<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div id="yiv1613244012"><div id="yiv30617688"><div id="yiv318468814"><div id="yiv717229270"><div id="yiv2135278673"><div id="yiv437611531">>>>>DAAS MOSHE: If someone says "k'daas moshe v'yisrael" what does that mean?? what is daas moshe??? possibly:<br>1. what we think daas moshe was, when he was alive?? (per recent discussions of brisk and what rambam may or may not have meant in his own mind/day).<br>2. what we think daas moshe might be right now?? [nonesenical to me; since we have no idea of what moshe might think or not think, especially regarding this particular inyan]<br>V'YISRAEL: daas yisrael is (obviously) fractured today, even among the orthodox. Perhaps in olden days it was not and this statement might make more unified sense to someone pronouncing it; note: does anyone know the history/origins of this particular
pronouncement, and it's
legal ramifications???<br>3. K'DAAS MOSHE
V'YISRAEL: What if Daas Moshe
and Daas Yisrael are not
(nor in the past) one and the same??? Are both conditions required for the kinyan to take legal effect?? and if yes, in whose eyes??? Moshe's?, Hashem's?, current Daas Yisrael?? or some combination? or none-of the above??? <br>>>>KETUBAH DETAILS: <br>Most people who sign a ketubah are not proficient in Aramaic and thus (perhaps) rely on at least one person who is. <br>1. Why isn't this person required to state on the ketubah that he was the one who explained the situation to the parties involved and sign his name; should disputes arise in the future (like an actuary or accountant or legal-adviser does in our days?)<br>2. Why don't both parties have to sign a separate document (or an ammendment to the original document - in this case the ketubah) that they have either read and/or understand the contents of the ketubah, it's ramifications, responsibilities, potential penalties for non-observance, etc., or have had it explained to
them in clear, understandable, and unequivocal terms??? This ammendment or separate document would (in my opinion) have to be in a language commonly understood to both parties (unless of course the choson only spoke french and the kallah for instance only read/spoke japanese; then there would be a problem....)<br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></td></tr></table>