Skip to main content
deleted 11 characters in body
Source Link

I would have thought that, in general, a contract is only valid if both parties agree on the definitions of the terms mentionmentioned, especially when it comes to specifying how much money is at stake. That said, as suggested in What is the value of a (Kesuba) marriage contract?, there are multiple opinions on the modern day value of the terms "zuz" and "zekukim" mentioned in ketubahs.

Does this pose any issues with the validity of ketubahs today?

I would have thought that, in general, a contract is only valid if both parties agree on the definitions of the terms mention, especially when it comes to specifying how much money is at stake. That said, as suggested in What is the value of a (Kesuba) marriage contract?, there are multiple opinions on the modern day value of the terms "zuz" and "zekukim" mentioned in ketubahs.

Does this pose any issues with the validity of ketubahs today?

I would have thought that a contract is only valid if both parties agree on the definitions of the terms mentioned, especially when it comes to specifying how much money is at stake. That said, as suggested in What is the value of a (Kesuba) marriage contract?, there are multiple opinions on the modern day value of the terms "zuz" and "zekukim" mentioned in ketubahs.

Does this pose any issues with the validity of ketubahs today?

Source Link

Is a ketubah valid without agreement on value of zuz/zekukim?

I would have thought that, in general, a contract is only valid if both parties agree on the definitions of the terms mention, especially when it comes to specifying how much money is at stake. That said, as suggested in What is the value of a (Kesuba) marriage contract?, there are multiple opinions on the modern day value of the terms "zuz" and "zekukim" mentioned in ketubahs.

Does this pose any issues with the validity of ketubahs today?