Yes: There is halakhic basis to ostracize this man unconditionally

As August drew to a close, the Shalhevet community united in protest around a shiva house. Jew and non-Jew alike, the protestors were brought together by the actions of the mourner, Meir Kin, whose name has long been an object of revulsion.

In Israel, the deceased mourner’s mother briefly laid unburied under the Rabbinate’s orders. Mr. Kin has for over a decade refused to grant a get to his wife and even remarried and has faced universal rabbinic sanction. His former wife claims that he is demanding $500,000 and full custody.

Some might view the measures against him as a chillul Hashem and a desecration of the dead. However, the measures taken against him are completely within the right of the law. As Rabbi Kalman Topp stated, “There is no kavod haRav in chillul Hashem”: we don’t honor even a rabbi who desecrates God’s name.

It is necessary to understand the extremity of the refusal in order to understand the righteousness of the Israeli rebbeim’s actions.

A pasuk in Devarim Chapter 24, Verse 1, describes the process of divorce as one initiated by the  man on his free will. However, there are cases such as of the Kins, where the get — the official writ of religious divorce — is not given. In such a case the woman cannot remarry, for it is considered to be adultery since she is still married to her first husband. However the man can, if he can earn the support of 100 rebbeim, because the prohibition of polygamy only dates to Rabbeinu Gershov’s medieval decree.

The Shulchan Aruch and other halakhic sources make clear that one can be forced even by the whip. The Rema states in Hamapah, a gloss on the Shulchan Aruch, an opinion cited by many rabbeim, that one delays burial or circumcision of a son on the refusal to give a get. This is a practice with a long history.

The ninth-century Paltoi Gaon stated, among other things, that the get refuser cannot bury his dead. Despite some opposition for the harshness of his penalties, many Rishonim including the Rif, the Rashba, and the Beit Yosef hold with him.

The manipulation of the get in order to gain an advantage in civil law is rightly considered abuse. It is only a person of extreme evil who takes advantage of the law for his benefit.

Meir Kin’s supporters might point to his claim that he has in fact offered a get. This is only partially correct. He has only offered a get in a Beis Din in Monsey, one not considered to be a reputable one.

So stands the consensus of the Torah giants of the United States and Israel; including Rav Schacter and Rabbi Lau, against one miscreant. The weight of 2,000 years of Jewish law stand together against one man. Who should we believe?