different style. His cooperation with others opened that path for the future.
We can see from this list of responsa that there was a need to deal with the parameters of Reform Judaism, both in its relationship to the tradition and to the non-Jewish world. Kaufmann Kohler understood the establishment of these boundaries as one of his tasks. This was made plain in one of the first responsa issued by the committee in 1913. It begins with the statement"I wish to touch upon a subject involving the very principle of Reform..." He continued by emphasizing an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary procedure as"we want to build up, not to destroy." Kohler then proceeded with a brief history of bar mitzvah which was the subject of this responsum, and of congregational reading of the Torah in general. This discussion moved rapidly to Confirmation and its effort to broaden Jewish education. He concluded by discouraging bar mitzvah in favor of confirmation especially as he saw that girls"remain attendants” at divine services and prove to be powerful influences for religion at home.’ There was little attention to sources in this responsum. Yet, in the next responsum which dealt with the kaddish, sources were cited, halakhic, aggadic and modern, but not earlier responsa.
There was a responsum by David Neumark (1866-1924) professor of philosophy at the Hebrew Union College , in the same year on bat mitzvah. As a professor, Neumark concentrated on philosophy and Talmud ; as a student he had received the Mendelsohn Prize for halakhah at the Hochschule in Berlin. Although Neumark presented a strong case for young women and their education, he saw no point in bat mitzvah, even in congregations where bar mitzvah continued; girls should simply be confirmed. Interestingly enough he added the statement that a boy’s Hebrew instruction might be valuable as he could be admitted to
94