Answer

The ruling is made up of two parts: 1. Annulment of the marriage by virtue of an assessment of intent (“on this understanding”), which is completely parallel to the ruling we wrote together with Rabbis Bigman and Levin. 2. Granting a bill of divorce on the woman’s behalf. The first part is in principle acceptable to me (that one can annul a marriage on such grounds), but in their case it is less clear-cut than in ours (there it was after years of marriage, whereas in our case the husband ran away the day after the wedding). The second part is highly problematic, and in my opinion this ruling lacks any basis. Its proofs are not proofs. It’s hard for me to go into detail here.