In 1970 – soon after the lunar landing – the most prolific respondent in American Reform Judaism and an expert on responsa literature, Rabbi Solomon Bennett Freehof (1892-1990), published an article in the Jewish Book Annual, titled “Recent Responsa Literature on Modern Problems.”
Rabbi Freehof was born in London, a descendant of the founder of Chabad Hasidism, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady (ca. 1745-1812). Freehof emigrated to the US as a child in 1903 and received rabbinic ordination from Hebrew Union College in 1915. From 1934 Freehof served as the rabbi of the historic Rodef Shalom Congregation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – the very congregation that in 1885 had co-hosted the national convention of rabbis that produced the Pittsburgh Platform, a foundational document of the American Reform Movement.
Freehof’s 1970 responsa review began with general observations about contemporary Jewish law. First, he bemoaned its stunted status: “It lacks the chief creative instrument of all modern legal systems, the power to initiate entirely new legislation.” Freehof noted that this shortcoming had spurred positive features in the Jewish legal system:
“[T]he power of interpretation has been especially well developed in Jewish law, since it was the only practical instrument available. This interpreting, keenly pursued over the centuries, has crystallized into specific laws of interpretation (Kelalim) and is quite an effective instrument which can be used with a fair degree of efficiency in facing new and modern problems.”
Freehof then identified a further strength of the Jewish legal system:
“Its scope is much wider than any other legal system. It includes matters of food and dress, prayer, etc. It purposes to cover almost the totality of life. Therefore, it possesses a vast and varied mass of material which can be used as analogies, illustrating and exemplifying a principle which may well apply to the new and modern situation.”
The interpretive nous and vast range of the legal system generated creativity. With this in mind, Freehof surveyed responsa relating to a variety of topics: new medical procedures such as blood transfusions, artificial insemination, and organ transplants; modern material inventions such as electric razors, hearing aids, microphones, tape recorders, refrigerators, iceboxes, and freezers; changing social conditions such as increased adoption and children born out of wedlock; economic changes such as proliferation of business corporations and stock ownership; the establishment of the State of Israel and the ingathering of Jews. The final topic Freehof mentioned was “whether moon flights and space flights are contrary to the mood of our religion.” While “mood” is not an easily recognised category in Jewish law, it was a perspective that Freehof commonly evoked in his responsa.
From the overview he presented, Freehof drew the following conclusion:
“[W]hatever new discoveries there may be or new social conditions, Jewish law is bound to contain some guidance in dealing with them. Therefore Jewish rabbinic scholars face modern problems with confidence, certain that the literature of the past will provide insights for the present.”
****
Curious Classrooms
Freehof had the opportunity to demonstrate just how this was done in the context of Space travel when he was asked the following question by Rabbi Albert Micah Lewis of Grand Rapids, Michigan:
“The religious school of the temple is engaged in gathering material for a discussion of the relationship of Jewish religious tradition and mankind’s new experience with space. What material is there in the Halachah that can be useful for such a study?”
At first blush, the style of the question seems different from those included in Orthodox responsa on the issue of Space travel. Rabbi Lewis was not seeking halakhic guidance. Rather, he sought sources for further study. Yet perhaps the question was not that different from the questions considered by Orthodox rabbis at the same time. The discussion was more of an intellectual exercise, testing the boundaries of Jewish law and probing the relevance of traditional texts for the exciting realities and imagined possibilities of Space exploration. There were, at least for the time being, virtually no practical applications.
****
Interfaith Orbits
Rabbi Freehof’s responsum can be divided into two sections. First, he addressed theology and sought to demonstrate “the potentially different attitudes of Judaism and Christianity on the problem of the applicability of the respective religions to outer space.” This issue lay beyond the scope of the question that had been posed, so it was Freehof himself who chose to engage in interfaith polemics.
According to Freehof, Christianity is focused on this earth alone, while Space exploration opens vistas beyond “what we now know is a tiny planet in one of the smaller of the millions of solar systems.” Thus, Freehof asked: “How can it be explained theologically that the central drama of Christianity is concentrated in this speck of earth lost in the entire vast universe?” In contrast, Freehof opined that Judaism was theologically better placed to deal with the expanse of Space, since “God’s world and God’s dominion and God’s plans include much more than this little earth and its people.” Freehof summarised his theological analysis by championing the “mood” of Judaism, in contrast to Christianity.
****
Polar Precedents
Freehof then moved to the second part of the responsum that dealt with Jewish practice in Space. In this realm, Freehof acknowledged that “Judaism would have a much more difficult task of adjustment than Christianity.” Reiterating the concerns of rabbis who had written on the issue, Freehof pointed out that “Judaism is full of regulations based upon time and space which would seem impossible to adjust to the new astronautic techniques.” He then proceeded to discuss laws that would be difficult to observe in Space.
Some of the examples Freehof mentioned, echoed other discussions about Jewish law in Space. Others reflected curious understandings of Jewish law. For example, Freehof declared that “[t]he question of carrying on the Sabbath is no question at all for the astronaut because everything in the capsule is weightless.” Carrying on Shabbat is not commonly understood to be dependent on weight. The prohibition of moving an object within a public domain or from one domain to another is not dependent on physical exertion or gravitational pull. So Freehof’s assertion is surprising. Furthermore, the Space capsule presumably could be considered a private domain where carrying would be permitted.
Freehof dismissed most of the questions as solvable, but he was vexed by the conundrum of when to observe Shabbat and how to recite morning and evening prayers. To address this problem, Freehof invoked an analogy:
“The answer to this problem must be the same as that which was given to the soldiers in Iceland during the war: Since it was dark there for six months and then light for six months, how could they have evening services at sunset? The answer to that problem was that they must follow the hours of Boston, Massachusetts, and the soldiers in Alaska must follow the hours of Portland, Oregon. After all, the watches in the space capsule will keep earth time.”
True to his word, Freehof drew on an analogous case in order to provide guidance. Like Orthodox rabbis such as Rabbi David Shloush in 1962, Freehof confronted an unprecedented problem by searching the trove of Jewish law for an analogy.
Alas, Freehof did not fully explain the analogy, nor did he follow the analogy through to its conclusion. It was not clear why Boston and Portland were singled out. How was the previous case to be applied to astronauts? Readers were left to wonder when exactly astronauts were supposed to observe Shabbat?
During the Second World War and in its aftermath, Freehof served as chairman of a remarkable interdenominational effort to answer questions in Jewish law from Jewish servicemen. The halakhic answers were written by the Responsa Committee of the Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy, under the auspices of the National Jewish Welfare Board. The Committee was comprised of three rabbis from different denominations: Orthodox Rabbi Leo Jung (1892-1987), Conservative Rabbi Milton Steinberg (1903-1950), and Freehof. When Steinberg passed away, he was replaced by Conservative Rabbi David Aronson (1894-1988). These efforts led to the publication of two slender collections: Responsa in War Time and Responsa to Chaplains (1948-1953). The first volume was published in 1947 and included the following question:
“When should Shabbat Services be held by troops of Jewish faith in the northern latitudes – Iceland, etc.?”
After explaining the problem and presenting relevant sources, the responsum recommended:
“[T]he Jew in the Artic [sic] latitudes selects a time and an hour-length equivalent to those in the lower latitudes. This is the best that he can do.”
The responsum then mentioned how communities in northern Norway and Sweden follow the Shabbat hours of Hamburg, and then concluded:
“Jewish soldiers in the northern latitudes should pick the hours of the Sabbath as observed in New York or Seattle and fix their Sabbath Service accordingly, regardless of whether twilight (in summer) or darkness (in winter) has yet come.”
New York and Seattle, Boston and Portland – Jewish cosmonauts and astronauts would still be wondering how to apply the analogy to the new cosmic paradigm.
****
A Dignified Defence
Rabbi Freehof’s responsum – an early examination of Jewish law in Space – provides a particular snapshot of American Reform Judaism: A dignified movement, whose leadership felt theologically superior to their Christian counterparts. That leadership was willing to engage in interfaith polemics in order to convey a sense of self-esteem to Reform rabbis and laity living in Christian American surroundings. Yet that confidence faltered when it came to ancient Jewish law. The exhilarating possibilities of Space exploration called into question the viability of Halakha in the modern world. Freehof’s responsa project was an attempt to demonstrate the contemporary relevance of Halakha, even where that was a formidable challenge.