72 Walter Jacob

Hebrew Congregations(which passed a congratulatory resolution)” nor any question addressed to the Responsa Committee. This innovation was accepted, perhaps reluctantly by some, but without major protest.

With this question and others responsa here faced the democratic impulse. The Central Conference had wished to anchor this significant step in the Tradition, but that did not prove possible. The responsa committee holds a special position in the Conference. It is part of this democratic organization and in theory a committee like all others. In practice, however, it remains distinctive. Until my time as chairman, the committee never met and was rarely consulted as the chairman answered all questions and spoke for the committee. [ introduced the practice of regular meetings and consultation on the major questions asked, yet ultimately, wrote the reponsa. That remains the current practice. Responsa continue to be used to inform both the rabbinate and the broader public but are not binding upon them.

Responsa continues to be a potential path toward change, but more as a way of justifying innovation. They began to be used systematically and in a broader manner in the early 1950s through the efforts of Solomon B. Freehof (1892-1990) as chair of the Responsa Committee. His Reform Jewish Practice and Its Rabbinic Background took a further step in placing contemporary practice into a traditional context. As questions began to be directed to him, he wrote formal responsa, reopening this path for innovation and justifying it. Freehof understood that there was opposition to this voice of authority and stated that these decisions represented“guidance not governance” which was his way of avoiding conflict. Because Freehof ’s responsa were published by the Hebrew Union College Press they had additional status.

Freehof ’s effort, at least in theory, represented a combination of the older style of responsa, i.e. produced by a single individual and

7 ER

Lr BE a To TR TE TE eT