There is no connection between the reinstatement of Rabba Lindsey Taylor-Guthartz to the London School of Jewish Studies and the letter from senior rabbis of the Federation warning that if chained wives use the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act with regard to “controlling and coercive behaviour” without prior approval from the Beth Din then they would refuse to sanction a get. The contrast between them, however, is instructive. Much anger was directed at the Chief Rabbi over Dr Taylor-Guthartz’s expulsion from the LSJS for, as it were, having deepened her education too far. It is to Rabbi Mirvis’s credit that he listened and, whilst sticking to what he believes is halachically correct, sought a way to reach a solution. There may be an element of hair splitting over the meaning of certain words to reach that solution, but the upshot is that all sides are content.

As for the Federation Beth Din: far from seeking a pragmatic solution, they appear to have taken a bad situation — the fact that such a concept as chained wives still exists in Judaism — and decided to make it worse, placing their own court above that of the law of the land. It is unconscionable that any religious institution should advise its adherents not to seek the protection of the law without the religious authority’s permission. It is not this newspaper’s role to take a view on halacha, but the Federation’s assertion that their hands are tied by halacha is an obstacle that they have chosen to introduce, because the relevant issue is not halacha but the law. We do not live in a theocracy where religious courts supersede secular law, and it is an outrage that the Federation Beth Din should argue that it has the right to decide whether chained wives should be permitted to speak to the police in order for them to be given their legal rights, let alone their moral right to a get. This episode shames the Beth Din.