The Sanhedrin serves as the quintessential institution of Jewish legal autonomy – the idea that the Jewish people would be subject to Jewish law as interpreted by Jewish authorities. In this way, the Sanhedrin represents a core feature of Jewish sovereignty; and the lack of a Sanhedrin is a reminder that the Jewish people’s full redemption from exile still remains ever elusive.
At the same time, to think of the Sanhedrin as merely an institutional feature of enforcing Jewish law would be to miss the central role Jewish legal institutions – whether it be the Sanhedrin of old or the modern day beit din – play in the ethics of Jewish law. Consider that when it comes to selecting who will serve as a legal authority, the Talmud emphasizes that appointing judges that are not hagun – maybe best translated as unfit – is tantamount to planting an idolatrous tree (ashera). Note also how Pirkei Avot is located within Nezikin, which according to Maimonides conveys the importance of Jewish judges embracing and embodying ethical principles. Put differently, to successfully build an institution of Jewish law requires identifying leaders who simultaneously embody Torah knowledge with Torah ethics. And it is in that process, merging law and ethics into the institutional landscape of Jewish life, that we as a people progress towards full sovereignty.
