A letter to the OU

I was so horrified by that whole mazel tov. then I got to the part about bayis neeman and couldn’t even fathom what was goin thru their minds when they typed it!!! Thanks for giving a suggestion of something we can do about it.

I am also eagerly awaiting a post from Joseph putting both of you on the same side of an issue!!!!!!
🎉🎉🍾

Not in the parsha but am confused about what you’re accusing HIR of. You start of by saying that they have funny shitoos about women. Then you suggest they endorse gay marriage. Thats like saying you don’t like trump because he’s impolite and also because he wants to sell america to russia.

zdad – in many cases you are correct. To turn away people who are doing things differently runs the risk of turning them away. But in this case you are very wrong because the shul is participating in different things that are absolutely against torah. Period. when a shul decides they will allow someone to wear a baseball hat on Shabbos instead of a kippa, that is not the same as this and for someone to attend such a shul because they like the davening, is to be just too liberal, open and accepting. there is a point where we do have to stand up for Halacha and not just embrace everyone around us. To do that, would be to stand for nothing.

As a major organization that stands for Torah values, the OU cannot give a “hechsher” on something that is inconsistent with Torah. It is not about throwing them out of OU. If they truly espouse values that are contrary to Torah, they are simply ineligible. the OU has many departments, but the world perceives them as a stamp of kashrus. It’s one thing to accept a more lenient psak halacha. It is quite another to welcome a shul that violates basics. If expelling them makes them feel bad, they may seek therapy. Feelings do matter, but not here.

Zdad – I understand what you are saying, and I think it is great when you try to advocate giving room to people instead of taking a harsh approach that may cause them to fall farther away. But you have to understand that giving people room and sparing the stick is not possible when Torah is being violated. If you are telling people not to be so harsh because you know Torah is truth and you don’t want people to give it up than you are right. But when you start posting that we have to use the carrot approach and not the stick when it means allowing people to do things that are unquestionably AGAINST Torah, then you are not really supporting torah at all, you are just supporting liberalism. No matter how accepting and positive you want to be, and I am almost always with you on that, you are not allowed to give a green light to breaking actual Halacha for the sake of peace (except extenuating circumstances). Your love for peace should not be more of a priority than your love for Gd, even though some kiruv professionals say to do so, it is not proven to work. The people you are protecting will see hypocracy. there must be an ultimate cause that you are fighting for.

This situation is not the carrot nor the stick. No one is looking to punish a shul for breaking Torah rules. The OU can simply say that they do not comply with the Torah standard of halacha, and expel them from membership. Perhaps the organization needs to examine the process in which they were approved – something did not work. But ousting them is not punishment. If I got accepted to the plumbers union through an error, expelling me would not be a punishment. I should never have been there in the first place. I don’t get the discussion about a stick, punishing them, maybe some members would reject even more halacha because of this, etc.

Is there any reaction from the OU?

ZD: You make a good point, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread.

Does the OU have any requirements or conditions for membership? I browsed through their site, but couldn’t find anything.

The RCA was no better than the OU.

ZD:

I did not check the OU website, but I am certain there are requirements for membership. There is also a “Mission Statement”, and I would have to believe that this also references the adherence to halacha. The OU can easily state such a requirement and note that since HIR adopts a different set of guidelines, their membership is an error. They have not damaged HIR in any way, and the only basis for lawsuits is the thirst that some people may have to create a chilul Hashem. Regardless, the OU needs to take a stand on this. I cannot tell them what actions to take, and having no expertise in law, that may be a piece of guidance and direction they should consider. In any case, if a member of a club breaks the rules of the club, there needs to be a response.

What would be the worst thing if the OU kicked them out, if “Activists” started a campaign against companies Like Coke, Nabasico and other national companies telling them that a company they are associated with is -Phobic and demand they stop doing business with them. Many of these companies dont want to deal with a phobic company and then drop the OU and many products will lose their kashruth or worse this “Ethical” Hashghca will try to take their place.

For many people such products are their only access to Kashruth, they will eat non-kosher if its unavaible.

And Dont put anything past these “Activists” They will success.

@CTL “no one wants to admit falling numbers”
perhaps excluding them now would in the long term prevent more members from following their example – so would prevent falling numbers

Nobody wants to admit falling numbers?
Organizational professionals only interested in preserving their jobs?
The above may very well be true. What we’re saying is politics over principles, correct? That’s fine with me- I’m not on the board so I don’t get to decide.
Until I realize this is the organization certifying many of the products in my pantry. Probably most of your pantries as well. Even many of the “better” hashgachos use raw materials (spices, starches and the like) in their products that are OU certified.
Very disturbing.

There are two issues mentioned in the original post. One is the ordination of women and second is the congratulating two men on their engagement. While I can’t speak on the second issue, I have a lot to say on the first.
A few weeks(maybe months) ago representatives from the OU sat down with Rabba Sarah and other representatives from HIR. Together, they went over the daily duties of the female staff members and the OU came to the conclusion that the actions performed by these women are not out of line with orthodoxy. These women are proving counseling services, teaching classes, and overall doing things to better their community. They are not violating halacha and therefore have not been kicked out the of the OU. While many members on this site do not agree with Rav Avi Weiss on many issues this specific situation has been monitored by the OU and they have decided that HIR can remain part of the organization. If you don’t like it then don’t go HIR but a decision was made by people far greater than you or I.

These women are proving counseling services, teaching classes, and overall doing things to better their community.

They were ordained and given rabbinical titles.

a decision was made by people far greater than you or I.

Sorry, not buying the “daas Torah” argument here.

“Sorry, not buying the “daas Torah” argument here.”

You don’t have to. You also don’t have to eat food with an OU on the package, go to shuls that are part of the OU, or have anything to do with the OU. That’s your decision. And the OU made a decision to allow HIR to remain part of the organization. No one is forcing you follow their ruling. You don’t have to daven in a place that has ordained women. But if other’s do, then that’s their choice and they have poskim that they’ve discussed this issue with.

And nobody’s forcing you to accept my opinion.

But they’re causing a huge chillul Hashem, and need to be called out on it.

Golfer, the Kosher consumer is a customer and so are the Activists. You think your business is more important to Coke (Or other such companies) than the activists business. The acitivists also have alot of sympathizers as well so that makes them alot more powerful than you think.

Also, Coke (for example) would more likely drop the symbol than become uncertified. Perhaps they would take a different certification.

Either way, the OU needs to stand up for the Torah.

More likely companies like Coke would take the “Ethical Hashghcha” which would be good enough for most people and they dont have to deal with the acitivists.

While its not hard to live without Coke, there are many more primary products that if the Activists manage to get removed it would greatly upset the kosher industry and even many Charedi Hashghchas who rely on the OU for Primary indgridents

Luna – Mr. Weiss made a promise to the RCA that he would cease ordaining or recognizing any more women as a “rabba”, after only his first (Mrs. Sara Hurwitz) since that is virtually the same title as rabbi.

Then Weiss broke his word and again did his rabbit tricks.

this issue resurfaced specifically because of this new event. So if you feel strongly about the feminist cause and supported HIR for their acknowledgement of women in these roles knowing there is rabbinical backing, that should not extend to this situation on any level. Is it possible to now acknowledge that this shul has turned it’s back on Torah or is the loyalty to it going to cause some people, unfortunately, to extend leeway where it doesn’t belong?

Also, syags right. Peace doesnt mean letting everything go. Pinchas killed people and he got the bris of it. If theres a cancer it gets cut out, we dont say, “oh but itl hurt to cut it out.” People may scream too much about everything but the opposite extreme causes decay as well.

Arguing over her title doesn’t solve any issues. It’s semantics.
If the OU had a theological problem with the activities and responsibilities of these women they would have said so and they would have taken action. But they didn’t.

The reason I chose not to address the two men getting engaged is because I don’t anything about it and don’t feel I should comment.
I do know, for a fact, that the OU sat down with Rabba Sarah and told her that they don’t have any issues with her daily responsibilities.
Even if she changed her title she would still be doing the same things she is doing now. So I don’t understand why people have an issue with her title. If you don’t want want women rabbis you should protest her daily responsibilities. But the OU went over her those with her agreed that they had no problems with what she does.