Reform Responsa- 51 ­

cited principle established a model for legislation which following legal tribunals should imitate.(20) The logic sounds like that of Clarence Darrow in Inherit the Wind . If Moses did not cite earlier authorities, why should we?

Other writers in the volume make what is essentially the same point although in less radical a fashion. Dr. Hess, Landrabbiner of the Grand Duchy of Weimar , compares Geiger to the great rabbis of the Talmud , an equal to Saadiah Gaon and Maimonides .(21) All of these men could differ with the accepted practice if their understanding of Judaism so dictated. Geiger then, has at least as much right to do so. His view can stand on his rabbinic office alone, regardless of what others hold or have held. We might, in this light, read the statement of Samuel Holdheim in Schwerin who states that Geiger has not mocked the Talmud but has in fact"dealt with the Talmud scientifically and with religious seriousness..". (22) The use of the word"scientifically" here is significant. It means that Geiger wants to understand the rabbinic tradition in light of modern philosophical and historical methodologies. The application of Judaic wisdom and lore to the modern would must be put on a rational, enlightened, that is, Wissenschaftlich basis. The older rabbinic ways of thinking will no longer do. It thus follows that citing older rabbinic writings, or at least invoking the mainstream of classical scholarship, is at best besides the point. Geiger and the other"scientific" rabbis stand not only on a par with the authority of older rabbis, but are in fact to be preferred today because of the up-to­date nature of their methodology. So again, why prove their point by invoking past interpretations? The point in all this is to show that the authority claimed for Geiger is of such a kind that the whole need to use the responsa format at all is