Reform Responsa- 45 ­

strings of citations from rabbinic literature joined together by patches of argumentation. This pattern is not at all evident in any of the diverse Gutachten in this volume. Citations of rabbinic literature, say Talmud , are few and far between. The weight of the argument is carried by invoking general philosophical and theological principles about what worship is or ought to be, about religious feelings and sensibilities and about the central truth of Judaism that stands above the historically shaped nature of Jewish communities. References to Talmud , Shulkhan Arukh and other rabbinic writings do exist in these Gutachten , but they are, as 1 said, few, far between, and not central to the discourse.

To sum it up, then, we find that on a purely formal level this collection of Gutachtem moves away from the classical pattern of responsa writings in significant ways. These are not in the classical rabbinic language but in German, a secular language. Secondly, they do not cite or develop rabbinic law, but focus instead on the philosophical question of the nature of modern religious sensibility. And, third, they are examples of philosophical discourse, not a web constructed out of citations of the holy literature.

This, of course, represents a completely new understanding of how the interior conversation of Judaism is to take shape. Development within Judaism is no longer the bailiwick of the parochially schooled rabbis who read and write in their own holy language and who draw on only their own tradition to address new needs. The Gutachten reveal an entirely new conviction, namely that Judaic discourse must take place within the larger linguistic and cultural universe of the modern world. The authorities draw not so much on traditional wisdom as on modern