Abuse - Rabbi's prime responsiblity is protecting people from harm

In addition to rabbis being the gatekeeper to those who want to utilize resources from the secular government - when the Jewish community lacks the power to properly protect the children – they have a much more fundamental function.The Jewish community is not absolved of its obligations to its members just because the secular government can step in when asked. In fact the Jewish community must first do all that it can to protect its members – before involving the secular government. In other words if the Jewish community can in fact protect its members there is theoretically no basis for permitting contacting the secular authorities. What in fact are the obligation of the Jewish rabbis and community leaders? There is a fundamental requirement that applies to all Jews – especially rabbis and community leaders. This is expressed in a number of mitzvos including the following:

Rambam(Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14): Whoever has the ability to save someone and yet doesn’t - transgresses Vayikra (19:16): Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow man. Similarly if one saw his fellow man drowning in the sea or being attacked by bandits or wild animals and he had the ability to save him himself or hiring others to save him – and yet he didn’t save him. Or he heard that non‑Jews or informers were plotting to cause someone harm and yet didn’t warn the intended victim. Or he knows that a non‑Jew or influential person is upset with a fellow Jew and he has the ability to placate them and to eliminate their complaints and doesn’t placate them. And all similar situations which a person doesn’t save his fellow man when he had the ability to do so – has transgressed the prohibition of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow man.

It would follow from the above that the leaders have an obligation to make sure that molesters do not get jobs dealing with children. Being a leader doesn’t exempt a Jew from this mitzva. In fact he bears greater responsibility because he has greater power. That means that they need to notify and warn people concerning potential molesters. If they know or even suspect that a teacher or community member is a molester - they need to publicize that there is a real concern and children need to be watched carefuly. It also means that there needs to be a reliable registery of all those that jobs in yeshiva to have a full background check. They need to be fingerprinted. It also means that all information – which includes rumors – needs to be readily shared and accessible. There have to be sanctions that can be applied to someone who is a molester – even if it means harming the molester's family and/or yeshiva.

In other words if the Jewish community insists Jews can not go to the secular authorities with their complaints and concerns because of the laws of moser and a chillul haShem – then they have the full responsibility of the Torah obligation to protect people from harm. What are they doing to fulfill this responsiblity?

To be continued

When reporting abuse is permitted - gedolim should not do it

Rav Tzvi Gartner (Yeshurun 15 page 637) notes that the Maharam Shick (C.M. 50) was asked about the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and the deceased brother’s wife was suspected to having poisoned her husband. There was much circumstantial evidence and a partial confession that she had in fact murdered her husband. Gedolim wrote to the Maharam Shick that they were astonished why he was silent when it was obviously a mitzva to destroy evil. He replied that he was silent because there weren’t any witnesses to the killing and even if she had in fact poisoned her husband it was only gramma (indirect killing). Therefore according to the Torah she was not liable to the death penalty. Consequently she should not be reported to the secular justice system since they make judgments based on confessions (which is not accord with Torah law). However the Maharam Shick ultimately decided that it was permitted to report her to the police based on the gemora (Bava Metzia 83b) concerning R’ Eliezer ben R’ Shimon who reported Jewish thieves to the government because he was authorized by the king. However the Maharam Shick noted that while reporting her was definitely permitted according the halacha, but the gemora in Bava Metzia also indicated that it was inappropriate for gedolim to be involved in reporting others to the secular authorities. He noted that this was also the view of the Rashba that was cited by the Beis Yosef in Choshen Mishpat 338. An even greater proof that it is not desirable to inform on others to the secular authorities - even when there is a possible danger not to report - is found in the Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5). Rambam rules that if non‑Jews have specified that they are looking for a certain Jew and that they will kill all the Jews unless he is handed over to them - if that Jew is deserving of the death penalty he can be given to them to save the others. However the Rambam notes that this halacha is not to be taught in advance. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4) which says that even though informing is permitted in this case but it shouldn’t be done by pious people…. Therefore the Maharam Shick concluded that even though one can not protest if other’s inform the police in these cases because they are following the halacha and they have many poskim to rely on – nevertheless gedolim should not actively involve themselves in reporting but should rather do nothing.

RaP: Proselytization in Latin America

MISHPACHA Jewish Family
Weekly 2 Tammuz 5769
Pages 38 – 45"

RaP: Mishpacha magazine for hire continues in its path of publishing stories that promote proselytization, such as in the path with highlighting reaching out to the doubtful Subbotniks and the questionable Jews of Poland by Shavei Israel, and many such articles that seem to always land up mentioning the Anusim/Marranos in a good light, when their status is highly doubtful after 500 years of being lost.

Puerto Rico to Pupa: Rabbi Avraham Goldstein’s Journey from Delivery Boy to Ger Tzedek

By Barbara Bensoussan

With his Monsey residence; Chassidic ensemble of shtreimel, beard, and peyos; and juicy Yiddish, it’s hard to believe that Rabbi Avraham Goldstein’s roots lie in Puerto Rico. But that’s precisely where his unusual journey to Judaism began. Goldstein proceeded through a Williamsburg delivery route to an Orthodox conversion, to yeshivos in Baltimore and Brooklyn and the Pupa Chassidus. Now a violin dealer who’s made it his mission to advocate for South American geirim, he approaches all his diverse roles with an unbounded sense of joy in Judaism.

RaP: If this is all there was to his story it would be fine, but he has taken on more roles for himself than merely being a regular Jew.

"…fourteen-year-old Eduardo Torres…wanted nothing more in December of 1981 than to leave Puerto Rico and go to cold, inhospitable New York…some twenty-eight years have passed since then, but today Torres, better known in the community as Rabbi Avraham Goldstein, lives with his wife and children in Monsey, runs his own business and is ceaselessly busy helping geirim, baalei teshuvah, and anyone else who might benefit from his support."

RaP: Nowhere in this article is it made very clear who exactly gave him semicha to be ordained to undertake the rabbinical counseling and pastoral work, even though he spent time in a few yeshivas and some Chasidishe kehilas.

"Goldstein’s efforts to aid converted Jews and baalei teshuvah in South America ultimately culminated in the creation of an organization entitled Toiras Jesed [Chesed], which has the help and haskamah of Rav Chaim Eliezer Brown and Rav Yitzhak Mandel of Monroe"

RaP: What kind of "haskamah" is this? It should at least be in writing and should have been published with the article that is after all promoting this evidently proselytizing missionary cause, to give it proper Halachic legitimacy.

"Toiras Jesed even mounted a brand-new community designed specifically for geirim in the countryside of Puerto Rico

RaP: Throughout this article, the word "geirim" is used VERY loosely and ambiguously and it's very obvious that it often means people who WISH TO BECOME geirim, but who are not yet at the point where they can be Halachically and officially referred to as "geirim". In any case, why would people who have converted 100% need a separate community in far-off Puerto Rico? when almost all dayanim performing legitimate conversions insist that a gentile who has become a ger tzedek must live in a Torah community or be very near to one where geirim can lots of guidance, and not be detached from the world in a far-off Potemkin village of people who are being kept in seclusion it seems until they can become true gerim, but then, why the need to provide such a service at all isn't it according to Halacha to DISCOURAGE geirim and not to help them by building sponsored villages for them? [To continue click on this link]

Abuse: Competing Jewish and secular authority I

In order to understand the dynamics of abuse, it is first necessary to understand that it is not simply the relationship of the perpetrator and the victim to a society which has the power to punish and protect the individual. There are in fact two competing systems that deal with the issue of abuse. Much of this book will be dealing with the relationship between these two systems. These two systems are the Jewish community and the secular government. At times in history the Jewish community was largely autonomous and thus there are many Jewish laws dealing with the obligation of the Jewish community to help protect the abused and sanction the abuser. On the other hand there are also times, such as the present, where the Jewish community is largely powerless in instituting programs and sanctions on its members and therefore the actual power to protect and sanction is found in the secular government.

It is important to keep in mind that even in the relatively powerless state the Jewish community is today – there is an important requirement of Jewish law that the authority of the Jewish community be acknowledged – even if it is only as to authorize the involvement of the secular government. In Jewish law this concern is manifest in three different laws 1) not to utilize the secular legal system if possible - since that degrades the importance of the Jewish courts 2) the concern with the prohibition of moser (informer) and 3) the perception of kiddush HaShem (positive perception of G‑d’s chosen people) of chillul Hashem (negative perception of G‑d’s chosen people).

The first one is self‑evident and permission is often just a formality. However the second one of mesira (informing) is a much more serious issue. Failure to acknowledge the role of rabbis and Jewish courts as gatekeepers to the secular authorities - with absolute veto power - can lead to catastrophe. A victim or his family going directly to the secular government can lead to severe social condemnation and rejection from the Jewish community as well as the threat that a informer loses his place in the World to Come. At one time being labeled as a moser was literally a death sentence – either by being killed by fellow Jews or because of the social ostracization which meant neither the Jewish community or the Christian-secular society would acknowledge the person. Not only did any Jew have the right to kill the moser, but it was also a death sentence socially as well as spiritually. Social ostracization in the ghetto mean not only that no one would socialize with the moser or do business with him – it also meant that his family was denied elementary needs such as circumcision or burial as well as marriage partners. The law of moser is detailed extensively in the Responsa literature and is codified in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam as well as the Shulchan Aruch. Jews take it very seriously.

The third law concerning Chilul HaShem is also concerned with degradation of the status of the Jewish community. It results when abuse is reported and revealed to the world. Literally it means profanation of G‑d’s reputation in the world. Jewish theology states that the Jews were chosen by G‑d to be a light and guide to the other nations. Since Jews are G‑d’s people, they not only serve as role models but are expected to be perceived by the nations of the world as being morally and ethically superior. Furthermore the Talmud notes that the status G‑d has in this world is directly tied to the status of the Jewish people. Thus only when Jews are perceived as wonderful and morally superior, then G‑d is also perceived as wonderful and superior This is not just a esoteric theological point but also is reflected in the laws of martyrdom. A Jew is required to die rather than degrade the status of Jews and G‑d. This issue of Chilul HaShem and its positive aspect Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G‑ds reputation) can be achieved in one of two processes. The first is in fact to ensure the superiority of the society and the elimination of the negative elements or alternatively to conceal the bad aspect and to reveal only the good – or even to fabricate them. For example one can either work to eliminate child or wife abuse or one can falsely proclaim that contrary to the general social norm – the Jewish society has minimal or no incidence of such behavior.

Consequently the first question that must be asked is whether the victim is allowed to go to the secular authorities for protection or to punish the abuser. The significance of this step is largely ignored or misunderstood by the secular authorities – or the hesitancy is assumed to be a vestige of the Dark Ages. However the intervention of the secular authority into the affairs of the Jewish community is a very serious affront to the perceived authority of the Jewish community. It severely disrupts the community itself. The public nature of the processes of the secular system changes forever not only the reputation of the perpetrator but also the victim and the family, friends and community institutions associated with both. [To be continued]

Paleontology & Creationism meet in Kentucky

NYTimes:

Tamaki Sato was confused by the dinosaur exhibit. The placards described the various dinosaurs as originating from different geological periods — the stegosaurus from the Upper Jurassic, the heterodontosaurus from the Lower Jurassic, the velociraptor from the Upper Cretaceous — yet in each case, the date of demise was the same: around 2348 B.C.

“I was just curious why,” said Dr. Sato, a professor of geology from Tokyo Gakugei University in Japan.

For paleontologists like Dr. Sato, layers of bedrock represent an accumulation over hundreds of millions of years, and the Lower Jurassic is much older than the Upper Cretaceous.

But here in the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, Earth and the universe are just over 6,000 years old, created in six days by God. The museum preaches, “Same facts, different conclusions” and is unequivocal in viewing paleontological and geological data in light of a literal reading of the Bible.

In the creationist interpretation, the layers were laid down in one event — the worldwide flood when God wiped the land clean except for the creatures on Noah’s ark — and these dinosaurs died in 2348 B.C., the year of the flood.

“That’s one thing I learned,” Dr. Sato said.

The worlds of academic paleontology and creationism rarely collide, but the former paid a visit to the latter last Wednesday. The University of Cincinnati was hosting the North American Paleontological Convention, where scientists presented their latest research at the frontiers of the ancient past. In a break from the lectures, about 70 of the attendees boarded school buses for a field trip to the Creation Museum, on the other side of the Ohio River. [...]

EJF - recent Jerusalem conference

Yeshiva World News

It was by all accounts an unprecedented gathering of leading kiruv rabbonim from around the world, as well as rabbonim in cities and towns throughout Israel. The event took place from June 15 -17 at Jerusalem’s Inbal Hotel. The sponsor was the Eternal Jewish Family International, which is in the midst of a major global expansion of its activities to support rabbanim and batei din involved with intermarried couples who genuinely strive for a halachic conversion. It also assists kiruv organizations that are on the front lines in the fight against assimilation, such as the co-sponsors of the event: Arachim, Ohr Somayach, Hidabroot, Lev L’achim, Shuvu, and Nefesh Yehudi. In the U.S., it also includes the Gateways organization. [...]

EJF - attracting non-Jews to proselytize - is permitted

The self (?) appointed spokesman for R' Tropper - Roni has left a new comment on "EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni": I am making it into a post because of what it reveals about the true nature of Eternal Jewish Family. What Roni is asserting here - and I received a letter from R' Tropper to the same effect - There is nothing wrong with proselytizing as long as one does not walk up to a non-Jew and try and convert him. However putting out come-on notices on the internet, ads in the newspapers, or offering all-expenses paid vacations in swank resorts to listen to top speakers promoting conversion is allowed since the non-Jew is attracted to come and you don't go to him. Furthermore it is asserted that Rav Reuven Feinstein - the posek for Eternal Jewish Family - permits this. They also insist that this is not proselytizing but merely kiruv. (You might also notice Roni's liberal use of ad hominem arguments - something which R' Tropper vehemently protests when they come from his critics). In sum the position of Eternal Jewish Family (with the apparent backing of Rav Reuven Feinstein ) is that encouraging non-Jew (especially intermarried couples) to convert is not halachically prohibited - as long as they accept the obligation to keep all the mitzvos in the chareidi way. Thus attracting non-Jews and then pressuring them to convert is not problematic - as long as in the end they agree to keep all the mitzvos as a chareidi Jew. It is also clear from their advertisements that they don't restrict their activities to intermarried couples. I would suggest R' Tropper find a less embarrassing defender.

RAp, talking like a real am hooretz, can you start answering the question "Where in Shulchan Oruch is there aN ISSUR to encourage an intermarried person to convert",

You are unable to start any conversation. You and Dt (and the third stooge) cannot even begin to have a rational discussion over this matter, you do not know where to being so you start with the new testament of

"You are not Rav Yosef Karo writing the Shulchan Oruch and interpreting it definitively nor are you the only one who says "where does it say in the shulchan oruch this and that" like a beginner. Some things are so pushut that the shulchan oruch doesn't have to spell them out,",

like a real am hooretz....you and your colleagues shout from the top of your longues for years about this terrible tragedy and issur and after your introduction of false sources (like a real ignoramus that you are) you now state that this is "so poshut the the SO does not have to spell it out", yet the SO does not find it so poshut to spell out that you are not allowed to convert for the sake of marriage?!?!

All your questions do NOT HAVE ONE HALACHIK SOURCE, BUT YOUR NEW TESTAMENT! You are such a boor that you cannot even begin to bring some halachik points mentioned by Rav Sternbuchwhose points were STRONGLY REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, RAV HENKIN, RAV SZ AURBACH, RAV Y KAMENETZKY AND MORE!

yOU SHOTEH OTZUM "NEW TESTAMENT" IS SOMEONE WHO CHANGES THE LAWS OF YIDDISHKEYT! AND FOR THE UMPEENTH TIME YOU CAN REPEAT LIEK THE BROKEN RECORD, BUT RT DIDN'T BEGIN TO MAKE THE MISSIONARY CONVERSIONS THAT YOUR FRIEND BOMZER MADE...YOUR KRUMMER BROKEN RECORD AND THE SOUR CHOLLENTS ARE GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY YOU DON'T QUALIFY EVEN FOR A "MEGALEH PONIM BETORAH" AS YOUR KRUMKEYT HAS GOT NOTHING WITH TORAH...

So that people do not forgeth the content: The question posed to RAP. DT and the third stooge was: Where is the source in HALACHA that it is ossur to encourage intermarried cpules to covnert???

THese fellow twist and turn but are unable to talk about the issue...

CR Amar bars R' Sherman from conversion cases

JPost

In a move that pits him against the haredi rabbinical establishment and endears him to thousands of converts to Judaism, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar issued a written order that effectively bars a controversial haredi rabbinical judge from adjudicating in conversion cases.

"Recently, conversion cases have become the focus of public scrutiny," wrote Amar in a letter to Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan, administrative head of the Rabbinical Courts. "Groups have taken advantage of the controversy surrounding these cases to attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts. As a result, I am exercising my power... to personally choose panels of judges that will rule on conversion cases."

Amar's directive would allow him to remove from a conversion case any judge - but it is seen as being directed, in particular, at Rabbi Avraham Sherman, a judge on the High Rabbinical Court who one week ago issued his second highly controversial halachic opinion on a divorce case involving a woman who converted to Judaism.[...]

EJF backer Tom Kaplan loses lawsuit

Haaretz

[....] Thomas S. Kaplan, claims to have donated "tens of millions of dollars," according to official court documents. In the lawsuit, Kaplan challenged **** ability and right to manage the foundation, but the judge, Robert Rosenberg of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, threw out the case, finding Kaplan's claims had no merit. Kaplan objected to the more than $7 million he says his nephew spent in 2008 to advance what the lawsuit called his "claim that he is the Messiah and to promote his messianic mission," according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, which reported about the lawsuit when it was filed in January. According to the paper, the family feud is likely rooted in a separate lawsuit involving the two. The second case involves the company the two founded, Leor Exploration & Production, which was sold for about $2.5 billion after discovering vast natural gas reserves in Texas, and which is the foundation of *** newfound wealth.[....]

Rav Sternbuch - Role of Shevet Levi

51

Protest against Gay Parade - 5 p.m.

Today there will be a peaceful protest - authorized by the police - at Kikar Shabbat at 5 p.m - against the parade.

HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita and other rabbonon will speak.

There are reports that HaRav Reuven Feinstein, shlita will also be there.

JPost reports:

The Jerusalem gay pride parade, which regularly riles up religious and haredi city residents, is scheduled to take place Thursday under tight security, as haredi-secular tensions are already running high in the capital over the municipality's plan to open a parking lot on Shabbat.

The annual march, which is organized by Open House, Jerusalem's small gay and lesbian center and is expected to draw a few thousand people, has stirred repeated controversy in the past. This year, however, the haredi community has decided to avoid public protests in an effort to avoid giving the event additional publicity.

The parade is viewed by most religious Jews - as well as by many traditional Jews and by Christian and Muslim religious leaders - as an abomination and an anathema to biblical values and the holiness of Jerusalem. A public opinion poll has found that two-thirds of Jerusalem residents were opposed to holding such an event in the city.[...]

EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni

After two years of repeated requests - our chaver Roni has succeeded in providing us with two critical pieces of information regarding Eternal Jewish Family. 1) The teshuva of Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita - which provides the halachic rationale for EJF's kiruv (proselytization) of the non-Jewish spouse in mixed marriages 2) the explanation presented below of why there are no written haskomas from the many gedolei Torah who are actively associated with the organization or at least attend their conferences.

I would like to publicly thank Roni for his tenacity and desire to present the truth as he sees it and the countless hours he has spent trying to explain and defend R' Tropper's activies. It has obviously been an unpleasant experience for him to constantly face and explain to those of us who are less than sympathetic to what is going on. I will also reiterate what I have said a number of times before - I think that R' Tropper and his associates are working leshem Shamayim. However that doesn't preclude the possibility that their approach can be harmful and fail as Roni admits below. I will be transferring a number of comments from the previous posting that are relevant to this thread. Please keep your comments to the point, respectful and avoid personal attacks.

With these pieces of information I think it is possible to have a more productive discussion of these issues. I would like to note that Roni seems to feel Rav Reuven's interpretation of his father's position and other statement as Daas Torah. I apologize if I misunderstood this and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. I just want to reiterate a conversation I had with Rav Dovid Feinstein regarding this issue of his father's authority. He said, "I never heard my father justify his psak by saying that it was Daas Torah." Rav Moshe clearly states this in his introduction to Igros Moshe, the essence of his rulings are sevoras. His rulings are to be judged by the perceived validity of his sevoras. He also acknowledges that he is capable of error but that since he has put so much time and effort in arriving at the conclusion which he thinks is correct - one should not be hasty to dismiss it but to seriously analyze his opinion. I don't think that his son's views should be approached with a higher level of authority than that of his father.

[Roni asked that I add the following]

Before I respond to your recent post: I must reiterate and please post this as an addendum to your head post: That the*TESHUVA* IS Rav Reuven's; but the second issue the (the explanation why there are no written haskomos to the *organization* (not that there are not *halachik teshuvas* and discussions, BECAUSE THERE CERTAINLY ARE! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WHAT i SAID), ARE MINE ONLY AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE REAL REASONING BEHIND THAT! BUT MY FEELING IS THAT THESE (AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS) ARE THE REASONS WHY THEY WOULD NOT GIVE A *HASKAMAh* TO A INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION! (AS PROBABLY HAPPENS IN *SOME* OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NATURE).

PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THAT TO RAV REUVEN OR TO RAV TROPPER FOR I AM SAYING THIS ON MY OWN.

Roni wrote in response to Mekubal: ( I have made a number of corrections in to the original post)

4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being that it is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if Chas Vesholom it does not succeeded to reach the hopeful goals.

b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these conversions without kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this public step to put his name on paper to that level.

c) and no Rabbi puts his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do something that is not correct and then people might mistake that this particular action had the approval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.

But on the other hand Rav Reuven partakes himself as member of the Organization. He is involved in guiding them in the Halachik Shaylos and so on. You can see the Teshuva that I posted earlier (and I"ll try BLN to scan it to Dt) as the teshuva Rav Reuven wrote to EJF where he rules on the focal question of the blog to Rav Tropper and he cites that his father the Posek HaDor HaRAv Moshe Feinstein of B"m permitted the issue in certain conditions (which is exaclty what EJF attempts to follow).

Rav Reuven Feinstein: Kiruv and intermarriage

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:28): Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not corrrect to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.

Mekubal's translation/analysis of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva (3:140)cited below by Rav Reuven Feinstein

Roni,

First a translation italics are my own comments in the translation:

From all of this it seems obviously we are missing parts already please provide those Roni that a mixed marriage, by means of this the non-Jewish spouse takes part literally they join themselves to or with in shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convert, and by means of this it causes the Jewish man or woman to be saved to return in repentance, there is to see in this b'diavad circumstance that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert. But in a situation that that this reason is not relevant, there is no place for a heter, this is Ossur.

Let us enumerate the conditions of the above heter:
1) Intermarriage 2) The Non-Jew seeks out and joins shiurim 3) It is permitted to allow them to take part b'diavad 4) Since there is a heter to teach torah to a non-Jew who is converting we can extend that to this case.

To be clear, R' Eliashiv makes a chumra(that one should not teach a person in the the process of Geirut Torah), as this opposes what is written in the Sh"A, but that is OK one can be Chumradik.

Then he removes his own Chumra in the case of an intermarried couple. If the non-Jewish spouse seeks out Jewish learning. His reason for this is that they may be convinced to convert, and thus in a round about way cause the Teshuva of their Jewish spouse.

What this leaves out is any mention of encouraging. Nowhere does R' Elishiv say לאמץ להתגייר he simply says that by them deciding to take part in Jewish learning there is a good chance that they will decide to convert, and we should not stop them.

To sum up. You brought an incomplete Teshuva, and presumably only the part that you thought supported your opinion. Examination of the language and grammar shows that this clearly does not support your position of actively seeking out or encouraging conversion. This is a heter to allow non-Jews in intermarriages who wander into shiurim, to sit those shiurim, that's all.

===================
Rav Eliashiv's view on kiruv to intermarried couples as reported by Rav Efrati

==================================
Rav Reuven Feinstein

Homosexuality & Judaism / R' Freundel

Jonah website

Introduction

Homosexuality, once a word whispered only with revulsion or derision, is now out in the open for all to see and hear. In fact, homosexuality and its attendant issues have become big news.

Whether it is the rapidly spreading, and ever-more frightening AIDS epidemic, or the increase in sympathetic "gay" characters in the theater and in literature, or the widening legal battles over the status of homosexuals, one cannot go very far in contemporary society with out confronting this once extremely closet-bound topic.

Traditional Judaism, too, has been forced to confront the issue as "gay" individuals and "synagogues" have appeared on the Jewish landscape, often appealing for support from the liberal segments of the Jewish community.

Certainly, an authentic Jewish response must begin with the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. The Bible unequivocally states that a homosexual act between two consenting adult males is a capital crime.

Therefore, homosexuality is an activity that no traditional Jew can engage in, endorse, accept, or approve of (recent televised statements to the contrary notwithstanding)

Despite this initial biblical negative, there is much to discuss regarding our attitude to the homosexual, the issue of the homosexual's place in the community, the question of approach and the treatment of the homosexual, and the problem of the homosexual's rights and acceptance in society. In addition, we must consider why the Bible and Jewish thought reject homosexuality keeping in mind as we do that female homosexuality, though forbidden, is not nearly as serious a crime as is its male counterpart.