Talk:t'nai b'kiddushin

RFV discussion: January–February 2023
All the cites I could find had the term in italics, which probably implies it isn't really English. Pious Eterino (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I went through everything on Google Books and the Internet Archive, and those with PDF linked on Google Scholar, and I agree with the above impression. The Hebrew is . 70.172.194.25 18:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Will it still be possible to look this up somehow? Drapetomanic (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's moved to the Hebrew entry then the transliteration will still be there and discoverable from search. As written WT:HE TR doesn't allow Hebrew transliterations having their own entry but I would support a hard redirect in this case too. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to create the Hebrew entry.
 * Anyway, in the course of doing that, I found out there's another very similar term, . Not sure if they are supposed to be distinct concepts or if it's just a word order thing (e.g. maybe one means "condition on marriage" and the other means "marriage on condition", but the overall legal process being discussed is the same). I wonder if both of these aren't somewhat SOP, though. I guess if this is a specific legal doctrine then they would arguably be idiomatic. 70.172.194.25 04:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (Actually I realised while adding the transliteration that one problem for discoverability is that our Modern Hebrew transliteration system ignores the dagesh so it has to be b'kidushin. Might be another reason to add a redirect. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC))

RFV Failed, converted into a redirect per consensus. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)