User talk:Mekorii

Can you source the claim refering to Yoel Keren? Also, the meaning of "ordained Yoel Keren as Moreh Hora'ah, making him the first person to receive ordination under this authority since the Babylonian exilarchate ceased to function in the 9th century CE." is unclear to me. If Dayan is a Rabbi it is a standard Semicha. If he is acting as Nasi or Exilarch then such an authority does not exist to my knowledge. Please explain. DGtal (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Yoel Keren and I'm authorized to speak on this matter for Yosef Dayan. Dayan is a rabbi. I don't know how many different forms of semicha he holds, but he is listed on the nascent sanhedrin's website as a musmach. He does not claim to be Nasi or Exilarch. He gave me semicha not under his authority as a rabbi, but under his authority as representative of the house of David. Wether correct or not, it is his understanding that he has the right to do so and he has begun to ordain teachers and judges. The text that I added was simply noting that semicha based on one's authority as a representative of Beit David has not been given since the times of the exilarchs.

I hope this clarifies the intent of my addition. Mekorii (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a Rabbi (Mazal tov) I ask you to check again. Hilchot Dayanim in Choshen Mishpat show a difference regarding Judicial immunity between a normal "Posek/Dayan" and a "מומחה לרבים" which received permission from Rosh Gola to judge. It does not mean a Rosh Gola can decide the person is a Talmid Chacham (being basically a political position not all of them where Rabbis) and give smicha. Dayan could give you a Smicha (maybe even Yadin Yadin) like any other rabbi "passing the torch on", but he can use his "authority as representative of the house of David" only to give you "immunity" (Personally, I have reservations regarding the claim's legitimacy, but that's another issue. DGtal (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider Shulchan Aruch to be authoritative, but I'll have a look at the halacha in Choshen Mishpat. Although I don't really see how it applies since Yossi is not claiming the title of Reish Galuta. May I ask why the text was removed? The information is verifiable by all parties involved. Was there some other reason? Mekorii (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because, like I tried to now explain, there is no authority vested in decendants of the house of David to make someone a moreh hora'ah. Therefore, the Smicha can not be called "the first since" anything. What we have left is noting the fact that a Rabbi gave his student Semicha, an act almost part of the "job description" of a Rabbi, and therefore generally not worthy of a special mention (of course there are exceptions). I have a feeling you think my logic is faulty, but I haven't understood yet where you think I got it wrong. DGtal (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is noteworthy is the very fact that he is doing it. Whether he is correct in doing so is another matter altogether. It's no different than the "Sanhedrin". I don't believe that these people have reconstituted genuine semicha. However, I must admit that their claim to have done it is noteworthy. Does that make any sense?

Mekorii (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. The Sanhedrin attempt is a lot more serious act, as it includes some prominent rabbis, a well documented halachic and historic basis etc., so though it is probably "not right" it's quite worthy of a mention. In Dayan's case, none of these requirements stand, so I look at it as a bit "weird" (במחילה מכבוד תורתו), and as this act had no impact I know of, is unimportant. If you still disagree, please add the info wording such as "he ordained Keren a Rabbi, in what he claims is his authority as a son of the house of David (Traditionally, Semicha is considered to be have been passed on from Moses to his disciples and onwards)". DGtal (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]