Writing Responsa: A Personal Journey

by me, as chair, alone. The vast majority quickly fell into the latter category.

After a few years, I suggested that the committee prepare a collection of responsa that had been published by the CCAR so that our colleagues could refer to questions already settled rather than ask us again. Many of these responsa had been written under very different circumstances decades earlier and needed additional comments in order to be useful to our colleagues. 1 went through them, annotated them, and provided comments to which the committee responded, initially by mail and eventually, with the more difficult ones, through face-to-face discussions. This effort turned our attention to the different approaches of the chairs of the Responsa Committee. Some committee members proposed that we prepare position papers that I assigned, but nothing came of it.

Upon becoming chair of the committee, questions arrived

from the first day. There was no time for philosophical contemplation or for lengthy discussions with the committee before undertaking the work. Colleagues and congregants were seeking answers, so I began, as most authors do of responsa and most judges in any jurisdiction, by writing and letting the philosophy work itself out as I proceeded, which undoubtedly produced some inconsistencies. Maturity and experience would play a major role.

Considerations and Assumptions

I have always considered writing responsa a religious task. The guidance provided must have a spiritual basis that needs to be clear in each answer. Occasionally I had to remind myself of this as I delved into the debates and details of the halakhah, which could wander far from their ultimate goal. As for my predecessors, it was my task to set boundaries to human behavior. In some instances this means narrowing the parameters, in others widening them. Many factors come into play as with earlier generations, though we perhaps