Rabbi Lavi’s ruling

The ruling consists of two parts: 1. Cancellation of kiddushin by virtue of an estimate (ad’ata da’chi), which is completely parallel to the ruling we wrote with Rabbis Bigman and Levin. 2. Exoneration of a get. I agree with the first part in principle (that it is possible to cancel kiddushin on such grounds), but in their case it is less of a part than in our case (for them it was after years of marriage and in our case it was when the husband ran away the day after the wedding). The second part is extremely problematic, and in my opinion this ruling is baseless. Its evidence is not evidence. It is difficult for me to elaborate here.