Reform Responsa- 55 ­

The influence of both aspects appear in his writings, thereby introducing. a sort: of ambivalence into the character of American Reform responsa. At times, Kohler draws on classical rabbinic literature in a way reminiscent of any traditional rabbi. More often, however, his responsa read more like academic essays on the history of Jewish religion and customs. Good examples are afforded by two of the first responsa he published, both in the Yearbook Vol XXIII (1913).(26) The one has to do with whether or not the weekly Torah portion should be read in English . Kohler’s answer, reflecting his rabbinic background, is that the portion should first of all be read in Hebrew . After that, it would certainly be appropriate to translate that into the vernacular, following the example of the classical meturgeman. In that same issue, Kohler is asked about the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Here we see emerge his secular, academic side. For Kohler, this ceremony is nothing more than a survival of "orientalism" with no worth now-a-days. It should, in his view, be replaced with the Confirmation ceremony. Thus the champion of Torah reading in Hebrew can, in the next breath as it were, dismiss the Bar Mitzvah ceremony, centered on the Torah reading, as unneeded. We see the same ambivalence the next year.(27) To a question concerning whether or not one may make distinctions among the dead Kohler responds simply that the question is easily solved and refers the reader to the Shulkhan Arukh Yoreh Deah Hil Avelut; an answer worthy of any Orthodox rabbi. The next question concerns the observance of Yahrzeit. Now Kohler’s answer is that the custom should be maintained not on the basis of custom or Shulkhan Arukh, but because of its educational value!

The character of the responsa written under