Origins of Our Faith The Hebrew Roots of Christianity

Re-starting the Jewish heart

The Sanhedrin is the name of the 71-member Jewish court that was alone empowered to rule on such nation-affecting matters as who is or is not a prophet, pass final judgments on capital cases and issue rulings that would affect the religious practice of all the world's Jews.

The first Sanhedrin was formed shortly after the giving of the Torah, when God told Moses to "assemble 70 of Israel's elders... the ones you know to be the people's elders and leaders.... I will cause some of the spirit that you possess to emanate, and I will grant it to them. You will then not have to bear the responsibility all alone" (Numbers 11:16).

The Lord then "caused the spirit that had been imparted on Moses to emanate, and He bestowed it upon the 70 elders. When the spirit descended on them, they gained the gift of prophecy and did not lose it." These 70, with Moses, comprised the first court.

The nation was then commanded to obey all (majority) Sanhedrin rulings, on pain of death: "If you are unable to reach a decision in a case involving capital punishment... where there is a dispute in your territorial courts, then you must set out and go up to the place that God your Lord shall choose. You must approach the Levitical priests, and the supreme court that exists at the time. When you make the inquiry, they will declare to you a legal decision... you must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision. You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they declare to you. If there is any man who rebels and refuses to listen to the priest or other judge who is in charge of serving God your Lord there, then that man must be put to death" (Deut. 16:8, Deut. 17).

Its mention in Chronicles, Josephus and of course the Talmud proves that this institution was fully functional at least until 70 CE, when the Second Temple was destroyed. Some of the later Sanhedrin members are said to have had divine inspiration, such as the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

To become members of the Sanhedrin, initiates had not only to scale the pinnacle of a nationwide educational system, but experience ordination by a laying-on of hands.

Some believe that until at least one genuine bearer of the tradition comes forward to anoint the 70 other would-be Sanhedrin members, a modern body cannot be said to have divine approval. That "Judaism's Supreme Court" will in fact reconvene, however, is implicit in God's promise that "I will restore your judges as at the first" (Isaiah 1:26).

Of course, even with that authority, Sanhedrin members are merely mortal, and are nowhere described as infallible. The Torah and Talmud thus provided several legal (i.e. God-approved) means of redress in the event of Sanhedrin error.

In Jerusalem recently interviewed Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander, a member of the nascent Sanhedrin responsible for relations with the gentile world and reestablishing the other functions performed by the Sanhedrin.

His answers were then vetted and affirmed by Rabbi Yoel Shwartz, head of the beit din (rabbinical court) of Bnei Noah and a teacher at the Dvar Yerushalayim Yeshiva, and Rabbi Yehiel Sitzman, who is active in helping guide gentiles who wish to follow the laws which Judaism teaches they are obligated to observe.

Of course, interacting with the gentile world was only one of the Sanhedrin's functions; the larger purpose of "Judaism's Supreme Court" was to act as a unifying influence on the Jewish world.

For example, a functioning Sanhedrin issuing authoritative rulings (something which can't happen until the court is situated on The Temple Mount and its rulings earn the approval of a majority of world Jewry) could end Judaism's current division into Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and haredi streams, update such things as the halachic position on electricity, Internet, organ transplants and bioengineering, and unify Shabbat observance and standards of conversion.

There have been earlier, unsuccessful attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. What makes this attempt different?

This is the first attempt to reestablish the Sanhedrin in the Land of Israel at a time when the people of Israel represent the majority of the inhabitants... Today Israel is the center of Jewish life. Thus it has now become a duty for the Jews in the Holy Land to try to establish a Sanhedrin.

But even this "new" Sanhedrin did not at first see itself as official. Is this still the case?

Yes. To be "official" the basic requirement from a practical standpoint is that the top level of talmidei hachamim [Talmud scholars] either be part of the Sanhedrin or recognize it.

Is a certain level of ruah hakodesh (divine inspiration) in at least one member necessary, as in the times of the original Sanhedrin?

Maimonides does not list ruah hakodesh as a definite prerequisite.

What relationship is envisioned between the Sanhedrin and the gentile world in general? With the Bnei Noah in particular?

It is our duty to strive to bring the Torah to all the nations. This is indicated in many places... The nations are already coming to learn, as we see by the developing Bnei Noah movement - those wonderful non-Jews who have taken upon themselves to observe the Seven Noahide Laws [sometimes called "The Noahide Covenant" or more figuratively "The Rainbow Covenant"]. Many Bnei Noah also take on additional commandments. There is a thirst for the word of the almighty, and it is our duty to meet this need. This Word was especially given at Sinai to Israel, whose role is to be "a kingdom of kohanim [priests] and a holy nation" [Exodus 19:6] which means, among other duties, that it is the duty of the Jews to teach the nations, just as it is one of the duties of the kohanim to teach the Jews, as Malachi says: "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" [Malachi 2:7]. Bnei Noah join the Jews in observing Psalm 105:1: "O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name; make known His doings among the peoples."

What changes would the Sanhedrin be looking to encourage in such things as Christian and Islamic belief and practice?

We would try to encourage the acceptance of the message the Almighty sent to mankind at Sinai through the Jewish people, and the understanding that the Almighty has never revoked this message.... [which has been] misunderstood or intentionally distorted by the spokesmen of Islam and Christianity. This misunderstanding must be rectified, the distortions recognized, the true message learned and heeded.

And would the Sanhedrin permit or encourage such people if they wanted to live in Israel?

There are many other conditions necessary for living in the Holy Land. If and when met, yes, it would be permissible for a non-Jew to settle.

What of the Hindu pantheon?

The common understanding is that the Hindu pantheon reflects a religion which is not monotheistic. As such, believers in this pantheon are not Bnei Noah.

What will be the eventual relationship between the Sanhedrin and such existing authorities as the United Nations, the World Court and the political leadership of the world's nations?

We are looking forward to a working relationship with these organizations. The motto of the UN is "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." This motto is part of verse 4 in Isaiah chapter 2; it would be proper to consider the whole verse: "And it shall come to pass in the end of days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established at the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall stream unto it. And many nations shall come and say: 'O come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob;' and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." It is our firm belief that the vision of verse 4 will become a reality only after the world accepts and internalizes the message indicated in verse 3.

Clearly, selecting, training and empowering the worldwide courts and court officials envisioned by the Seven Noahide Laws will be a massive undertaking. What is this going to cost, and how long is it expected to take?

We have not put together an "executive summary." The answer depends on many factors. The first and foremost factor is understanding; people must understand that the world is in a very dangerous situation. There is a serious threat of nuclear war. There is a serious threat of moral disintegration. We are being taught that there is no absolute morality, no real "right" and "wrong," only subjective "narratives." When the gravity of the situation is finally recognized, the means will be found.

What would be the involvement of already-extant rabbinical courts in this process?

One of the Noahide commandments is to set up a social system with a legal framework, including courts. The function of the Jews is to teach and advise, to help the nations do this, mainly by themselves.

Would already Bible-believing, Israel-supporting Christian evangelical groups (and/or existing international legal-ethical bodies) be permitted, expected or encouraged to help bring this about?

Yes, when they have accepted the Noahide covenant.

Would actual Sanhedrin membership be strictly limited to Jews?

The Sanhedrin is a Jewish institution which mainly deals with Judaism, but it also has a function regarding non-Jews - to facilitate the spread of the Torah. In this regard we hope for the partnership of leaders from every nation. Each nation can decide how to handle its own affairs.

And regarding the Jewish world, once the Sanhedrin is officially recognized as the final authority regarding Jewish belief and practice, where will such things be "set" on the current Reform-to-haredi continuum? In other words, what will be done to establish guidelines that will gain the confidence and support of most of the planet's Jews?

When the nations understand the function of Israel and the role of the Torah, so will all the Jews understand their obligations to the whole world, and this will unite the people of Israel.

The prophecy is that the world's nations will one day look to Jerusalem (and the Sanhedrin) for guidance. Do you see forces at work today that will help bring such universal admiration?

Yes, we do: in the return to Torah by the Bnei Noah, which reflects a longing for the authentic call of the Almighty. This call has to be the basis of action. We are determined to do our part in this cosmic undertaking by preparing suitable people.

As you probably know, the very idea of reconstituting the Sanhedrin is being met with a mixture of hostility, ridicule and indifference by both Jews and gentiles. Is more than education required?

Certainly any means for bringing people closer to their covenant with the Almighty is of great importance. Education is the first and most important step. But education without action is not enough. Proper education brings action. We attempt to use any vehicle that will help bring people closer to truth.

Four Questions
for Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, the brilliant young sage from the generation following the Second Temple’s destruction, likened himself to “a man of 70” in the Passover Haggadah. If ben Azariah were alive today, his role model for wisdom might very well be Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

At 70, the indefatigable Steinsaltz — renowned Jerusalem scholar, philosopher, social critic, educator, author and Sanhedrin president — travels the world over, “trying to do something useful in every place.” Hailed by Time magazine as a “once-in-a-millennium scholar” for his innovative commentary and translation of the Talmud into Hebrew and other languages, Steinsaltz received the Israel Prize, the country’s highest honor, in the field of Jewish studies, in 1988. Today, he presides over a chain of schools in Israel and in the former Soviet Union.

“And there is always something else to do,” Steinsaltz told the Forward. “I have writing plans for about another 150 years.”

It’s that hectic season again, when Steinsaltz and Jews everywhere will busy themselves with Passover preparations. Nonetheless, he graciously agreed to speak with Simcha Prombaum for an interview of “four questions” in honor of Passover. His answers may serve as a stimulus for meaningful discussions around the Seder table.

Simcha Prombaum: In the Passover Haggadah, the Four Sons represent an archetype for the need to adapt Jewish educational efforts and methods to the needs of the students. In America, there are many different educational outreach initiatives: day schools, summer camps, Birthright, etc. Which of these initiatives have the best chance of producing the kinds of Jewish role models we will need for the future?

Adin Steinsaltz: An important question one has to ask about every educational experience and every educational experiment is “What do you remember?” The basic point is not “What should we do?” but “What is the outcome?” Which means you cannot rely on a one-time experience or a shorter experience. Any kind of stable educational system has better chances. The school system can be very effective if it is good. But there are problems attached to it. You can transmit some knowledge, but not too much knowledge, in school. And when you are staying in the school, especially in a Jewish one, it becomes a matter of enduring rather than enjoying. That’s a problem.

S.P.: In the Haggadah, we read: “And this same promise has stood by our fathers and ourselves. For not only one man has risen against us, but in every generation there are those who rise up against us to destroy us. But the Holy One, blessed be He, has delivered us out of their hands.” When you recite these words at your own Seder in Israel, is it an overt regional threat like [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that comes to mind, or is it some less apparent but equally dangerous threat that is in your mind?

A.S.: Sometimes the dangers are obvious, sometimes there are other dangers. In some places there is a clear physical danger. In other cases, you will have life but nothing remains of it. Sometimes that is the biggest danger. Look at a family. In 50 years, how many will remain inside the family? Assimilation and intermarriage are now the dangers that face Jewry in America, more than most other dangers, and they are not completely novel ones. People think these problems are completely new. They are not. There were ages like this in the past. And we had to do something about it with whatever means we had.

S.P.: The Haggadah puts forth the following personal challenge: “In every generation, a person is supposed to see himself/herself as if he or she had personally gone forth from Egypt.” The Hebrew for Egypt, Mitzrayim, comes from a root suggesting “narrowness.” What is an example of a narrowness of thinking from which we need to break free?

A.S.: The Haggadah is basically optimistic, stressing a great amount of hope; it is not usually a recitation of our shortcomings and problems. It looks at the spiritual redemption [ge’ulah] and says that it won’t stop. But people can’t be just optimistic. I think that is one [narrowness]. We have to be aware that there are problems and do what we can to resolve them. There must be hope on the one hand and effort on the other. What do you do when you have a flat tire? You can stand there and hope it will heal itself. You hope that some people will help you. But you can’t just stand there and say, “Okay, an angel will come and take me away from it.”

S.P.: The Passover Seder ends with a wish: “Next year in the rebuilt Jerusalem.” As a native-born Jerusalemite who has seen the division and reunification of the city in his lifetime, do you believe Israel’s government will actually divide it once again as a concession for peace? What concessions should Israel be willing to make for peace?

A.S.: The Israeli government cannot do everything one-sided. I don’t know what will happen, but we don’t seem to get to a final agreement by conceding another piece of land. The major historical view of the Arab nations is that we are like the Crusader state: We came, we established some kind of a place, but eventually we are going to leave it. If we agree to it, we have to move and that’s the end of it. It’s a complete solution. If we want to stay, it means that we can concede points. The fact that there is or will be some kind of an Arab state in Eretz Yisrael is not a simple thing that everyone understands. It is a concession, and there are many others that we are doing all the time.

Passover Sacrifice
Slammed by Pro-Animal Group

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) Animal rights group "Tnoo Lachayot Lichyot" ("Let the Animals Live") is threatening to take legal action to prevent the Jewish Temple movement from carrying out an educational demonstration of the Pesach (Passover) sacrifice next week. The group's chairman, Attorney Reuven Ladiansky, sent a letter to Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski and to Temple Institute Director Yehuda Glick, urging them to cancel the planned event or face legal action. The group sees the planned sacrifice as an act of illegal cruelty to an animal.

The demonstration of the Paschal sacrifice is part of a study day scheduled to take place on Sunday, the First of Nissan (April 6), at the Kotel Yeshiva in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. The study day is a joint project of the Temple Institute, the Sanhedrin and the King David Museum. It was originally planned to take place one week later, but the organizers decided to dedicate it to the memory of the eight yeshiva boys murdered in Jerusalem recently, and to hold it on the 30th day after their death.

The study day is to include a public sacrifice which is being termed a "general rehearsal" for the actual Pesach sacrifice on the Temple Mount, a ritual prescribed by the Torah but currently forbidden by the Israel government and courts.

Public sacrifices are allowed

Glick told Ynet Monday that according to Jewish law, abstaining from performing the sacrifice is an extremely serious offense, comparable in its severity to avoiding a brit (circumcision ceremony) for one's newborn boy. He explained that although Jewish law forbids Jews in an impure state (which all Jews are in as long as the Temple rites are not renewed) from entering the Temple area, an exception is made for public sacrifices like the Pesach sacrifice.

The Temple movement recently sent a formal request to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Minister of Public Security Avi Dichter, to allow them to conduct the sacrifice on the Temple Mount. "Making the Paschal sacrifice is part of the religious freedom which is a basic human right and a cornerstone of democracy," they wrote.

Glick said, however, that the organizers "have no intention of trying to ascend to the Mount without permission from the police."

'A substitute should be used'

According to the chairman of "Tnoo Lachayot Lichyot," the "demonstration sacrifice" would violate the Israeli law which makes it illegal to torture animals or to kill them in a cruel way. Any use of animals for educational purposes requires prior approval by the Council for Experiments on Animals. "Carrying out a 'general rehearsal' in which a live animal is sacrificed for demonstrational purposes only, while a substitute – like a model of a sheep – can be used, is unjustified and unnecessary," he claimed.

Another animal rights activist, Etti Altman, said the sacrifice has no place in an "enlightened country" like Israel and quoted from the ancient Sifri biblical commentary which says: "As God is called 'compassionate,' so should you be compassionate."

The Temple movement has conducted several Paschal sacrifices in recent years. The ceremonies took place in front of the Temple Mount, on a hill which is called the Hill of Hananyah, and on the Mount of Olives. These sacrifices, however, bore a symbolic nature and were seen as memorials to the real Pesach sacrifice, because Biblical law stipulates that the Pesach sacrifice can only be performed on the Temple Mount.

Court cited 'Special feelings'

In Biblical times, pilgrims came to Jerusalem from all parts of the Land of Israel, each family bringing with it a lamb, which was sacrificed in the Temple. The family then took the lamb and roasted it according to the Bible's instructions, making sure it did not touch the oven or the ground during the roasting. Then each family sat together and ate the sacrifice.

In 2007, the Temple Mount Faithful and the Sanhedrin rabbis purchased a herd of sheep and petitioned the Supreme Court to allow a Pesach sacrifice to be offered on the Temple Mount. However, the government and legal advisors to the police asked the Supreme Court to reject the plea. The act of bringing a sacrifice could threaten the general public's safety, they said, citing the Muslim public's “special feelings” for the Temple Mount and the possibility of a violent outbreak.

Besides the planned Pesach sacrifice demonstration, next week's study day will include discussions regarding the possibility of using an electrical oven or a ceramic skewer for roasting the Pesach sacrifice.

Sanhedrin
demands expulsion of women from military

Kobi Nahshoni
Published: 03.28.08, 10:25 / Israel Jewish Scene

The self-appointed Supreme Judicial Court of the Jewish People, also known as the Sanhedrin, passed down on Thursday a halachic ruling which calls to exempt women from army service and expel those who have already been recruited.

The ruling comes just two months after three religious soldiers belonging to a Yeshivat Hesder (program that combines advanced Talmudic studies with military service) were jailed for refusing to participate in a class given by women instructors.

According to the Sanhedrin rabbis, by integrating women into mixed army units the IDF is surrendering to "political and ideological demands".

The ruling stated that "rabbis and parents will not send their sons to an army that recruits women to mixed units. There is no place for any flexibility and compromise (in this matter).

'Failures in the battlefield'

Sanhedrin member Professor Hillel Weiss told Ynet that separating male and female soldiers would not due, and called to expel women from the army entirely.

"I remember when I would be called up for reserve duty and the IDF sent women instructors to show us how to operate a heavy machinegun; they couldn't even cock the large weapon," he said. "Today I meet women soldiers who say they are proud to be serving in the Armored or Artillery corps. It's a joke.

"However," Professor Weiss added, "there is room for technological and other units in which only women will serve, but this should be done outside the military framework.

"Just as there is the National Service for the State (alternative voluntary service for those that cannot or do not wish to serve in the IDF), there can also be National Service for the army" he said, "the women who would take part in this program would not even have to be in uniform.

The Sanhedrin's ruling also mentions the IDF's "failures in the battlefield", stating that the establishment of mixed units has resulted in a "disruption of the conscience".

"There seems to be a connection between the inability to make the distinction between the genders and the inability to make the distinction between friend and foe. Both of these characterize the post-Zionist army, which deems such distinctions racist," the ruling stated.

High Court redux?

Mishpatim
Exodus 21:1-24:18

by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
March 13, 2008

If the entire congregation of Israel commits an inadvertent violation as a result of [a mistaken legal decision of the Highest Court]…and they thereby violate one of the prohibitory commandments of God, they shall incur guilt.” (Leviticus 4:13)

If the Jewish state could be revived virtually from the ashes of destruction after 2,000 years, then why hasn’t the Sanhedrin, the great Jewish court of the first and second commonwealths, been revived?

During the centuries of its existence, this august body, comprised of 71 sages, brought unity to the land because their decisions were binding on the entire nation.

On the surface, reviving the Sanhedrin seems impossible because its members must be recipients of the classic Jewish ordination that traces itself back to Moses himself — and even to the Almighty, as it were, who ordained Moses, who ordained Joshua, who ordained the elders, and so on. But this special ordination ended in the third century.

A verse in this week’s portion, however, raises alternate possibilities. In his commentary to the Mishna, Maimonides writes: “…if all the Jewish sages and their disciples would agree on the choice of one person among those who dwell in Israel as their head” — this must be done in the land of Israel — “and [that head] establishes a house of learning, he would be considered as having received the original ordination and he could then ordain anyone he desires.”

Maimonides adds that the Sanhedrin would return to its original function as written in Isaiah (1:26): “I will restore thy judges as at first and thy sages as in the beginning.” Such a selection would mean an election — but who does the choosing? The sages and their disciples, everyone with a relationship to Torah sages, to Jewish law. In an alternate source, however, Maimonides extends voting privileges to all adult residents of Israel!

This idea reappears in Maimonides’ Mishna Torah, Laws of Sanhedrin, except here he concludes with the phrase: “this matter requires decision.”

In 1563, an attempt was made by a sage, Rabbi Yaakov BeRab, to revive classic ordination using the Maimonidean formula, and in an election in Safed, he was declared officially ordained. He proceeded to ordain his most important student, Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulhan Aruch, and other disciples.

But the rabbis in Jerusalem strongly opposed the Safed decision. When the question was put before the Ridbaz, Rabbi David Ben Zimra, chief rabbi of Egypt, he ruled in favor of the Jerusalem rabbis because not only had the election been restricted to one city, Safed, and not Jerusalem, but also because the closing phrase, “this matter requires decision” opened the possibility that Maimonides may have changed his mind and was, in effect, leaving the issue un-adjudicated.

Rabbi Yaakov BeRab, on the other hand, understood that the phrase “requires decision” referred to whether one sage was sufficient to ordain others, or three sages were required. He was convinced Maimonides had no doubt about the method and inevitability of reviving classic ordination.

Three centuries later, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, the first minister of religion in the new Jewish state, tried to convince the political and religious establishments that there should also be a creation of a Sanhedrin. In his work The Renewal of the Sanhedrin in Our Renewed State, he cites the existence of a copy of Maimonides’ commentary to the Mishna published along with emendations written by Maimonides himself, where he writes that ordination and the Sanhedrin will be renewed before the coming of the Messiah, which implies that it must be achieved through human efforts. (A photocopy of these words, in Maimonides’ own handwriting, is provided in The Renewal of the Sanhedrin.)

I believe the basis for his democratic suggestion stems from the verse quoted above dealing with the issue of the sins of the entire congregation. Commentators ask how an “entire congregation” can sin. Rashi identifies the “congregation of Israel” with the Sanhedrin. So when it says “…if the entire congregation of Israel errs…” it really means “if the Sanhedrin errs.”

The Jewish people are a nation defined by commandments, precepts, and laws. The institution that protects and defines the law is at the heart of the nation’s existence.

So it should come as no surprise that Maimonides wanted to revive the ordination and found an utterly democratic method to do so.

For Maimonides, it is the population living in the land of Israel who represent the historical congregation of Israel. (B.T. Horayot 3b) Apparently Maimonides is saying that before the next stage of Jewish history unfolds, the nation will have to decide who shall be given the authority to recreate the ordination, who will be commander-in-chief of the rabbis. Will it happen in our lifetime?

Shlomo Riskin is the chief rabbi of the city of Efrat and dean of Ohr Torah Institutes in Israel.