Are there serious legal doubts regarding the current status of the Potential Sandhedrin (they refer to themselves as Nascent Sanhedrin), regarding the way in which their court and/or Smikha was initially established? The following correspondence represents an ongoing debate, one which can border on hostility. Did everyone need to be physically present?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------According to the RMb"M, there may have been technical issues that lead to a doubt:

Laws of Potential Sandhedrin 4,12:

יב נראין לי הדברים, שאם הסכימו כל החכמים שבארץ ישראל למנות דיינין ולסמוך אותן--הרי אלו סמוכין, ויש להן לדון דיני קנסות, ויש להן לסמוך לאחרים. אם כן, למה היו החכמים מצטערין על הסמיכה, כדי שלא ייבטלו דיני קנסות מישראל: לפי שישראל מפוזרין, ואי אפשר שיסכימו כולן; ואם היה שם סמוך מפי סמוך, אינו צריך דעת כולן, אלא דן דיני קנסות לכול, שהרי נסמך מפי בית דין. והדבר צריך הכרע.

REBUTTAL FROM THE NEW Potential Sandhedrin

"If mail would do, what do we care that the Jews are scattered about?
Obviously the agreement must be in a single place, not scattered about
the Land of Israel (and the sages outside Israel do not count!) The 
whole process of reinstating the "ordination" appears invalid (to me),
because the "consent" was not by a meeting, but by letters (some of
which were simply "no answer" or "no disagreement").

One counter response from a "Ribbi" who resides on the current Potential Sandhedrin
is as follows:

I disagree, but do agree it will eventually need to be redone in a less controversial way.
It says (in the Yad) "consent". When Rabbenu Gershom gathered the consent of 100 rabbis
in three separate countries in Europe for his ban, it was an enormous undertaking. Today,
it is much, much simpler. Of course. Consent today can be achieved through emails and faxes.
The RMb"M doesn't mention anywhere in MT about it needing to be a ceremonial event with all
present. Did you see that in the text? Silence is tantamount to consent. And we see that
more and more regarding this semikhah and this project. Slowly, more rabbis are coming out
of the woodwork praising and blessing our efforts. To date there has been no public rejection
to the semikhah by any rabbi. After an initial enormous expenditure on a publicity campaign
of the upcoming semikhah process, 50,000 copies of a detailed flier were distributed among
10,000 Jewish centers in Israel, outlining that a vote of a first samukh was going to be
held shortly, along with contact information of the Wa'ad ha-Mekhonen la-Potential Sandhedrin. Not
long afterwards, 700 rabbis were sent ballots. Among them, all 70 of the dayanim of the
whole Israeli rabbinate (interesting there are 70 ba-miqreh!), and ALL the recornized
posqim (and poiskim). Many of the latter received copies of Ribi Svi 'Idan's book,
'Assoth Mishpa`t, outlining how the semikhah and Potential Sandhedrin can be renewed today from
every angle, involving every Talmudic, Rishoni and Aharoni source on the subject.
However, only 200 rabbis responded with their ballots. Only a majority of 120 voted
for Ribi Moshe Halberstam. However, that is immaterial. The rest consented by their
silence, and at the very least were voluntarily removed from the decision process.
This process is fully documented. In my archive, I even have the receipts to the
printer for the original 50,000 flyers. We believe those 200 rabbis truly represent
the majority of the Hakhmei Yisrael. After all, what true Hakham would understand
or care so little as to remain aloof of a process that is the restoration of the
Torah itself? According to the Gaon mi-Vilna, when there is no Potential Sandhedrin, it is
considered that THERE IS NO TORAH. According to Sepher ha-Hinukh, a classic
Rishoni work, the lack of Potential Sandhedrin brings about the destruction of our religion.
In such a crisis such as ours today, in which our very physical survival depends
on the rise a real Torah leadership, this is not the time to nitpick about
details that are not even solid halakhah to begin with--just the "nirin li
ha-davarim" ("it seems to me") of the RMb"M, in the absence of any other source
on the subject across all the classic rabbinical literature. The RMb"M there is
not bringing halakhah la-Mosha mi-Sinai, and not even a clearly legislated
rabbinical rule. However, for the Potential Sandhedrin to succeed, it must receive the
acceptance of the majority of the nation. Until it does, I'll be the first
person to tell you it does NOT YET have the full halakhic status of Potential Sandhedrin,
with all its ramifications at this point. We are in the restoration process.
This is what I wrote the banei NoaH:

However, the truly best news, is that a more mature and realistic view of the new court has prevailed over the more messianic-minded voices, crying "the fully-restored Great Sandhedrin of Israel", which was even a source of ridicule. This, in my view, and that of the most senior rabbis on the court, was the very block preventing the involvement and support of the greatest scholars of the generation, who have a much more conservative perspective. Now, the only difference between those who support the restoration and those who remain aloof, is belief in our own initiative--that we in this generation must, and are truly able to restore the Sandhedrin, in spite of the confusion of our times.
Then what about our articles about the "new Potential Sandhedrin" as we presented it in the beautiful pamphlet so graciously published by the VJRI? There is no contradiction. Make no mistake: we believe with a full heart that the body of what will soon become the real Sandhedrin of Israel--with all the legal ramifications of that word--has been restored. The baby has been born. However, no one would give the reigns of kingship to a baby. In fact, in Ribi Adin Steinzaltz's view, it is still a fetus! We are one year into a long process of growth and change that must take place before the Potential Sandhedrin is a recognizable halakhic (legal) fact. In short, what we call the Potential Sandhedrin today is truly the Potential Sandhedrin restoration project. As Ribi Yoel Schwartz noted, we function as a court, and are already beginning to fulfill the role of societal leadership of a truly halakhic Sandhedrin (see the article above if you haven't already, at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=92348), if not yet the other role of ultimate decisor of halakhah (Jewish Law).

COUNTER REBUTTAL TO THE NEW Potential Sandhedrin:

I read the rebuttal from the Ribbi of the Potential Sandhedrin, defending the way that “ordination” has been reestablished and found his statements to be misleading and in clear contradiction with the plain language of MT. In Laws of Sandhedrin 4:12, RMBM states that, for the Semikhah to be valid, ALL (KL) the Sages of the Land of Israel must agree to bestow ordination upon new judges. This clearly did not take place, even according to his words when he said that the 200 (out of 700) rabbis that responded with their ballots “represent the majority of the Hakhmei Yisrael.” First we have the problem that 120 or 200 out of 700 rabbis do not even constitute a simple majority. The second problem is that the other 500 that did not respond were not involved in “appointing judges ordaining them,” as RMBM describes. I want to emphasize that RMBM uses the root KL three times in that paragraph; clearly showing that the expressed and unanimous consent of ALL the Sages is required. In addition to that, the issue of “representation” that he brings up is also controversial, as RMBM does not say that a select group within another select group can express a valid consent in representation of all the Sages of the Land of Israel. And when RMBM says “nirim li ha davarim” (it seems to me), he adds even more doubt to his statement, leaving open the possibility that, even if everything is done as he described, the process might still be invalid.

This gentlemen also argues that “consent today can be achieved through emails and faxes,” yet the mail did exist in RMBM’s time and he clearly did not consider it a valid way of achieving consent from his words in Laws of Potential Sandhedrin 4:12. I was also astonished by his use if the Sepher Ha Hinukh to support his argument, since this work from Christian Spain legitimizes the authority of post- Sandhedrin rulings and likens the local Rav to a standing Sandhedrin. If this gentleman agrees that the ordination “will need to be redone” in the future, then there is absolutely no permission today to call this body “the Sandhedrin” and to call its members “semukhim” (ordained judges). I agree on the basic idea that the Potential Sandhedrin is a pre-messianic institution and that it could be reestablished today if we had the right conditions. However, in a time like this when most Jewish communities and their rabbis are not even following the decrees of previous Potential Sandhedrins and much of Torah Law, to attempt to renew the Potential Sandhedrin in a valid manner would be a close-to-impossible task. A better idea would be to start following real Halakhah before we try to change anything.
----------------------------------------

Counter response: The Potential Sandhedrin is always referring to itself as the DEVELOPING or POTENTIAL Sandhedrin. Thus, even the Potential Sandhedrin itself recognizes that certain issues will need to be clarified. The bottom line is that they themselves admit this. However, as is now becoming evident, this court comprises Jews from every stream (although a couple of the so-called "gadolim" are holding out), and is accomplishing major feats every day. Only a fool would dismiss it as marginal or insignificant. Clearly, the Developing/ Potential Sandhedrin is the beginning of the real one.

To that, I remind all that, according to Melakhim (Kings) II 23:22), the festival of PesaH (Passover) wasn't celebrated properly on a national level from the times of the Shopha`tim (Judges). It becomes clear that the righteous kings who preceded Yoshiahu, including Dawidh himself, did not lead the nation in proper PesaH observance. We learn in Divrei HaYomim 36:21 that we were exiled seventy years for every "Shabboth of the earth" (Shamittoh) we didn't keep. It stands to reason that for 7 x 70 years (490) we did not keep the laws of Shamittoh properly—again, from the time of the early Judges! Did the contemporary prophets ever charge those kings, those generations with ANNULLING the Barith?! We never see the Jewish people charged with having annulled the barith on these points by any prophet until the general time of Yirmiyahu—long before the fate of the First Kingdom was sealed. Clearly, we know that "KL", means the generality thereof, and not 100%. We must relate to them all, and strive to keep them all. However, we are human, and HaShem created us with our limitations, and expects our service to Him within them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other Response - about use of word KL (as ALL-Kol Hakhmei Yisrael): In truth, KL ("all" to the strict interpretation) means "most"—the generality (KLL), or majority of. There are dozens of examples throughout Scripture. After "KL" ha-Kana'anim, ("all" the Canaanites) were mentioned as wiped out or driven out in the Book of Yohoshuwa` we soon learn about the effect on the Israelites of the so many who remained… In Wayiqra we are told if we do not keep "KL ha-misWoth", the Covenant is annulled. Someone's insistence on "KL" as 100% is similar to the silly Christian argument, based on the above pasuq in BuHuqothai. They rationalize that, since it is impossible for a society to keep 100% of all the Commandments for generations, the "Old Covenant" (based on Law) was only given to show it could never be kept—to make way for the "New Covenant" (based on pure faith)!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Response - about use of word KL (as ALL):
It is clear that it is wrong in saying "kol" = all, instead of referring to
it as "a generality with only rare exceptions", but I think arguments
that "kol = all" are still strong.  The fact that something is in the mere
majority (in terms of usage) is wrong too.  Both are gratuitously insulting
and engaging in forbidden speech in my opinion.

### Yup. You trump the Gamara with newly formulated influences and the likes (ie: Tosafist innovations, copying errors, illegal psaqs, and more). I still don't think you really grasp what we are saying here.

For this reason sources are so important to the forum on "thesanhedrin.org".

### IF sources were seriously important to you, you would start where the old Sanhedrin left off, which is the Mishna and Gamara. Cut out the "Gedolim" stuff. It's not an authoritative or legitimate source. No one is telling you not to study it. But it is not a source. The only source is Torath Moshe. The only one to record Torath Moshe, as it stood before so called Gedolim innovated and chopped it for over 1,500 years, is the RMb"M. The RMb"M also had access to a much purer version of the Talmud. If you don't like RMb"M, then go directly to today's PRINTING PRESS version of the Talmud (even if it isn't optimal), and bring out a real source on ANYTHING. I beg you. Make your point from there. But you can not pull the wool over our eyes with the word "Gedolim". I am sorry to let you know that we have some intelligence over here. If you refuse to study these issues in depth, and will not do the research.... we will. We have seen many problems with your so-called Gadolim. They even have problems with each other. This is no secret. By the way, I am not unfamiliar with your sources. I studied them for many years. We can fully demonstrate this chopping to anyone open enough to listen. But we are trying not to go that way. We are desperately trying to keep the peace. But we will not keep the peace in the name of revisionism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION: Why isn't the "Sanhedrin" using the Gamara and previous Sanhedrin as their starting point, as it was left to us over 1,500 years ago, as the basis of legal thinking and decision making. This is very disturbing indeed. No matter how great one believes their GADOL to be, the starting point MUST be with the PRIOR Sanhedrin. Everything needs to be qualified from that initial point on forward. There is no retroactively accepting different opinions as a trump card, which many times clearly, illegally and non-authoritatively contradicted or innovated the law. If someone wants to bring up the baalei haTosafot (for example), as if it is an authoritative opinion or SOURCE, this requires a new vote and exploration on EVERY aspect of that ruling, starting right now. We are not concerned at how popular these opinions became in certain lands. Clearly, the halakha stands the way we left it. There is a now a burden of proof on the post-Sanhedrin stuff of the past 1,500 years, whether we like it or not. Popularity and/or majority rules did not apply in the post-Sanhedrin world. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

We have only presented Torath Moshe, as left to us by the last Sanhedrin. Many continue to falsify things in the name of their "infallible" kings. We rely upon Torath Moshe, as codified by the last standing Sanhedrin's view of the Oral Talmudic law. This first one to entirely codify and fully record this (in the entirety) was the RMb"M, who had access to a very accurate version of our (pre-printing press) Talmud. Many are presenting our arguments incorrectly, and you know who you are. If you can sleep with that, hats off to you. But in order for us to stand together, we need to be honest about the Halakha. A qualifying audit of the past 1500 years worth of revision is immediately required, in order for any Sanhedrin to be taken seriously. Are we checking our meat properly (before and after EACH Shketah) as is required by Jewish Law? Are we saying the blessing before the action, as is required by Jewish Law. Or has Jewish Law been changed in many instances? These are only two examples. The list of innovations goes on and on. This is not the place to air it out. However, it's high time we corrected these things. That means something has to get chopped. There is no "both are right" or "Hillel and Shammai" in the particulars of Jewish law, AFTER the last Sanhedrin ended. Thus, the New Sanhedrin should (first and foremost) become the AUDITORS and PURIFIERS and PERVEYERS of authentic Jewish Law. We can then go from there.