Tuesday, January 8, 2008

ORTHODOX UNION ---- ROAD TO TYRANNY???

On the Orthodox Union's home page (ou.org) for a couple of days now at least, it says now that the owner of succah.com is in violation of Jewish law. It previously said that there was a seruv (a seruv is a document holding someone in contempt of a beit din) against him but that part got erased [correction: it got erased from the announcement section and only remains in the file name].

I was reluctant to post on this becaue the link to the more information was not working on my computer and now it does, and I can now confirm that no further information is given ... on the OU's web site anyways. One would have to use Google to find more information on why this dude by the name of Sam Rosenbloom received a seruv.

It is bad for the OU to not give any further information if there is a seruv against someone (such as WHY there is a seruv against someone) because it sets a precedent of people just taking the OU's word for it and that is one step towards possible corruption in the future. Seruvs could be placed on anyone for a personal agenda and who are we regular people to question the high and mighty OU?

Okay, so this seruv happens to be because Mr. Rosenbloom is refusing to give his wife a get. That's not a nice thing, and Rosenbloom should get a seruv. However, when the OU mentions that someone got a seruv for not giving his wife a get, I feel that it is important that along with making the seruv public, the OU should also make public Mr. Rosenbloom's side of the story. Perhaps Mr. Rosenbloom does have a legitimate issue with is former wife and because of the lack of information from the OU ... we will never know.

Again, making public all sides of the story when a seruv is issued by a bait din or in any bait din case is important for avoiding corruption.The OU apparently didn't know that and the funny thing is that on their home page it has a feature link called "Guarding Your Tongue and Bringing Moshiach." The OU did not seem to know how to guard theirs. Orthodox hypocrisy knows no bounds.

8 comments:

Garnel Ironheart said...

Blowing something way out of proportion again.

First of all, even in secular society, it is common to hear announcements that so-and-so has been sent to prison without anyone knowing why. This is not an example of Orthodox hypocrisy. Most likely the OU's lawyers advised that while they can make a public announcement they cannot divulge the reason due to privacy concerns.

Secondly, while there are always two sides to a story, when a man refuses to give a woman a get, he doesn't have much defence. It doesn't matter what the woman is doing to him. One he agrees to divorce her, he must give her the document. Anything else is simply blackmail. And if he holds it back for, say, greater child access or fairer alimony payments, two wrongs don't make a right (although 3 lefts do).

SJ said...

>> Most likely the OU's lawyers advised that while they can make a public announcement they cannot divulge the reason due to privacy concerns.

Well then, if you can't give all sides of the story, then you shouldn't give any side because then it borderlines slander, in this case that Mr. Roesnbloom is automatically a scoundrel and that the former Mrs. Rosenbloom is automatically Miss Innocent. Neither should be assumed.

And he should withould the get if he has a legitamate issue with her. If she does not play fair then why should he?

I think the orthodox can blame themselves for these kind of situations because they do not let women remarry into orthodoxy if they get a secular divorce. I feel that this is morally wrong.

>> when a man refuses to give a woman a get, he doesn't have much defence

We do not know Mr. Rosenbloom's side of the story so you can't say that he doesn't have much defense.

Garnel Ironheart said...

> If she does not play fair then why should he?

Because two wrongs don't make a right. The point is that at the time of divorce the rules say the man must give his wife a get. It doesn't say that he can withhold it as a bargaining tool or to get back at her for some obscure reason. Personal moral feelings are nice but they have no real impact. They reflect your position and you are?

SJ said...

>> Because two wrongs don't make a right. The point is that at the time of divorce the rules say the man must give his wife a get.

So I guess in Orthodox Judaism there are community sanctions against a man for not playing fair in a divorce situation but not against a woman for not playing fair in a divorce situation. Wow thats fair.

>> and you are?

I am what I am.

-suitepotato- said...

It's a touchy thing and rabbis are not always the best marriage counselors. There's much that goes on between people in a marriage that doesn't fit any orthodoxy no matter how conservative the man and wife. Of course it means, the people themselves aren't always the best spouses in a generic sense any more than the would-be counselors. Then you get to where people would give up...

I believe in certain circumstance a proper beit din of the movement in which the marriage was recognized should have the power to annul the marriage, and state why within the records of the congregation... NOT THE GENERAL PRESS OR INTERNET.

SJ said...

suitepotato, thank you for posting.


>> NOT THE GENERAL PRESS OR INTERNET.

The Orthodox Union started it. Plus, the Orthodox Union gave only one side of the story, which is highly irresponsible and borderlines slander and violates not only Judaism but also the scientific method (know all the facts before coming to a conclusion), and basic morality in dealing with people (know all the facts before accusing someone).

Perhaps Mr. Rosenbloom is the bad guy and perhaps Mr. Rosenbloom is not the bad guy. It is impossible to know with the complete lack of information that the OU gave.

The question must be asked, did the OU even bother to investigate Mr. Rosenbloom's side of the story before smearing him in the face of the general public?

Anonymous said...

Just curious SJ, which Junior High School do you attend?

SJ said...

anonymous- its called .... none of your business.