Belsky shouldn’t have agreed to be a posek in this case. He had a conflict of interest. He knew, or should have anticipated that his son-in-law might make big bucks from his ruling. Belsky should also have offered some evidence of due diligence in his determinations other than the self-serving summaries of a superficial investigation conducted by culpable parties at the RCC and his son-in-law, Rechnitz.
Unfortunately, Belsky has a pattern of ruling in favor of his krovim (close ones) on the basis of their reports without listening to the opposing side. Belsky slandered the family of the victim of Yosef Kolko without even talking to them. He did the same for his buddy Yehuda (Joel) Kolko. Both ended up being convicted of the very abuse that Belsky denied. I have argued elsewhere that Belsky should be removed as Senior Posek of OU Kosher because of his misconduct.
Belsky’s defenders at the Orthodox Union (OU) insist that his bizarre antics about sex abuse are not pertinent to his qualifications as a posek for kosher. Maybe, now they can see that Belsky’s misconduct extends to kashrus as well.![]()
