Talk:Takkanot Shum

Crusades were at height at this stage
Was the sole purpose this article posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia because it contians a Takkana that was supposedly stated at the height of the murderous Christian Crusades (to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291) that requests "that no Jew should show bad faith toward a Christian, nor be guilty of counterfeiting" words that may be twisted around to falsely allege that "aha, you see, Jews were showing 'bad faith' to Christians" with no word of the historical context and climate of fear and danger at the time that this was at a time in history when Jews were being mercilessly killed by the tens of thousands by marrauding Crusaders. Please review this article in order to ensure that it adheres to both the views of Judaism and to WP:NPOV of history. If further discussion is required please take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

List of takanot
The only "takanat ShUM" with which I'm familiar is the one briefly mentioned (or only hinted at) in the tena'im, which specifies that if one of the couple should die without issue within a year of the wedding then the dowry should be returned to the father or whoever originally gave it. (See Rama EH 52:4)

A list of the takanot can apparently be found in Otzar Haposkim 53:28 et seq., but I haven't looked there myself. -- Zsero (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time I'm learning with my chavrusa at a local beis medrash, bli neder, I'll try and look up the Otzar. I do not personally have one (14 volumes, and I am not a posek who deals with Inyanei Ishus). -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete re-write
I have completely re-written the article to encompass the multiple synods that affected the same decrees and use a more modern secondary source. Of course, finding other appropriate sources would help as well. I have left the construction tag on for now. -- Avi (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't I see the source any more? Debresser (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I haven't used anything from the JE, so it is unnecessary for now; everything is from Hirschman. -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant to say, that there seems to have been some more information in that source that has been left out in your rewrite. That looks like inviting trouble to me. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as? There were tens and tens of decrees. I tried to bring representative ones from the financial and religious perspectives. Do you mean the affirmation of the prohibition against coin-shaving (not counterfeiting, as was mentioned in the first article)? Do you mean specific ones that deal with kashrut? What would you want to see added? While I think the article now is much better, bringing in the historical perspectives of all the synods, not one particular one that was actually less important in the grand scheme, and specific discussion about the ones still in force, I'm all for making it even better. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And why didn't you use anything from the JE? There is material there that you removed, without explanation, that wasn't replaced by anything from hirschman.

Moving an article and then blanking it, replacing it with your own text about the subject of the new title, is just violating the wikipedia deletion procedure. There's a policy on that somewhere, I suggest you go and read it.

Perhaps its just co-incidence that most of the updates to this article have been done by Avraham and Debresser, editors who had expressed some sort of irrational and vehement opposition to (m)any of my edits, and to the Jewish Encyclopedia. But if they found the article by stalking me, I strongly advise they go and read WP:STALKING.Newman Luke (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have restored the sourced version, the proper pronunciation of the letter VaV, the proper links to the articles under the names they are best known, etc. and have removed older and less reliable information. -- Avi (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)