinions as to its exact location. Some of its members ascended to a portion of the Temple mount that was added by
Herod and considered by rabbis associated with the
Temple Mount Faithful movement to be permitted to Jews. This visit culminated in a declaration that the "Jewish people should begin collecting supplies for the rebuilding of the Temple". Since the acceptance of the position of
Nasi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, discussion of issues concerning the
Temple Mount has greatly diminished. These early actions by the new Sanhedrin were announced and followed closely by websites associated with the
Temple Mount Faithful movement. However, for at least a year since the new Sanhedrin's "Temple supplies" declaration, it appears that no additional material or discussions concerning the new Sanhedrin have been added to these websites.
The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelical Protestants Some Christians, including evangelist
Hal Lindsey see the reinstated Sanhedrin as good news, believing that the Sanhedrin would be responsible for the rebuilding of the
Third Temple, which would eventually be desecrated by the false
Messiah during the
end times and inhabited by the true
Messiah during the period of
Christian eschatology referred to as the
Millennial Reign. The Sanhedrin has also selected a group of non-Jewish advisors, scholars and teachers from the
Noahide movement - including
Vendyl Jones, to form a
High Council of Noahides responsible for outreach education from within the non-Jewish world. == Notes ==