What Do Charedim Think About Those From Their Community Who Go Off the Derech?

Last updated 07 Jun 2026 • 14 min read

When a Child or Adult From a Torah Home Leaves Observance, the Authentic Charedi Response Is Not Rejection — It Is Heartbreak, Introspection, and Above All Unconditional Love. The Foundational Principle Is the Talmud's Own: Smol Docheh v'Yamin Mekareves — the Drawing-Near Must Always Be Stronger Than the Pushing-Away. The Child May Leave the Derech; the Parents, and the Torah, Never Leave the Child

When a child or adult raised in a Torah home leaves the path of observance — what the community calls "going off the derech" (OTD) — it brings deep pain to a family. There is no point pretending otherwise. But the authentic Charedi response to that pain is not rejection. It is heartbreak held together with love; introspection rather than blame; and, above all, the refusal to let go of the relationship with the child.

This needs to be said clearly, because the outside perception — and, painfully, sometimes the failure of individual families to live up to the ideal — has created an impression that the Charedi world casts out those who leave. The authentic position of the gedolim, taught consistently and forcefully across generations, is the precise opposite. The dominant teaching of the leaders of the Torah world on this question has been: keep the door open, keep showing love, never despair, and never, ever throw a child out.

We work through the framework — the foundational halachic principle, the hashkafic basis, the practical approach, and the hard cases — below. And we do so with the awareness that this article may be read both by parents carrying this pain and by those who have themselves left observance. To the latter: the message of this article is that you are loved, that the door is open, and that nothing you have done places you outside the heart of your family or your people.

I. The Foundational Principle: Smol Docheh v'Yamin Mekareves

The Talmud establishes the governing principle for how to relate to a Jew who has strayed. In Sotah 47a and Sanhedrin 107b, Chazal teach:

"L'olam tehei smol docheh v'yamin mekareves."

"Always let the left hand push away and the right hand draw near."

The principle is precise and profound. The right hand — for most people the stronger, dominant hand — represents drawing near. The left hand — the weaker hand — represents pushing away. The teaching is that whatever measure of distancing may sometimes be necessary, the drawing-near must always be the stronger force. One never pushes away with the dominant hand. The relationship of mekarev — of drawing close — must always exceed, in strength and in primacy, any element of distancing.

The Gemara teaches this principle specifically in the context of those who have gone wrong — Chazal criticize figures in history who pushed away with the right hand (the strong hand), driving people permanently from Torah, when they should have pushed away, if at all, only with the weak left hand while drawing near with the strong right. This is the foundational halachic-hashkafic source for the entire Charedi approach to those who leave observance. The dominant force must always be love and drawing-near. Rejection with the strong hand — casting out — is precisely the error the Gemara condemns.

This single principle governs everything that follows. When a child goes off the derech, the question is never "how do we push him away?" The question is "how do we keep the right hand — the stronger hand of love and connection — extended toward him?"

II. A Jew Remains a Jew — The Unbreakable Bond

Beneath the principle of smol docheh v'yamin mekareves lies an even more foundational truth: the bond between a Jew and Klal Yisrael, and between a Jew and Hashem, is unbreakable.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a) states the principle that governs all of Jewish peoplehood:

"Yisrael, af al pi she'chata, Yisrael hu."

"A Jew, even when he has sinned, remains a Jew."

This is not sentiment; it is halacha. No action a Jew takes — no violation, no rejection, no declaration — severs his fundamental status as a Jew and as a member of Klal Yisrael. The child who has left observance is not "former" anything. He is a Jew, fully and completely, bound to his people and to Hashem by a bond that his own choices cannot dissolve. The neshamah remains a cheilek Eloka mi'ma'al — a portion of the Divine from above — regardless of the path the person has taken.

This is why the Charedi framework does not have a category of "ex-Jew" or "lost cause." There is no such category in halacha. There is only the Jew who is currently close and the Jew who is currently distant — and the distance, however great, does not change what the person fundamentally is. The bond is structural, not conditional. It cannot be earned, and it cannot be forfeited.

III. Hashem's Own Model — Lo Yidach Mimenu Nidach

The deepest basis for the Charedi approach is that it mirrors Hashem's own conduct toward His children.

The navi teaches (Shmuel II 14:14), in words that have anchored the entire Jewish understanding of teshuvah:

"V'chashav machashavos l'vilti yidach mimenu nidach."

"He devises means so that the banished one shall not remain banished from Him."

The verse describes Hashem as actively devising means — engineering circumstances, opening doors, creating opportunities — so that even the one who has been "banished" (the nidach, the most distant) should not remain permanently cut off. Hashem does not give up on the most distant Jew. He devises means to bring him back. The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6) codifies the framework: Hashem does not desire the death of the sinner, but that he should return and live.

This is the model the Charedi parent and community are called to imitate. If Hashem Himself, against whom the sin is ultimately directed, devises means so that the banished one not remain banished — refusing to write off even the most distant — then how can a parent write off his own child? The parent who keeps the door open, who keeps devising means to maintain the relationship, who refuses to accept that the child is "gone," is doing precisely what Hashem does. The refusal to give up on a distant child is not weakness or naïveté. It is imitatio Dei — walking in Hashem's ways, which the Torah commands.

And the gates never close. The Talmud (Berachos 32b) teaches that even after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, when the gates of prayer were said to be locked, "sha'arei dema'os lo ninalu" — "the gates of tears were never locked." The possibility of return is never foreclosed. No matter how far, no matter how long, the gate of return remains open. A community that believes this cannot treat any Jew as beyond return.

IV. Understanding Why — Not "Rebellion" in the Simple Sense

The Charedi hashkafah resists the simple framing of OTD as mere "rebellion." The reasons a person leaves observance are varied and often complex.

Some leave because of genuine pain — trauma, abuse, family dysfunction, or experiences within the community that wounded them. Some leave because of struggles with mental health, anxiety, or depression that made the demands of observance feel unbearable. Some leave because they never found their place — never connected, never felt seen, never experienced the warmth and meaning that should accompany a Torah life. Some leave for intellectual reasons, with questions that were never adequately answered. Some leave simply because the particular form of the life they were raised in did not fit who they are.

The honest Charedi position acknowledges this complexity rather than flattening it into "rebellion against Hashem." The Chazon Ish's framework — distinguishing the rare mumar l'hach'is (one who sins specifically to anger Hashem) from the far more common case of one whose departure has other roots — applies here. Very few who leave observance do so out of a pure desire to rebel against Hashem. Most are responding to pain, to unanswered questions, to a failure of connection, or to the simple reality that the path they were given did not become their own.

This understanding has a direct consequence for the response. You do not respond to pain with harshness. You do not respond to unanswered questions with rejection. You do not respond to a failure of connection by severing the connection entirely. The recognition that a child's departure usually has roots in something other than pure rebellion is what makes the loving response not only the kind one but the correct one — the response that actually addresses what is really happening.

It must also be said: this understanding does not deny the person's agency or treat him as merely a problem to be managed. The OTD individual is a full human being making his own choices, entitled to dignity and respect. The loving response is not a manipulation strategy to engineer his return. It is the genuine expression of a bond that does not depend on his choices — combined with the honest hope, held without pressure, that he will one day find his way back. The love is unconditional precisely because it is not contingent on the outcome.

V. The Practical Approach — What the Gedolim Taught

The leaders of the Torah world have taught a remarkably consistent practical approach to OTD children, across the Lithuanian, Chassidic, and Sephardic worlds.

Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt"l was, in his decades as the central Lithuanian Charedi authority, the gadol most identified with the warm, never-reject approach to OTD youth. His documented position, repeated to countless parents and educators who sought his guidance, was uncompromising on this point: a parent must keep the door open, must keep showing love, and must never throw a child out of the home. He taught that casting out a struggling child is not chinuch (education) but its opposite — that it destroys rather than builds, and that it endangers not only the child who is cast out but the entire family. The teaching most widely transmitted in his name captures his approach in a single line: when asked about a child who was violating Shabbos or bringing non-kosher food into the home, he is reported to have answered that one should "remove the tray, not the child" — better to lose a measure of household religious order than to lose a child forever. Whether or not the wording is exact, the teaching faithfully represents his documented, lifelong position.

The broader Lithuanian, Chassidic, and Sephardic leadership has taught consistently in the same direction:

That a child who strays is not a failure to be ashamed of but a challenge to be met with love
That harshness drives away while warmth draws near (the practical application of smol docheh v'yamin mekareves)
That the home must remain a place of warmth and emunah rather than anger and pressure
That the relationship must be protected even when the observance cannot be

Rav Yaakov Bender shlita, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Darchei Torah in Far Rockaway and one of the most prominent contemporary voices on chinuch, has built much of his educational philosophy around the principle that struggling children — including those who have left the yeshiva framework — remain "ours" and must continue to be embraced. His documented approach: that the staff of a yeshiva should reach out to those who have left, with a phone call, a warm word, a cup of coffee — communicating that the child still matters and still belongs. The message is belonging, not condemnation.

The Chassidic tradition, embodied by Rebbes who rebuilt their communities after the Holocaust with at-risk and struggling youth among them, has emphasized simchah — joy, warmth, music, and celebration — as the means of drawing the heart. The principle: a child who feels joy in Yiddishkeit is drawn toward it; a child who feels judged is driven from it. The point is not to minimize the seriousness of leaving observance, but to recognize that the heart is won through warmth, not pressure.

VI. The Power of Tears — Tefillah as the First Response

A theme that runs through the teachings of the gedolim on this subject — particularly associated with the Steipler Gaon zt"l (Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky) and the broader mussar tradition — is that the first and most powerful response to a child who has strayed is not rules, threats, or confrontation, but tefillah — and specifically the tefillah of tears.

The Steipler, whose letters of guidance to those struggling with chinuch and family difficulties are collected in Karyana D'Iggarta, emphasized repeatedly the power of sincere, tearful tefillah on behalf of a child. The framework: when human efforts reach their limit, the parent's tears before Hashem reach where words and strategies cannot. This connects directly to the Talmudic principle (Berachos 32b) that the gates of tears are never locked — that the sincere tears of a parent davening for a child penetrate to a place that nothing else reaches.

This emphasis on tefillah is not passivity or a substitute for action. It is the recognition of where the actual power lies. A parent cannot force a child's heart. A parent cannot argue a child back to observance. What a parent can do — beyond maintaining the warm relationship — is daven, sincerely and with tears, and entrust the rest to Hashem, who devises means so that the banished one not remain banished. The combination of unconditional love in the relationship and tearful tefillah before Hashem is the deepest form of the Charedi response.

VII. When Is Distance Ever Necessary?

Honesty requires addressing the hard cases. Is there ever a situation in which some measure of distance is necessary?

The principle of smol docheh v'yamin mekareves itself acknowledges that the left hand sometimes does push away — that there can be circumstances requiring some boundary. But the principle's entire force is that this pushing-away is done only with the weak hand, never the strong one, and never in a way that severs the relationship. The drawing-near must always remain dominant.

In practice, the gedolim have taught that the threshold for any actual distancing is extremely high, and that the far more common error is excessive harshness rather than excessive leniency. The teaching transmitted in Rav Shteinman's name — "remove the tray, not the child" — captures the principle for the hard cases: when a child's conduct in the home creates a genuine problem (bringing in non-kosher food, public chillul Shabbos before younger siblings), the response is to address the specific conduct in the gentlest way possible — "remove the tray" — never to remove the child. One manages the specific issue; one does not sever the relationship.

The reasoning the gedolim have given is itself a calculation of love: it is better to lose a few hours of household religious order now than to lose a child forever. A child cast out of the home is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a child driven permanently from Torah and from his family. A child kept in the home, loved and embraced despite the difficulty, retains the connection through which return remains possible. The "strict" approach of casting out is, in fact, the approach most likely to produce permanent loss — which is why the gedolim have so consistently rejected it.

Genuine cases requiring real distance — situations involving danger to other family members, abuse, or severe destructive behavior — exist and must be handled with halachic and professional guidance. But these are rare, and they are categorically different from the ordinary case of a child who has simply stopped being observant. For the ordinary case, the answer of the gedolim is uniform: keep the child close.

VIII. The Institutional Response

The Charedi world's response to the OTD phenomenon is not only the response of individual families; it has developed an institutional infrastructure of organizations dedicated to supporting struggling youth and their families.

A network of organizations across the Charedi world — drop-in centers, mentoring programs, mental health services, crisis support, and family guidance organizations — has developed over recent decades specifically to serve at-risk and OTD youth. These organizations operate on the principle that struggling youth need warmth, support, professional help where appropriate, and an open door — not judgment or abandonment. Their existence reflects the communal recognition that the loving response taught by the gedolim requires institutional support to be carried out effectively, particularly for families who lack the resources or knowledge to navigate the challenge alone.

The development of this infrastructure also reflects an honest communal reckoning: the recognition that some of the factors driving youth from observance — including failures within educational and communal systems — must be addressed at the systemic level, not only through individual family love. This is part of the introspection that the authentic Charedi response includes: not only "how do we love the child who has left," but "what in our own systems may have contributed, and how do we address it."

IX. The Closing Position — Off the Derech, Never Off the Heart

What do Charedim think about those from their community who go off the derech?

The authentic answer, taught by the gedolim across every stream of the Torah world, is this: they are loved, unconditionally and permanently. The foundational principle is the Talmud's own — smol docheh v'yamin mekareves — that the hand of drawing-near must always be stronger than any hand of pushing-away. The foundational truth is that a Jew remains a Jew — that no choice severs the bond. The model is Hashem's own — devising means so that the banished one not remain banished. And the gates of tears are never locked.

The child who has left the derech has not left the family's heart, and has not left Klal Yisrael, and has not left the reach of Hashem's love. He is not "gone." He is, at most, distant — and distance, in the Torah's framework, is never permanent and never final. The parent's task is to keep the right hand extended, to keep the home a place of warmth rather than pressure, to daven with tears, and to entrust the rest to the One who devises means for every banished soul.

This is not weakness, and it is not a lowering of Torah standards. It is the highest expression of Torah — the recognition that the love of a Jew for his child, and of Hashem for His children, does not depend on the child's choices, and that the door of return must remain open until it is walked through. The Torah's standard is not compromised by this love. The Torah's standard is fulfilled by it, because the Torah's deepest standard is the unbreakable bond between Hashem and every Jewish neshamah.

Our Torah is eternal. So is the bond with our children. Even when they leave the path, we do not let go. As the navi calls out in the name of Hashem (Yirmiyahu 3:14, 3:22):

"Shuvu banim shovavim."

"Return, wayward children."

Hashem is waiting, with the right hand extended. And so are we.

Sources

The foundational principle of relating to those who stray

Talmud Bavli, Sotah 47a — "L'olam tehei smol docheh v'yamin mekareves" — the left hand pushes away, the right (stronger) hand draws near; the drawing-near must always dominate
Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 107b — the parallel source; Chazal's criticism of those who pushed away with the strong right hand
Mishlei 22:6 — "Chanoch lanaar al pi darko" — educate each child according to his own way

The unbreakable bond of every Jew

Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 44a — "Yisrael, af al pi she'chata, Yisrael hu" — a Jew, even when he sins, remains a Jew
Tanya, Chapter 2 (Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi) — the neshamah as cheilek Eloka mi'ma'al, a portion of the Divine, in every Jew
Talmud Bavli, Berachos 32b — "sha'arei dema'os lo ninalu" — the gates of tears are never locked

Hashem's model of not giving up on the distant

Shmuel II 14:14 — "V'chashav machashavos l'vilti yidach mimenu nidach" — Hashem devises means so that the banished one not remain banished
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:6 — Hashem does not desire the death of the sinner but his return
Yechezkel 33:11 — "Chai ani… im echpotz b'mos ha'rasha ki im b'shuv rasha mi'darko v'chaya" — Hashem does not desire the death of the wicked but that he turn from his way and live
Yirmiyahu 3:14 and 3:22 — "Shuvu banim shovavim" — Return, wayward children
Eichah 5:21 — "Hashiveinu Hashem eilecha v'nashuvah"

The Chazon Ish framework on the nature of departure from observance

Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 2 — the distinction between the rare mumar l'hach'is and the far more common case; the relevance of the tinok shenishba framework

The teachings of the gedolim on the practical approach

Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt"l — the documented lifelong position: keep the door open, never throw a child out; casting out a child is not chinuch. The teaching "remove the tray, not the child" is widely transmitted in his name and faithfully represents his documented approach, though the exact wording is transmitted rather than textually sourced.
Rav Yaakov Bender shlita (Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshiva Darchei Torah, Far Rockaway) — the documented chinuch philosophy of continued embrace of struggling and departed youth; author of works on chinuch with warmth
The Steipler Gaon zt"l (Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky), Karyana D'Iggarta — the collected letters of guidance; the documented emphasis on tearful tefillah as the deepest parental response
The Chassidic tradition's emphasis on simchah and warmth as the means of drawing the heart, embodied by the Rebbes who rebuilt their communities after the Holocaust
Note: several pithy quotations circulating in the name of various gedolim on this subject (Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, the Bobover Rebbe, Chacham Ovadia Yosef) express the authentic documented approach but could not be verified to specific textual sources; they are therefore presented here as the documented frameworks rather than as verbatim sourced quotations. In particular, the line attributed to Chacham Ovadia Yosef regarding a child being "hidden, not gone" was cited in the original to Yechaveh Daas (a halachic responsa work where such a pastoral statement would not appear) and could not be verified.

The hard cases

The application of smol docheh v'yamin mekareves to cases requiring boundaries: the weak hand may push away the specific conduct, never the strong hand the child
The principle that genuine cases requiring real distance (danger, abuse, severe destructive behavior) require halachic and professional guidance and are categorically distinct from the ordinary case

The institutional response

The network of Charedi organizations serving at-risk and OTD youth: drop-in centers, mentoring programs, mental health services (such as Ohel and similar organizations), crisis support, and family guidance organizations developed across the Charedi world in recent decades
The communal introspection regarding systemic factors

The structural relationship to other articles in this series

"What Is the Charedi Approach to Kiruv?" — the framework of drawing distant Jews close with love
"How Does the Charedi World View Secular Jewish Leaders?" — the tinok shenishba framework
"Why Don't Charedim Support State Recognition of Reform or Conservative Judaism?" — warmth toward individuals combined with firmness on principle