responsa and nothing that could be called a unified theory of halakhah. Zacharias Frankel devoted considerable energy to halakhah. His
Darkei Hamishnah(1859) provided a historical foundation for the future study of halakhah in conjunction with various essays by him and others in the Monatsschrift fuer Wissenschaft und Geschichte des Judenthums(1851-1867) which he founded and edited. The rabbinic emphasis of Frankel became clear through the curriculum of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau which he head from 1854 to his death in 1875. Half the courses dealt with rabbinics and almost entirely from a non-critical point of view during his tenure as director. Frankel set the tone for halakhah along with change, but he provided no clear criteria for such change.
The movement in Germany where it was part of the general liberal Jewish scene produced no responsa. In the United States the early energy of the movement was taken by its establishment and practical struggles with Orthodoxy, so nothing along these lines emerged.
As we turn to the later Conservative efforts in this direction we must immediately recognize the academic achievements of the scholars who have served the movement. Louis Ginsberg , Saul Lieberman , Boaz Cohen and Max Kadushin . among others have added to our understanding of the past. Their brilliance has been widely recognized. However, no consistent philosophy of Conservative halakhah has yet
emerged. The volume Conservative Judaism and Jewissh Law(1977) makes this clear. Theoretical and practical issues have
diversity of opinion is
widespread concern and