The Responsa of Rabbi Solomon B. Fre Conclusions

A Conservative rabbi who reviewed Rabbi Freehof’s Recent Reform Responsa published in 1963 doubted whether the answers are really responsa. He says that in the first half of each responsum, Rabbi Freehof surveys the vast legal literature, while in the second he judges the case on the basis of the mood and mores of the modern Jewish community.“The problem lies in the fact that there seems to be no organic relationship between the two parts of each responsum. It is clear that the study of the past fascinates him. However, he considers only his judgement of the present relevant in reaching a decision.’

This assessment is true regarding the five lenient responsa mentioned above, but it is not true regarding most of the responsa in Reform Responsa. A more accurate assessment of most of Rabbi Freehof’s responsa is contained in his own assessment of Rabbi Lauterbach’s responsa:“Thus, except for the fact that his decisions

are liberal, giving contemporary needs greater weight than an old fashioned Moreh Hora'ah might give, he is, in method at least, in line

with the historic tradition of legal interpretation and decision.”

Indeed, we have already seen that most of Rabbi Freehof’s responsa in Reform Responsa fit this description. He follows the order of the Shulhan Arukh. He primarily quotes classic halakhic sources. He quotes very little Wissenschaft or modern science. Though he is clearly lenient, most of his kulot are based on sources. Only five of his 46 responsa with a clear pesak(11percent) clearly contradict halakhah. g

There is no question that Rabbi Freehof's fifty years of writing responsa and fourteen volumes of halakhah and responsa had a profound effect on the Reform movement, forcing it to confront “fifteen hundred years of the supreme Jewish intellectual effort”. He inspired others, including Rabbis Jacob, Zemer, Plaut, Ellenson, and Washofsky to follow in his footsteps, and his halakhic activity may