traditional responsa. This detail of language is significant. Responsa traditionally, I would argue, are seen as sacred writings issued by holy men. They are extensions of the Talmud which is itself connected to halakhah lemosheh misinai- the law given to Moses at Sinai. Responsa then by nature had to be written in the technical and holy language of the rabbinic estate. To write responsa in German therefore represents a rather substantial revision in perception. As responsa, the writings in this volume mean to identify themselves with rabbinic literature, but as"Gutachten " they are part of a new universe of secular literature. Classical rabbinic literature belongs to an intellectual culture which, because of its language, claims to transcend time and place. The Gutachten , on the other hand, identify themselves explicitly with a particular mundane society.
Second, the collection is not made up of a series of responses composed by a single rabbi to a number of questions submitted to him-- the pattern we find in the classical responsaliterature. Rather, the book is a series of essays written by a number of rabbis 12 in all) that speak to a single general issue. The issue in this case is a general ban issued by Hacham Isaac Bernays , leader of the Ashkenazic community in Hamburg , against the new edition of the Hamburg Temple ’s(Reform) prayerbook.(13) The Gutachten presented to the reader are not designed to adduce Jewish law so much as to argue an ideological or theological point in response to Bernay’s proclamation.