38 Peter Knobel

3 eel NOE eee

she'elah rather because it touches upon a matter of Reform Jewish religious observance and, as such, does pertain to the function of this Committee.

The Committee makes it clear that even within the CCAR it does not have the authority to determine practice. Liturgical innovation in this case was a grassroots phenomenon and it was then sanctioned by the CCAR Liturgy Committee and the responsum provides additional explanatory material and a justification for liturgical innovation in the Reform movement.

A long and complex responsum“On the Treatment of the Terminally III” 5754.14, which deals with a myriad of issues including euthanasia and assisted suicide makes clear that there is a tension between historically accepted meaning of a text our Reform concept of finding new readings. The committee accepts the concept that since euthanasia is prohibited by the halakhah, even though some texts could be read as permitting it we should not do so. There must be a clear reason to deviate from the tradition. The responsum formulates it as follows:“As Reform Jews, of course, we consider ourselves free to ascribe‘new’ Jewish meanings to Torah texts, to depart from tradition when we think it is necessary to secure an essential religious or moral value.” This presents us with an example of the clash between autonomy and the authority of the tradition. If we give primary weight especially in making medical decisions to the patient, autonomy becomes the dominant value in decision making, this could then be supported by a new reading of the text. On the other hand if the value, the sanctity of life, and the concept that our bodies belong to God dominate our core values the committee