David,

If we had a Beit Din HaGadol today with a majority of Reform Jews, there would be Jews sitting on it and the zugot could even be machmir Prushim, but it's no longer a Jewish institution, in my view.

quote:

By the time Ananus became High Priest the Beit Din Hagadol wasn't even a Jewish institution anymore, although there were Jews sitting on it.

That was the situation in Ananus time. The machmir Prushim could continue to posek as they would, but the body they led wouldn't really be a Jewish institution anymore.

My point is that you are trying to justify a Conservative worldview by using a Sanhedrin in which the Prushim were by far the minority.

Avi

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
David,
If you have any problem with the following dates let me know. Avi

Avi,

My rejection of your statement had nothing to do with your dates. Rather, with what you had said, namely: "But, after Queen Shlomzion, Rome came in and the tide swung the other way to Sadducees again." This is not correct.

It is true, however, that when Queen Shlomzion came to power, she augmented the power of the Pharisees. Do not forget, though, that there were three primary Jewish sects living in Israel at the time: The Pharisees, the Essenes and the Sadducees.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:

quote:

Avi wrote: "By the time Ananus became High Priest the Beit Din Hagadol wasn't even a Jewish institution anymore, although there were Jews sitting on it."

Avi explains: "That was the situation in Ananus time. The machmir Prushim could continue to posek as they would, but the body they led wouldn't really be a Jewish institution anymore."

You totally lost me on this one. I don't know what you're talking about.

As for the Conservative conversion and its validity, I will paste here my latest post on the thread, "Kohen married to convert."

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Tzaddukim were never accepted as Kosher judges. I don't know where you get that they were held as Kosher? They did have their own judges and they ruled under where they had jurisdiction, but it was never sanctioned by the Chachamim."

Rav Chaim, Rebbe Yisroel, and others,

Actually, Yoseph Hakohen says in his book, "Antiquities," that "...when they (the Sadducees) become magistrates (דיינים), as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." (Antiquities, Book XVIII. ch. I, vs. 4) So, here, it is clear that they served as judges for the common populace who adhered to the doctrines of the Pharisees. They were accepted by them, in spite of their unconformed views on "life after death" (see: Shabb. 152b) and their view on those oral traditions which were delivered unto us by Moses from Sinai.

Not only so, but writs then issuing in their courts of law (Beis Din) were binding. They divided the inheritance between parties to a suit, they settled disputes, acquited the guiltless, charged the debtor, oversaw conversions, etc. whereof they did set their hands and affix their seals. Anyone who says that what they did was not "kosher," he slanders our early forefathers (מוציא לעז על ראשונים) who gave them space in their judicial bodies. For it is plain that these men who entertained ill-beliefs served in the courts of Jewish law, and had the approbation of the religious rulers at that time. No doubt men that were great personages, but men of uncommon beliefs all the same. (see: Rambam's commentary on Mishnah Avos 1:3, s.v. Antiginos Ish Socho, on how this sect was first established).

Having said this, who amongst us can say that he is not a descendant of a man or a woman who were converted to Judaism in one of their "Batei Din," some 1,950 years ago?! Or which convert amongst us today, who was made a convert in an Orthodox "Beis Din," can say that one of the judges who officiated over him never had an ancestor that was a convert himself, and made that way solely on account of some decision passed in a court run by Tzaddukim (Sadducees) many years ago? If you rule-out as "pasul" their halachic decisions made long ago, by nature, the thread is unravelled, and he that thinks that he is a Jew is not a Jew! And he that thinks that he was halachically converted to Judaism, was not halachically converted! It's an endless and futile cycle.

Rather, in my simple conjectures, since we have given ourselves to speak out more candidly about this subject, I would caution against "writing-off" someone simply because he had been converted in a Conservative "Beis Din."

As for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's remarks, after begging his forgiveness and after licking-up the dust of his feet, I would say to our friends here that had he seen the writings of Yoseph Hakohen (Antiquities), he would not have written what he had written about the Conservation Movement. If, on the other hand, the "kabbalas hamitzvos" which he has spoken of about them means that the Conservative "Beis Din" did not act in accordance with proper procedure in the woman's conversion, then he is correct. Their ruling means nothing.

Sincerely,
David

David,

I'm sorry that you lost me. Let me give a different analogy.

Would you call the Knesset of Israel today a "Jewish" institution? If you do, then we don't have much to discuss. If you don't, it doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't people in that body who are machmir Jews and whose opinions are Jewish. I hope I clarified it.

As for writing off people whose conversions are "so so"; it's not our job to do so. If a person tells me he is a Jew who had a kosher conversion, I accept that. However, if people do not get kosher conversions it eventually creates problems for everyone. What happened centuries ago is out of our hands, what happens today is in our hands.

Avi

David,

You may not believe this, but that's what's written in credible textbooks....information derived from Josephus and Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Most members of the Sanhedrin, the central judicial authority of Jewish people, were Sadducees. Thus, the Sadducees were the party of those with political power, those allied with the Herodian and Roman rulers, …….. (p. 902, "Sadducees")"

Herod reigned after Queen Shlomzion's reign.

"Herod also sought to diminish the position of the Sadducees, who had regained their power after the death of Salome and held the high priesthood and the majority of the seats on the Sanhedrin. One of the first things Herod did upon becoming king in 37 B.C.E. was to order the execution of forty-five Sadducean members of the Sanhedrin for their support of his rival for the kingship, Antigonus; in addition, he confiscated their property to pay Marc Antony, the Roman who had appointed him king. He also turned the Sanhedrin into a religious court only, taking away its power in secular matters....Eusebius, in his fourth century Ecclesiastical History

Again this was after the reign Queen Shlomzion (Salome).

Essens were ascetics. They didn't involve themselves with the politics of the day. They wanted to be left alone in their retreats.

Avi

The Essenes are known as healers, homeopaths, and blacksmiths. In the Qumran caves archaeologists are finding traces of molten iron and bronze suggesting that they were arms-makers as well as agricultural tool-makers... I recall reading that they were the primary makers of the weaponry for the Jewish uprising against the Romans.

I have a translation of the Qumran Scrolls, and from reading it, I can tell that they were very much into politics. Their place in the very complex hierarchy of Judea at the time was kind of like that of the Vatican in the hierarchy of the 17th-century France: staying behind the curtains, exercise control of the situation. A semi-monastic ascetic community, or agglomeration of communities, they had an internal organization as outlined for the Israelites in the Torah. They could be joined only voluntarily, with or without families, but "with" was preferred. Exit from membership was not an option: once an Essene was always an Essene. Violations of Law was punished heavily, from extra community labor, to a vow of silence for a carefully prescribed period, to stoning, depending on how heavy the crime was. They had agents in all Jewish and Christian sects and apparently very good communications with those agents. The impression I got from reading that enormous document was that they were the central sect, the only sect to which others talked and the sect that had universal respect across Judea.

Alex,

I agree with you that they were very much into politics among themselves. However, they tended to look at other groups as not being quite so "holy" and tended not to mix in their affairs. They were healers, kabbalists etc as you say.

Avi

Did someone mentioned that the Perushim say that a woman can not be king but in the talmud the Perushim only have praise for Queen Shalome.

The halacha is that any three jews can accept a conversion. That is the Mordechai and is what Jews did for hundred and hundreds of years. It is suggested that one of them should be an expert of some sort but not necessary. It was not the function of the Bet Din. That Bet Din's are responsible for conversions is a new creative idea which the Jews came up with in the 15th century. That is OK. We are always ready to do something new in Judiasm. Just to suggest like someone said, that all of the converts not done by your new idea of a Bet Din is invalid is not logical.
Incidently, as I am fond of pointing out, all those I follow the Mishneh Brura people, suddenly never heard of him when he poskins that a non-Jew should accept mitvot one at a time and each mitveh he accepts like shabbat is binding till he actually goes to the mikveh. None of this lighting a match stuff.

quote:

The halacha is that any three jews can accept a conversion. That is the Mordechai and is what Jews did for hundred and hundreds of years. It is suggested that one of them should be an expert of some sort but not necessary. It was not the function of the Bet Din.

Is there any requirement upon these 3 Jews that they at least be kosher witnesses?

And by saying its not the function of a Beis Din, are you perhaps distinguishing between a standing Beis Din (that is always there to hear cases) and an ad-hoc Beis Din which can be formed at any time by getting together 3 Shomer Shabbos Jewish men?

Or,if a conversion doesn't need a Beis Din, then what is the purpose of your "three jews"? Are they not forming an ad-hoc Beis Din?

There are copies of Yosephs works on http://www.gutenberg.org for download for free.

I am not certain their quality, since I have not read them all, but they are translated, or edited/added by independant volunteers.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Chaim,

I think you'd do best to read one of the classical series that publishes the works of Josephus. I think it's called "Loeb's Classical Series," or else those that are published out of Cambridge University, or Oxford University, in England. Most Public Libraries carry these editions. They are pretty-much void of commentary of any sort.

I saw a good edition of Josephus at the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem, with a commentary by a Jewish ph.D scholar. The next time I go there, I could check its publisher for you, and send you their names in a Private Message.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Rob,

You are right. The following does create a beit din.

quote:

The halacha is that any three jews can accept a conversion. That is the Mordechai and is what Jews did for hundred and hundreds of years. It is suggested that one of them should be an expert of some sort but not necessary. It was not the function of the Bet Din.

So I don't understand Laurence's objection.

Avi

A three jews can make up a bet din is correct. They have to be kosher witnesses. Now what disqualifies one as being a witness is listed in the talmud. Suffice to say that the overwhelming number of Jews in every generation upto the emancipation fit into that category because in those days you either observed the Shabbat or you left the community.
This was done even though there were formal Bet Dins who decided things like if one merchant had to pay another or decide if a get was valid or if someone who comes from a unknown place and claims he is Jewish is acceptable and thousands of other questions. What is not recorded is the Bet Din doing conversions. This is an innovation. There is no a priori reason to assume that a Conservative Rabbi is not a valid witness. Actually in small communities today, it is not unheard of that the Rabbi takes two Jews and does the conversion (I have done it.)
As I said before, I do not know of any Rav who when dealing with converts from a conservative bet din, who would allow them to remarry without a divorce. In extremis, the Rabbinate will nulify an conservative or reform marriage ceremony to save an agunah or mamzer, but they will also (and have) invalidate a orthodox ceremony.

B"H

Thanks to Katja, the link for downloading a copy of Josephus' "Antiquities" is now available!

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2848

Our thanks go out to her!

David

Perhaps i am being lazy and should just read the text from start to finish, but did Josephus mention the dimenstions and location of the temple?

B"H

Katja,

Yes, Josephus mentions the temple and gives a fine description of its parametres. Look into the book, "the Jewish War," and you shall find where he describes it.

David

B"H David,

Shabbat Shalom

Which brings up the Western wall. As Josephus describes, and clearly demonstrated by archeological excations, Herod (not your typical Jew, he built a nice temple for one of the Roman gods as well) wish to expand the mount which was round by the use of retainer walls to hold a lot of dirt to support his platform, the Western wall being one of them. That is there are no stones from Jews in the Wall with the exception of Mr. Montefores' addition at the top. On the other hand, the Southern Wall is part of the original temple and has stones which are from the time of Ezra and Nechemiah if not earlier. Upto the 9th century, the Jews considered the Southern Wall most holy. How it switched to the Western Wall is still something of a mystery.

Lawrence,

Is the Southern Wall in the now-still-Arab part of the city?

quote:

How it switched to the Western Wall is still something of a mystery.

"Is the southern wall of the Temple Mount safe? The Jordanians don't think so, and neither does archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar of Hebrew University, a member of the Committee to Prevent the Destruction of Temple Mount artifacts." ...Israel Nation News

I found part of an article about the Safety aspect of the Southern Wall and might explain why the Western Wall is now used for prayer...

Katja, is it related to this one:

http://www.bib-arch.org/TempleWall/bswbTempleWallSubPag...Issue=1&ArticleID=5&

?