Between Halacha and Halachic policy

Hirhurim has caused quite a stir with a list defining "post-Orthodox" Jews. Others have already pointed out the problematic nature of this list, and I will not retread this ground at present, though I might deal with some of the specific points at a later date. I am concerned with something else - what should be the social and halachic policy towards those who have ostensibly "crossed the lines", wherever those lines may be. Do we not let them come to our home? Daven at our shul? Teach our children or run our towns? This is not a simple question, and it is one of critical import when it comes to our relationship to Jews outside "our circles". All of us need to decide if and when "crossing lines" necessitates social shunning and when it calls for a different approach.

Anyone familiar with the world of law will tell you that there is a big difference between the laws on the books and how, and when they are enforced. The same is true of halacha - there are sins which are not considered to be beyond the pale and those that are. More importantly, there are differences of opinion between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim on how to treat sinners, especially today when 90% of World Jewry is not shomer Torah U'Mitzvot.

Ashkenazi Orthodoxy for the most part simply seperates itself from line-crossers as beyond the pale. People who cross the lines in any way are thrown out or kept out of schools, towns and shuls. The attitude is simple: "my way or the highway". Sefardim take a different approach. They keep the bridges open, letting them come to shul and say kiddush even if they might drive there or perform a marraige even if they might not keep family purity laws.

Many in the Ashkenazi (academic) camp have mistaken this openness towards sinners for tacit acceptance of the sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. No Sefardi Rabbi will ever say that Chillul Shabat is anything other than a grevious sin. What they do have is a lenient policy of open bridges towards the sinners. Making the best of a bad situation, they prefer "my door is always open" to "my way or the highway". In this manner, errant Jews might keep at least some of the Mitzvot, rather than be forced to choose between being 100% religious and 100% secular (i.e. what happens in Ashkenazic communities). Said Jew might be much more willing to conduct lifestyle ceremonies with an Orthodox Rabbi or send their kids to get a religious or at least traditional education. At minimum there will be much less animosity towards the house s/he has left.

Regardless of where the boundaries should be placed, we need to stop being so trigger-happy towards those who have transgressed them. Educators, parents, communities and Rabbis should think long and hard about what is genuinely considered beyond the pale, and even then at least dispense with the "one strike and you're out" policy. We've already lost too many good Jews to complete alienation with our "no-tolerance" methods. Perhaps it's time we took a different approach.