written by the chairmen and essentially reflect the tendencies of the chairman.
The fact that responsa were written from a Reform background indicates that halakhah remains important despite the very different approaches taken by each rabbi. Autonomy versus discipline was the first question which each author had to decide. The former was given a secondary place.
Only Solomon B. Freehof among Reform respondents(1892-) has done some extensive theoretical writing on the halakhah which may provide us with some insight into his stand on the halakhah. It is appropriate to review his thought as we honor him through this symposium. His introductions to volumes of Reform responsa and kindred works as well as various other essays indicate his position.
The introduction to Reform Jewish Practice (1944) present a picture of historic development and justification for change. Judaism has always been a religion with a different kind of relationship between deed and creed than expressed in Christianity . Solomon B. Freehof clearly indicates that the end of the introduction that the book is not intended to be a modern Shulhan Arukh."It does not claim to lay down the norm of practice, except in two or three disputed situations where some preference must be made.” (46) In that book as well as the second volume, Solomon B. Freehof presents the rabbinic background for numerous changes made by Reform Judaism. The two slim books intended to make the Reform Jew aware of"the great reservoir of Jewish law and custom preserved in the halakhah." (47) The author obviously felt that creative