Saturday, March 17th | 1 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

July 9, 2013 8:50 am

Reestablishing the Great Sanhedrin and Gerusia?

avatar by Brandon Marlon

Email a copy of "Reestablishing the Great Sanhedrin and Gerusia?" to a friend

Chamber of Hewn Stones

From the time of Moses and for over 1,500 years, the Jewish People had legislative-judicial councils that went by various names and exercised powers that were sometimes expansive, other times circumscribed.

Since the year 358 C.E. when the last Sanhedrin was disbanded, and 425 C.E. when the last rabbinical patriarch Gamaliel VI was executed by Roman emperor Theodosius II, there have been numerous attempts to revive this ancient institution and its leadership positions. While the 3-member Bet Din magistracy survived the long night of Jewish exile, the Great Sanhedrin of 71 sages and Lesser Sanhedrin of 23 sages in each municipality throughout the Land of Israel were left defunct. The honorable roles of Nassi (Prince/President), Av Bet Din (Vice-President), and Chacham (Sage) went unfilled.

Practical questions as to the re-formation of such a body abound: should a Great Sanhedrin be invested with religious authority alone, or political authority as well? Should its 71 members be drawn only from Israel, or also from the Diaspora? Should its membership represent all of modern-day Judaism’s denominations (Hassidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, Humanistic)? If not, how could it claim relevance for non-traditional factions, who might easily establish an alternate Sanhedrin? Should women, homosexuals, or other constituencies be eligible for membership?

With such contentious intra-communal issues involved, it would be perfectly understandable to consider the proposition as a fanciful non-starter, dead on arrival.

Still, the incomparable potential for consensus, cohesion, unity, and authority are hard to resist. To tackle its weighty challenges, there are some preliminary measures that may prove helpful. For example, during the Greek era there seems to have been a Gerusia or council of elders that dealt primarily with the political sphere; this body evolved into–or gave way to–the Great Synagogue which in turn, during the Roman era, became the Great Sanhedrin (dealing primarily with the religious sphere). Both the Gerusia and Great Sanhedrin might be concurrently reconstituted, thereby maintaining the useful arms-length separation between synagogue and state.

An inclusive Great Sanhedrin could serve the entire Jewish People worldwide, and democratically determine Jewish law with regards to salient contemporary matters as specific as Jewish access atop Temple Mount, female rabbinical ordination, or the concerns of the Women of the Wall, and matters as general as conversion, medical procedures, scientific discoveries, technological innovations, environmental issues, and so forth. Moreover, its rulings could lay claim to an authoritativeness that no individual rabbi or rebbetzin/rabbanit could possibly match. A Great Sanhedrin would also obviate the need for the Chief Rabbinate, which as an institution is commonly regarded as symbolic, populated by political appointees, and too often mired in petty scandals. And a Great Sanhedrin does not require the prerequisite of an existing Temple, since in the Roman era the institution moved from the Lishkat Ha-Gazit (Chamber of Hewn Stones) in Jerusalem to Yavneh (Jamnia), Usha, Shefaram, Bet She’arim, Tzippori (Sepphoris), and Teverya (Tiberias).

For its part, the Gerusia could function as a bicameral parliament’s upper chamber like the Senate in the United States and Canada or the House of Lords in the UK. Its ambit would be the State of Israel. It could, for example, help the Knesset and its committees formulate a national Constitution that is Torah-friendly and respects tradition, while making accommodations that recognize the large non-Jewish minority in Israel who would not be subject to Jewish law, only Israeli law. A Gerusia could also bring a Torah perspective to seminal priorities in the current political context such as land concessions, military service, foreign policy, and the like.

Critics of the idea of a new, functioning Sanhedrin system will undoubtedly decry a perceived atavism at work, but by this line of thought all of Zionism and Jewish political sovereignty itself must be similarly atavistic. Other observers are likely to suggest that a reestablishment of the Sanhedrin is fundamentally far-fetched…though it is already underway.

The latest attempt to reestablish the Great Sanhedrin, begun in October 2004 at Tiberias, continues its efforts to play a meaningful role in Jewish life. This self-styled “nascent” or “developing” Sanhedrin, headed by Nassi Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, acts as a synod with limited functions and even more limited authority. Overall, its activities are modest and its attitude tentative. Most Jews don’t even know it exists. And yet, it is a start.

For 1,813 years the Jewish People were homeless. It has now been 65 years since the Third Commonwealth put an end to that desperate plight. Naturally, you don’t reconstitute a state or replenish a people all at once. The dust of the Diaspora will linger upon us a while. But one by one, our ancient institutions that can be of modern value and service should be restored. In history are the seeds of futurity.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

    The Nascent Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was funded 10 years ago. See the site:

    Additionally, we have made some contributions through The Jerusalem Court for Bnei Noah [=non-Jews]. We also are active through the Noahide World Center

    We have met with Muslims and Christians [including
    Pope Francis] to encourage understanding between the peoples.
    Our slogan is “Unity without Uniformity under God”.

    Yes, setting up a Sanhedrin which will be accepted by all is a very slow and laborious process.

    May The Almighty help us succeed!

  • Vivienne Leijonhufvud

    Do know some sort of Sanhedrin exists, interfering with high level politics really aught not to be the role of this body of Senior Elders. Implimenting ancient areas of the scriptures would seem to be a step back rather than forward. The last thing Modern Israel needs is the equivalent operating in Islam.


  • Mike P.


    You’re obviously a hater of Jews and the Jewish people and of Israel.

    You don’t recognize the debt you have to the Jews for the Ten Commandments, religion without human sacrifice, equality before God, liberation from man-king-gods, vaccines and medical devices (about 1/3 to 40 percent developed by Jews), phosphorous-based fertilizer (the only equal to the green revolution in reducing starvation), and about 1/3 of science and economics Nobel-quality contributions.

    I recommend you relocate to the cave from which your cultural and intellectual heritage derived.

  • Julian Clovelly

    Let the past and its mythology go. It’s long past time that we all did. The era of religion belongs to a more primitive stage of human consciousness. If G-d exist he is modern, not ancient, expressed in the findings of science and the development of society – in our human relationships and in caring.

    Not in some antiquated law code – as in the muslim equivalent, Sharia law, and the civil decision making of their religious leaders. Religion seems so often to be a tool of hatred rather than love – in that alone it cannot be a correct worldview – it contradicts itself.

    Theocracy of any kind in this day and age is an ugly remnant of past glory, creating a target of iself for those it excludes or categorises as “infidel”

    Alienating oneself is always a mistake. It is always safer to be seen as a welcoming equal and sometimes as a brother human being under attack. Empathy is one of the greatest defences there is.

  • shirley swanepoel

    Sounds so intellectual and smart. Israel can reason this way or that way, it is cornered by its own God who needs reckoning for their past debts. And its plentiful and the Jewish persecution racecard is running out of play.

    • Mike P.

      Incidentally, Shirley, even your opening statement is one of anti-intellectualism indicating:

      1) you refuse to engage intellectually
      2) you are anti-intellectual
      3) your prior beliefs will not change regardless of evidence

      Israel may or may not survive. However, if it does not, it is not because of “sins” but because of cultures and religions whose underlying feelings of inadequacy require them to destroy those who out-achieve them or who gave them the small portion of their culture or religion that is good.

    • ivan

      “Cornered by it own God who needs reckoning”? “Jewish persecution racecard is running out of play”? The ranting of a pathetic person with pathetically distorted views and a tinge of self hatred or antisemitism, whichever applies.