ie JW NN PP MN SN

oon wl. IW

Philosopher and Poseq- 75 ­

hand, was far more‘radical,‘but‘also’ had relatively little to say about halakhah in any systematic form. The theologians of Reform

Judaism, Kaufman Kohler, and his disciple Samuel Cohon , dealt with halakhah, and provided a theoretical important place for it, but then left its status undefined. Kaufman Kohler, for example, was proposed a radical statement on the rabbinic past as part of the Pittsburg Platform(#3 and#4), but at the same time maintained a much more traditional approach in the catechism written for his congregation. Furthermore the other items of the agenda of the Pittsburgh Rabbinic Conference were all discussed within the framework of rabbinic Judaism .(2) Later he was quite willing to accept the appointment as Chairman of the Responsa Committee when it was established in 1907; it had been organized at his suggestion. The early responsa which Kohler wrote were naturally based on the rabbinic tradition and the fact that they were issued at all indicated an interest in halakhah.

If we turn to Solomon Schechter , the founder of the organized Conservative Movement in the United States , we find that he was principally interested in the historical approach to Judaism . The volumes of his essays contain lovely pieces on the past, but certainly no well thought out effort in the direction of taamei mitzvot. It was left for the next generation of Conservative Jews to move in a different direction.

~ Only in this century has more systematic approach to the halakhah and its rationale been on the Liberal Jewish agenda. The Liberal Jewish movement with its Reform and Conservative wings has both turned to halakhah and to a rationale for