192) THE SEARCH FOR R. NACHMAN’S UNLIKELY DESCENDANTS:

A very rare1821 edition of Likkutei Moharan, secretly printed in Breslov, by R. Natan at his illegal press, due to persecution by authorities and others. The city of Ostroh appears on the Title Page, but the actual location (Breslov) was kept secret. "By operating an illegal press, Reb Noson could be construed as putting not only himself but the Breslov community at risk, since there were enough people who would have been only too happy to take collective revenge..."[1]

INTRODUCTION:

After researching R. Moshe, son of the Baal haTanya - where it appears that he (Moshe) converted to Catholicism and thereafter had his approbations removed from his father’s books – it was even more surprising to discover what may have transpired with some of the descendants of R. Nachman of Breslov.

THE MISSION TO TRACE R. NACHMAN’S DESCENDANTS:

Some years ago, according to an article in Ynet[2]- which was copied in RISU (Religious Information Service of the Ukraine) – two leading Breslover rabbis went on a mission to locate some of R. Nachman’s lost progeny, “dozens of whom who were scattered across the former Soviet Union”. Many of these descendants had assimilated and were living as non-Jews.

In one instance, R. Yisrael Pinto of Jerusalem and R. Yisrael Natan Barzel of Uman journeyed to Uzbekistan and identified two older women who were direct descendants of R. Nachman.

During World War Two, a certain Tzvi Herschel fled the Ukraine for Uzbekistan and bore two daughters in his new homeland. They were now old and living in poverty, but in one of their houses was a dusty library filled with very valuable first edition Breslover books, which their father had originally brought along with him. These books turned out to be of great interest to the Breslover community.

The rabbis tried to persuade the women to move to Israel but the matter was complicated because their daughters had married gentiles and now there were grandchildren, some allegedly studying in Catholic institutions. They then paid $5,000 to a Catholic monastery - in a country where the average monthly salary is just $30 – to have the children released. However, there were issues and apparently, the children produced were not the right children.

The Breslovers launched a worldwide campaign to “bribe clerks, priests – all in order to return lost daughters to Judaism...[but] many details still remain confidential for legal reasons.” According to the Breslovers in Uman: “We’ll do anything to get [R. Nachman’s] descendants to Israel.”

“BE CAREFUL WITH MY OFFSPRING, MAKE SURE THEY STAY WITHIN THE HASSIDIC MOVEMENT”:

These were the words spoken by R. Nachman again and again, as if he knew that there were going to issues with his descendants. In the last few decades, dozens of such descendants have been discovered and identified, many of them having no knowledge of their ancestry. And the search is ongoing.

R. NACHMAN’S CHILDREN:

R. Nachman married his first wife, Sashia and had six daughters and two sons. Two daughters died in infancy and his two sons both died within a year or so of their births. The remaining daughters were Adil, Sarah, Miriam and Chaya.[3]

R. Nachman’s wife, Sashia died in 1807 and a month later he got engaged to a woman from Brody, who apparently was the daughter of the wealthy Yehoshua (or Yechezkel?) Tractenberg. It is uncertain what his second wife’s name was, but it has been suggested that it was Devora.

YAAKOV BARON?

To illustrate just how complicated the story becomes, what follows is an extract from a contemporary self-described ‘Catholic Jew’ who claims to be a direct descendant of R. Nachman!

[NOTE: I wish to stress that I have no way of verifying this claim, nor any of the information this writer provides. Some of his suggestions are so radical that I cannot quote them without proper evidence and reliable sources. However, I will share the kernel of this story, because I do recall hearing vague references to something like this from within the Breslov community itself. Also, it is very difficult to find information on some of R. Nachman’s descendants for reasons that may become apparent.]

He writes:

“... groups such as those led by Reb Moshe ben Zalman the son of the Alter Rebbe and some of Rebbe Nachman and Rav Nosan of Nemirov's children and grandchildren [including Rebbe Nachman's daughters Udil Auerbach (Della O'Brien) and Chaya Zaslavski (Catherine Lavin)] also were baptised (though more quietly) and took Gentile names and occupations but within a few generations their descendants also had lost their Jewish identity.”

He also claims that: 

“Rebbe Nachman of Breslov was married twice. His first wife Sashia of Brody (Alexandra Body/ Braude) was the daughter of the secret Frankist Rebbe Benjamin Ephraim Braude (aka Alexander Margoliot/ Sender Brody) of Sheklov. She was the mother of most of his children. His wife died in 1807 and he remarried soon after to Devorah Brody (Braude) a daughter of the Frankist Rebbe of Sheklov and his second wife Rachel Mayer a granddaughter of Rebbe Jacob Frank. In 1808 Rebbe Nachman disappeared with his new wife to Lvov for 8 months to await the secret birth of his son named Jacob ben Rebbe Nachman (BaRoN) who he left with the Frankists to rear. This son later used the name Yankel Baron...”

The writer claims to be descended from the daughters of R. Nachman.

“Yankel Baron (b.1808 Lvov) married Bracha Zaslavski (b.1819) a daughter of Aharon Zaslavski and Chaya (b.1801) a daughter of Rebbe Nachman [i.e. he married his niece]. Bracha's sister Miriam Chaya Zaslavski (1820-1860) married Michael Brennan (b.1820 Sheklov) a grandson of Rabbi Nathan (Nosan) of Nemirov the Chief Disciple of Rebbe Nachman. Michael's father was Moshe ben Rabbi Nathan of Nemirov (BReNaN/ BRENN) who became a follower of the Alter Rebbe's son Moshe ben Schneur Zalman [who had become the leader of the Jewish Catholics (secret Frankists)]. Moshe (b.1795 d.1865 Kilkenny Ireland) and his wife Sarah Auerbach (b.1807) (daughter of Adil and R. Yoska) was removed from the family tree and records of the family by the Jewish community...”

According to this account, Moshe, the son of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi married into the family of R. Nachman. (The reader is urged to read the full story of Moshe as per link above.)[4]

 He continues:

“...I do not want people to misunderstand my tree - not everyone on it became Catholics. The descendants of Yaacov Baron and Bracha (Brocho) Zaslavski remained mostly Jewish. It is Miriam Chaya Zaslavski and Michael Brennan that became Catholics. Their daughter Mary Phoebe (Miriam Feige) Brennan reverted to orthodox Jewish...”

I emphasize, again, that I am not suggesting that this account is accurate. He appears to know his ancestry but even if he is inaccurate on some of the very controversial details, it still shows how confused and entangled the lines became.[5]

Arthur Green writes “...the record on Nahman’s daughters’ marriages becomes somewhat confused...”[6]

‘CONTROVERSIES WITHIN HOUSEHOLDS’:

R. Nachman writes, perhaps rather tellingly, about 'controversies within households':

“The whole world is full of controversy...and even within a household...and children...

For each one in the household represents a particular nation; their challenges to one another are like the wars between the nations...

...this war can spread out among his household...

The controversies that go on in the tzaddik’s house also contain the wars of the nations...”[7]

In another place he writes:

“Believe me, I have the power to make peace with the entire world...but what can I do when there are certain heavenly rungs which can only be attained by means of conflict...”

On Erev Pesach 1798, R. Nachman announced his plan to travel to Eretz Yisrael. His daughter asked what would become of the family while he was away. He replied:

“You will go to your in-laws. Someone will take your older sister as a household servant. Your younger sister will be taken into someone’s home out of pity. Your mother can find work as a cook, and I shall sell everything in the house to cover expenses for the journey.”[8]

"It is also interesting to note that there is no mention of his [R. Nachman's] saying Kaddish for his father."[9]

"When Rabbi Nachman was about eighteen, his mother-in-law [in whose home he was living] passed away. When his father-in-law remarried, the new mistress of the house made it very difficult for the young Tzadik to engage in his usual devotions. He then moved to the nearby town of Medvedevka..."[10]

DEBATE OVER SABBATEAN INFLUENCE:

On the issue of R. Nachman’s relationship with Sabbateans and Frankists, though, there is much scholarly debate. Some say that the influential R. Yehuda Leib of Shpola (the 'Shpola Zeida') accused R. Nachman of being connected to the Sabbateans and Frankists.

According to Mendel Piekarz, there are documents which appear to connect R. Nachman with certain teachings of the false messiahs Shabbatai Tzi and Jacob Frank. This led him to believe that the suspicions and accusation levelled against R. Nachman as being a secret Sabbatean, may have been true.

One document suggests that “...Frank married a Jewish girl from our city (the opponents of the Bratslav Hasidim said she was of the family of MaHaRan (R. Nachman)...there were many [Frankists] there [in Bratslav] who held onto the ways of Sabbatai Sevi...other Hasidim, led by the old one (Shpoler Zeide) accused him of being a follower of that sect and a Sabbatian...”

However, Arthur Green[11] completely discredits the document as an ‘obvious forgery’. He writes: “...hard evidence to support the claim that Nahman was accused of Sabbatianism is lacking.”

He continues: “Lacking authentic historical sources on the nature of the Zeida’s complaints against Nahman, we may attempt some surmises of our own.”

And then he suggests that the Shpola Zaide’s opposition may have been nothing more than a ‘turf war’ or hasagat gevul against “...the young man [R. Nachman] [12] who so obviously and brashly challenged him...” 

One account has it that R. Nachman settled in Zlatipolia where a group "of over a hundred flocked to him on his first Rosh HaShana there. The community invited him to bring his following to the large synagogue...Rabbi Nachman did not approve of the cantor who was to lead the Neilla service that Yom Kippur. When the cantor found himself unable to complete the service, Rabbi Nachman made light of it. Enraged the cantor went to Shpola, a mere eighteen miles away, and complained to Rabbi Leib [the Shpola Zaideh]. This triggered what was to become a lifelong conflict on the part of the Shpola Zeideh."[13]

Another Breslov source suggests the controversy was centred around R. Nachman permitting his followers to imbibe alcohol before the morning prayers in order to pray with deeper emotion.[14]

Another suggestion was that R. Nachman was accused of plagiarising his grandfather, R. Nachman of Horodenker’s teachings, of which he was said to have had a secret collection.[15]

According to Shevachay HaRan[16]: 

"He [R. Nachman] made a joke of this rumor, saying, 'My grandfather was really good to me! He left me lessons fitting each occasion, no matter what happens. It all fits what people need to hear...' 

...The Rebbe said that those who knew Rabbi Nachman Horodenker, knew that his grandfather was not capable of revealing such lessons...he was not an outstanding innovative scholar."

Green is joined by other scholars such as Joseph Weiss and Yehuda Liebes who show that R. Nachman was clearly familiar with the teachings of Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank but that he studied their teachings in order to combat them!

In fact, Liebes shows that part of the main mission of R. Nachman’s life was to struggle against and then to rectify the sin of the Sabbateans. (His Tikkun haKelali, for example, was instituted to combat the overt promiscuity of the Sabbateans. See here for more on the Sabbateans.)

 R. Nachman of Breslov wrote: 

“For that Shabbatai Tzvi...led astray a number of the greatest men of the generation and outstanding scholars...they left the fold and spoke evil regarding the Oral law...but when a Tzadik sweetens their words, he transforms their sayings back into Torah.”[17]

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, Arthur Green does not mention the alleged Christian descendants anywhere in his well-researched book. (I mention this as a great irony because Green denounces any Sabbatean and Frankist influences and makes no mention of non-Jewish descendants – yet I have been told by some Breslovers not to have his book in my library!)

Whichever way one chooses to take the story and the varying and controversial interpretations thereof, there certainly does appear to be a great deal of entanglement and uncertainty one way or the other.

We shall probably never know the real facts - but if lost descendants can be found and brought back to Judaism, then the tumultuous journey over all these generations may have been worthwhile.

---

[1]Through Fire and Water, by R. Chaim Kramer, p.620.

[2] Operation Breslov: Tracing Rebbe’s Descendants, by Akiva Novik, 10.31.10 

[3]There are conflicting accounts as to the number of children.

[4] In the article on Moshe, his wife’s name is given as Shifra - although this does not exclude the possibility of him marrying a second time.

[5]See Rabbi Nachman' s Wisdom, p. 430, for the Breslov version of the Family Tree.)

[6] Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 129. This note is referring to another matter but I quoted it to show that a degree of uncertainty overshadowed at least some factual aspects of their marriages. To give some idea of the degree of speculation regarding just who married who, what follows are some random extracts from an internal Breslov source; Through Fire and Water:  "It is not known when Reb Avraham Ber was born, but he was probably about fifteen years old when he married (notwithstanding the Czar's decree yo marry after the age of 18; since birth certificates were not issued, it was difficult for the authorities to follow up the exact age)...Erb Noson wrote to his son Reb Yitzchak mentioning that he had spent the entire week in Sherevitz for sheva brakhos... Reb Noson does not state who the bride and groom were, but we are assuming they were Moshe Chenkes' daughter and Reb Avraham Ber for the following reasons. We can exclude Reb Noson' s children, as his older sons were already married, while Reb Dovid Zvi did not marry until 1835. If it was Chana Tsirel's first wedding, the celebrations would have been in Breslov, nor Sherevitz, and Reb Yitzchok, as a brother, would have been aware of where Reb Noson was for the celebrations. On the other hand, Moshe Chenkes came from Sherevitz , which was a little village next to Breslov...We therefore conclude that this wedding was that of Reb Avraham Ber to Moshe Chenkes' daughter, which can be dated to October, 1830." (Through Fire and Water, by R. Chaim Kramer, p. 624.)

[7] Sichot 77.

[8] Shivchey II 6.

[9] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom, translated and annotated by R. Aryeh Kaplan.

[10] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom. p. 432. 

[11] Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 103, 126.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Rabbi Nachman' s Wisdom, p. 433.

[14] Yemet haTela’ot, p. 174.

[15] Sichot 211.

[16] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom p. 347. 

[17] Likkutei Moharan 1:207

191) THE SANHEDRIN/SMICHA STORY – THEN AND NOW:

INTRODUCTION:

The word Smicha, referring to rabbinical ordination, literally means ‘authorization’.  To be somech means to ‘rely upon’. It also alludes to the process of the teacher ‘laying hands’ upon the student.

The common Smicha which rabbis have today is not the original ordination, nor does it carry with it the authority of that ordination. It is, instead, a ‘heter hora’ah’ or a dispensation to give halachic guidance on certain areas of Jewish law. In some circles, the Smicha ordination is even frowned upon.

MOSHE’S GRANTING OF SEMICHA:

The Torah first uses the term ‘SMiCHa’ to describe the process whereby Joshua was ordained by Moshe:

Moshe placed his hands – ‘vaYismoch’ - on Joshua, who was to lead the people after his death.[1]

Additionally, Moshe also ordained seventy elders, and the Torah says that G-d took some of the spirit of Moshe and gave it to the seventy elders[2]:

This original chain of Smicha transmission then continued till around the 4^th or 5^th centuries CE.

STRUCTURE:

Originally, Smicha could only be given in the Land of Israel where the teacher was called Rabi (Rabbi). That is why the Babylonian sages who did not get formal Smicha were called Rav.

The original Smicha could only be granted in the presence of three judges, however only one of them had to have Smicha himself.

The ancient formula for conferring Smicha was ‘yoreh yoreh, yadin yadin’(Can the student decide a law? Yes he can decide! Can he adjudicate a case? Yes he can adjudicate!)

BAR KOCHBA REVOLUTIONS:

From about the 2^nd century CE, the Smicha institution was beginning to weaken. This was just after the failed Bar Kochba revolutions against the Romans which took place between 132 to 135 CE. Emperor Hadrian decreed that anyone who gave Smicha would be killed - and the city in which the ceremony took place and all crops within a radius of a mile would be destroyed.

YEHUDA BEN BAVA:

According to the Talmud, R. Yehuda ben Bava gave his life in order to perpetuate the Smicha institution. He took five students of R. Akiva (who had just been killed) to a desolate mountain pass and gave Smicha to all of them. When the Romans came after R. Yehuda ben Bava, he blocked the narrow pass and the five newly ordained rabbis[3] escaped but he himself was killed.[4]

Those five rabbis were thus able to continue the Smicha transmission process for some time, but already at that point in history, the majority of Jews were living in Babylonia where Smicha was invalid.  Thus matters continued until around 425 CE when Theodosius executed R. Gamliel VI, the last nasi or president of the Sanherdin.

Around that time, Hillel the Second apparently foresaw the imminent cessation of the classic rabbinic ordination - and since ordained rabbis were required to sanctify the new moon - he established the mathematical rules for the calendar calculation, that we still make use of today.

ALTERNATE DATING OF SMICHA CESSATION:

Some believe, however, that classical ordination continued for a number of centuries until the time of R. Tzemach Gaon (9^th century) and Rabbi Chaninia Gaon (10^th century) as there are letters which imply that punitive damages were still judged in the Land of Israel, something which only one with Smicha could do.[5]

There is also the view that it may even have continued two centuries later till R. Yehuda ben-Barzillai of Barcelona (11^th-12^th centuries) as, again, historical letters show that there was still Smicha in Israel at that time.[6]

THE SMICHA ‘DIPLOMA’ OF THE 14^th C:

After the Great Plague[7] of the mid-1300’s, where Europe’s population was reduced by about 60 percent, a ‘new’ Smicha tradition began to surface. This was to keep in line with European Christian universities who were using the conferral of ‘diplomas’ to their students in recognition of their qualifications in various academic disciplines.

Initially the Sefaradim were opposed to this new institution of Smicha as they said it was mimicking the ways of non-Jews, but eventually, they accepted it.

R. YA’AKOV BEIRAV ATTEMPTS TO REINSTATE ORIGINAL SMICHA:

Spanish born R. Ya’akov Beirav[8] (1474-1546) attempted to reinstate the original Smicha in Safed, Israel, which at that time had the largest Jewish community in Ottoman Syria, with over 1000 families.

R. Beirav wanted to seize on that powerful moment in history and recreate the authoritative Smicha for the first time in a thousand years (if one follows the view that Smicha was dissolved around the time of Hillel II). Additionally, he also wanted to re-establish the Sanhedrin, as the two institutions often go hand in hand. He was a Kabbalist and had messianic aspirations which informed much of his decision to go ahead with these major innovations.

One of the contributing practical factors for R. Beirav’s grand plan was the question of how to deal with the many Marranos from the recent Spanish Inquisition of 1492, who were at that time beginning to return to Judaism. Only a Sanhedrin could administer certain procedures[9], which, according to some rabbis in Israel were the only remedy for the ‘apostasy’ of some Marranos.

RAMBAM’S LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR REINSTITUTION OF SMICHA:

Rambam (1135-1204) had already, theoretically laid the groundwork for the reinstitution of the Smicha, by writing that if the sages of Israel would ordain one deserving candidate, then he, in turn, could confer Smicha on others afterwards. He was more inclined to promote a human and natural evolution towards the redemptive process than wait for a miraculous event.

Rambam wrote:

“It appears to me that if all the sages of the Land of Israel consent to appoint dayanim (judges) and grant them Smicha (ordination), they have the law of musmachim and they can judge penalty cases and are authorized to grant Smicha to others [thus restoring Biblical ordination]...[10]

However, this matter requires a final decision.” [11]

According to some, the Rambam's final phrase that ‘the matter requires a final decision’, refers to a previous Halachic matter - and not to Smicha. Rabbi Yosef Caro is of the opinion that the view of the Rambam is indeed the definitive ruling.[12]

It must be pointed out that Ramban, as well as others, disagreed with Rambam’s view. However, the Safed rabbis (which included R. Yosef Caro), were prepared to rely on Rambam in this instant.

R. BEIRAV - THE FIRST APPOINTEE:

In 1538, twenty-five rabbis gathered in Safed and elected R. Beirav to be the first candidate to receive this Smicha. With his new authority, the first person he, in turn, conferred Smicha upon was his longtime opponent, R. Levi ibn Chaviv, also known as Ralbach, who was the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem.[13]

His first conferral of Smicha upon Ralbach was regarded as a strategic move by some and an act of reconciliation by others. Ralbach himself, however, was not impressed by R. Beirav’s ‘magnanimity’ and was instead insulted that the Jerusalem rabbis had not been consulted. He wrote to the Safed rabbis and declared their actions illegal and dangerous (as he was worried that they would tamper with the calendar).[14] He was supported by R. David ben Zimra known as the Radbaz.[15]

R. Beirav responded with a personal attack against Ralbach, accusing him of living like a Christian in an attempt to save his life while in Portugal. Ralbach retorted that R. Beirav was not qualified to transmit the Smicha ordination in the first instance.

The Turkish authorities got wind of these dramatic developments and suspected the Jews were planning to resurrect a Jewish homeland right under their noses and R. Beirav began to fear for his life. He fled to Egypt, but not before conferring Smicha to a number of other rabbis, including R. Yosef Caro, author of Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Caro later ordained R. Moshe Cordovero who ordained the Alshich, who ordained R. Chaim Vital. Thus it appears that this Smicha ordination lasted for four generations.

R. YISRAEL OF SHKLOV:

A more recent attempt at reinstituting the Smicha of old took place during the 1830’s. R. Yisrael of Shklov, one of the foremost students of the Vilna Gaon wanted to establish a Sanhedrin and reintroduce the Smicha. However, he agreed with R. Levi ibn Chaviv and R. David ibn Zimra that we cannot just appoint a candidate as they did in Safed in 1538 – but he found a ‘loophole’ in an opinion of R. David ibn Zimra!

According to that opinion, it was theoretically possible to reintroduce Smicha if one could locate either of the two of the Lost Tribes of Israel, Gad and Reuven, as they had allegedly kept the Smicha tradition alive.

This opinion created a fascinating Halachic conundrum: If Smicha could only be conferred in the Land of Israel – then how could Gad and Reuven have been the custodians of this institution if they were no longer living in the land?

R. David ibn Zimra had the answer: These tribes had separated from the rest of the Jewish People long before the ruling - that Smicha could only take place in the Land of Israel - was enacted. They, therefore, were not bound by that ruling!

It is interesting to note that R. Yisrael’s teacher, the Vilna Gaon, took the view that science had an important role to play in the general education of a Torah scholar.  [See here and here.] According to some secular scientific journals which were popular at that time, some of the Lost Tribes of Israel could be found in Yemen.

As it happened, at that point in history, Yemen was beginning to open up to the West, and R. Yisrael believed that those tribes might be located there. He dispatched an emissary, R. Pinchas Baruch to Yemen but unfortunately, he either died or was killed there and nothing became of the mission.

R. AHARON MENDEL HACOHEN:

Around 1903[16] R. Aharon Mendel haCohen was the rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Cairo. He had a close relationship with the Chief Rabbi of Cairo, R. Refael Aharon Ben Shimon who was a Sefaradi. This relationship was held up as an example of how Ashkenazim and Sefaradim can get on as apparently this was considered rather unusual at that time!

R. Aharon Mendel wanted to establish a Sanhedrin in order to create a sense of uniformity between Sefaradim and Ashkenazim. They would also renew the Smicha and the Sanhedrin would officially despatch rabbis all over the Diaspora. They collected five hundred signatures from leading rabbis who would rely upon the abovementioned view of Rambam.

However, his friend the Chief Rabbi, then sent him a very polite and respectful letter explaining that practically there were too many divisions between the Jews - and besides that, it would be impossible to get all the rabbis to agree on one uniform protocol and submit to a higher authority.

Evidently, the Chief Rabbi was correct because R. Aharon Mendel’s project never materialised.

R. TZVI KOVSKER:

In 1940, R. Tzvi Kovsker arrived in Israel from the Soviet Union. He had firsthand experience of the condition of Jews in pre-war Europe.  He consulted with many Rabbis in the Holy Land at the time and tried to renew the Smicha and re-establish a Sanhedrin as a recognised government for the Jewish People, eight years before the establishment of the State of Israel!

R. YEHUDA LEIB MAIMON:

In 1949, R. Yehuda Leib Maimon, the first Minister of Religious Affairs in the new state wanted to convert the existing Israeli Rabbinate into a de facto Sanhedrin. This evoked strong opposition from elements from within the ultra-Orthodox community who would not cooperate with the secular state.

THE PRESENT DAY:

In 2004, a group of seven hundred rabbis from various segments of the Israeli population, met in Tiberius with the expressed intention of establishing a contemporary Sanhedrin. After due process, R. Ovadia Yosef (Iraqi born Sefaradi Chief Rabbi) and R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (who many regarded as the Ashkenazi  posek hador) ordained R. Moshe Halberstam (Eidah Charedis) who in turn ordained R. Dov Levanoni who again ordained other rabbis.

Within this system, many of the rabbis regard themselves as ‘placeholders’ until such time as ‘more worthy’ members are able to replace them as this new Sanhedrin is only a nascent (or developing) Sanhedrin.

According to TheSanhedrin.NET:

“Rabbi Tzvi Eidan, the author of Asot Mishpat (on the laws of reestablishing the Sanhedrin) was appointed as first interim Nasi. Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz, a noted Talmudic scholar and a well-known Jewish philosopher is the currently elected Nasi. The Sanhedrin's spokesmen said that due to concerns that external pressure would be brought to bear upon individuals not to take part in the establishment of a Sanhedrin, the names of most participants would not be made public.”

To illustrate just how delicate this matter of a modern Sanhedrim with reinstated Smicha is, the former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav Rabbi Avraham Shapira chose to abstain on the issue but also refused to discourage it.

This nascent Sanhedrin was not without controversy, considering their political reach and their perceived authority to decide on matters of war and peace:

“One area where the Sanhedrin has offered extensive opinions is in the area of war and military policy. Based on the Mishnah’s statement "they may not send forth (the people) to a Milchemet Reshut (non-mandatory war) except by order of the court of seventy-one", the new Sanhedrin has declared that it is "the authorized institution to decide in matters of military policy, issues definitive moral guidance to soldiers on active duty and in the reserves. It also comments on the current administration's defence policy...". They clearly state "The commandment to 'inherit and dwell' (Deut. 12:29) in the Land of Israel is obligatory upon every Israeli government. In this regard Israel is commanded by G-d to conquer the entire expanse of the Land of Israel within its Biblical boundaries, including the Gaza strip." ” (See here for the actual statement).

---

[1] Bamidbar 27:23.

[2] Bamidbar 11:25.

[3] Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehudah (ben Ila’i), Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua.

[4] Sanherdin 14a.

[5] Kovets Sha’arei Tzedek p. 29-30.

[6] Sefer haShetarot p 132.

[7] Also known as the Black Death. It took about two hundred years for the world’s population to recover to its pre-plague level of 450 million.

[8] Beirav was an honorific. His real family name was Marmaran.

[9] Malkot could cancel out a decree of karet which some Marranos may have felt they were guilty of. (See Makkot 23a.)  The Mishnah (Makkot 3:15) states that all who are deserving of karet who receive lashes are absolved from karet. The Sages derived this from the verse (Devarim 25:3) "He shall flog him yet he shall not exceed [the prescribed number of lashes], lest . . . your brother be degraded before your eyes." As soon as the defendant receives lashes, he is considered our full-fledged brother.

[10] Full text continues “...If so, why did the sages bemoan [the loss of] Smicha? So that the judgment of penalty cases wouldn't disappear from among Israel because Jews are so spread out that it's not possible to get their consent [to authorize a dayan]. If someone were to receive Smicha from someone who already has Smicha, then he does not require their consent – he may judge penalty cases for everyone since he received Smicha from beit din (rabbinical court)....”

[11] Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:11.

[12]Beit Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 295.

[13] He was the son of R. Ya’akov ibn Chaviv, the author of Ein Ya’akov.

[14] See his Kuntres haSmicha. R. Beirav responded to that with his counter letter Iggeret haSmicha.

[15] R. David ben Zimra (Radbaz) was a Spanish Kabbalist who had fled from Spain and settled in Cairo. He was the teacher of R. Betzalel Ashkenazi (author of Shita Mekubetzet) as well as the Ari Zal.

[16] Some accounts record the year as 1901.