- 50- Peter J. Haas
between the German reform rabbinate and the
attitudes or assumptions presupposed by the responsa form.
Let me now try briefly to spell out what I think this incompatibility is. Classical responsa are possible only if; you grant the authors certain assumptions. Basically responsa have to presuppose that the past proclamations of rabbinic culture are in some sense true or at least normative. Why else cite them as authorities? It also presupposes that the most important academic framework out of which the rabbi can speak, as rabbi, is the world of rabbinic learning. Finally, responsa assume that there is an answer to an individual's religious questions that can be found outside of that individual. The answer is to be found in the collective wisdom of the Jewish people that was maintained in the collective mind of the rabbinate. Without these presuppositions, the entire enterprise of responsa writing is a meaningless exercise. As the very content of the Rabbinische Gutachten shows, however, these Very presuppositions are what are under attack, and so the use of the responsa-form is at some level self-contradictory. Let me show you what I mean.
Aaron Chorin , one of the earliest rabbis to publicly support Reform, states matters succinctly. Citing Sifre, he claims that the Jew ’s obligation is to follow the authorities of his generation, even if these teach that left is right and right is left. They, he goes on to say, have the same authority as Moses did in his time.(19) The implications of this are, of course, breathtaking. If the current rabbinic establishment has the authority of Moses , then the citation of earlier material is useless. The authority of the current rabbinate is selfstanding and ultimate. As Chorin puts it,"The divine man Moses .. has according to the above