its provisions have faded from our lives. We do not regret that fact. But as to the laws that we do follow, we wish them to be in harmony with tradition."
In other words, the law is authoritative enough to influence us, but not so completely as to control us. The rabbinic law is our guidance but not our governance. Reform responsa are not directive, but advisory Our concern is more with the people than with the legal system
A Comparison of the Responsa in Reform Responsa to Freehof’s Stated Approach and Rationale
Thus far we have seen that Rabbi Freehof basically says that halakhah has a voice but not a veto. But if we carefully examine the responsa in his first volume of responsa— Reform Responsa published in 1960, we must agree with Rabbi Gunther Plaut that“the overwhelming weight of Freehof’s conclusions is based solidly on Tradition.”
First of all, Rabbi Freehof’s responsa are organized in the traditional fashion, according to the order of the Shulhan Arukh. Second. in terms of his sources, Rabbi Freehof does indeed utilize what he called“fifteen hundred years of the supreme Jewish intellectual effort”?! He quotes the Bible , Mishnah , Tosefta, Bavli Yerushalmi, Midrash ; codes such as Rambam , Tur, Shulhan Arukh and Arukh Hashulhan, dozens of responsa from the Maharam of Rotenberg and the Rashba to the Hatam Sofer and Melamed L ho il, and halakhic journals such as Hamaor, Hapardess, Haposek, and Vay'laket Yosef.”
Indeed, if one looks only at his sources, one could easily surmise that these responsa were written by an Orthodox rabbi. In eight places, he quotes or refers to books and articles that could be categorized as Wissenschaft des Judentums, 2 and on four occasions he consults with doctors, a lawyer, and a librarian regarding the subjects he is discussing.’* Yet frequently he does nor use Wissenschaft and other sciences when he could have or should have. For example, in Responsum no. 14 regarding the use of Jewish