Talk:Cholent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cholent is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. |
|
Project Judaism To-do:
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
From Wikipedia:Translation into English:
- Article: de:Tscholent
- Corresponding English-language article: Cholent
- Worth doing because: broaden people's knowledge.
- Originally Requested by:--61.112.214.176 16:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Status: This translation is done. However, I would like to invite a native speaker of English to check the text for accuracy. Herr Klugbeisser 13:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Thank you very much for your help!--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 16:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Other notes:
<end moved text>
 |
Cholent falls within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a project to improve all articles related to Jewish culture. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to:
|
|
Project Jewish culture To-do:
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] ashkenazi dish
Where does the claim that cholent is an "Ashkenazi dish" come from? The fact that "cholent" is a Yiddish word doesn't mean that cholent is an Ashkenazi dish, anymore than the fact that "shabes" is a Yiddish word means that only Ashkenazim keep shabat. If Sefardim didn't know of it, where do wevos haminados come from? The whole article actually sounds pretty poorly put-together tho, so I shouldn't be so surprised... TShilo12 23:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think designating this dish as Ashkenazi is quite precise and appropriate. The origin of this dish (or rather, group of dishes) is of course the generic חמין [ḥammín] — a term we meet already inthe Mishna —, quite possibly through the Western Romance language area Jewish dish caliente. Tshólnt/Shálet is closely related to an Iberian / North African Sephardi dishes dafina/adafina. In other words, Sephardim (mostly not Ottoman Sephardim, though) do know of the same basic dish in different developed versions. -- Olve 02:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps it's just me. I always assumed that the many varieties of "cholent" were just part of the same continuum as the many varieties of jamín. If that is inaccurate, then I retract my protest. I do not, however, believe it to be inaccurate, and think the assumption that it is a completely different "dish" is based more on cultural and linguistic bias than on any concrete set of facts. The historic development of the various varieties of "cholent" and "jamín" I have sampled have far more to do with personal preference and family traditions than with any great divergence between ashkenazic and sefardic or mizrachi cuisine. Maybe the overall Ashkenazi-palate preference for non-spicy (or in my book, "bland") foods warrants a different entry in some peoples' idea of what a dictionary entry should entail, but not in mine. I think the article should be expanded, de-POVed, and mention made that XXX is called "chulent" in Yiddish, and is generally characterized by YYY, etc. TShilo12 04:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] some fact fixes
- The article claimed the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law. While this is true, it's not quite what spawned the tradition of making jamín--that came later. The Sadducees also rejected the Nevi`im and the Kþuvim. The adoption of the stance that it was a mitzva to serve jamín on shabaþ was only established definitively in the Gemara, and then as a "proof" of the wrongness, not of the Sadducees who were wiped out several centuries earlier, but of the Qara'im, who were unlike the Tzeduqim in just about every way possible. Not only did they not reject the Torah sheba'alPe out of hand like the Tzeduqim (instead they rejected its authority as on-par with the written Torah, and, originally, primarily as a result of their opposition to the Oral Torah being committed to writing), but they accepted the Inspiration of the Nevi`im and Kþuvim. Compared to the disagreements between the Sadducees and Pharisees, the differences between the Karaites and the Rabbanites are as insignificant as the differences between Chabad Lubavitch and Breslover Chasiðim. The Pharisees were populists in their day, but they weren't nearly as numerous or powerful as the Sadducees while their argument with them was ongoing. After the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees were practically wiped out, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter. Thanks to the establishment of the Sanhedrin at Yavne, the Prushim suddenly became powerful. Their primary opponents, however, were suddenly missing completely from the scene, so the level of polemic against them in Pharisaic writings never rises to the fever pitch as it does regarding the Qaraim, who were much more numerous and powerful vs. the Rabbanites vis à vis the comparative position of the Prushim vs. the Tzeduqim centuries earlier. The difference was that the Rabbanites were in control of the Academies and the rather anti-establishment ideology of the Qara'im worked against them. Tomertalk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article claimed that cholent is served as part of the morning meal in Orthodox homes. I've been in many Orthodox homes, and I've never been served shalet as part of the morning meal...in fact, morning meals are incredibly rare, and in some traditions even prohibited. I've changed the text to say it's served at the main Shabath meal instead (maybe if you go to an early minyan and do a quick service, skip the repetitions of the `amiða and maybe skip musaf ch"v, you'll get back in time to call it a "morning meal"). Also, I've changed it to say "observant" (although perhaps it should say "religious"), since I know lots of Conservative Jews also make chulent for shabath. (Despite the ridiculous polemics, they don't all drive on shabath and eat hot ham-and-cheese sandwiches for lunch on Yom Kippur.)
- A recent edit by Eliezer characterized the Sadducees as heretics, rather than the earlier text's assertion that the Pharisees (although that version also confused Pharisees with Rabbanites) regarded them as heretics. Calling them heretics is not NPOV. Saying the Pharisees regarded the Sadducees as heretics isn't actually correct, they regarded them as "unenlightened"--there's a difference. The Rabbanites, on the other hand, did regard the Qara'im as heretics, and saying so is perfectly fine, but WP policy prohibits us from calling either group heretics.
That's all for now. Tomertalk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Sadducees?
Does anyone else think that the discussion of the Sadducees in this article is superfluous? Is the origin in a polemic with the Sadducees or with the Karites?Does anyone have a source that this is in fact the origin of cholent? While it's true there are practices that have their origin in intersectarian polemic, unless anyone has a proof it is much more likely that cholent derives from a desire for hot food. Also, the way its written now is misleading as it switches between Sadduccees and Karites w/o noting the several centuries difference between the two. I vote to take out the entire discussion. Sjavitt84 11:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Sadducees played a rôle in the development of the mitzva, which is why they're mentioned. The solution here is to improve the coverage of the historical development and rationale for the dish, rather than to excise all mention of its origin. When I get enough time I'll get sources for the various claims in the article, unless someone else beats me to it. You can help tho, by doing a google search and working on the article yourself, instead of just kibbitzing from the sidelines. Tomertalk 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photo
That is some nasty cholent cooking in that pot. No whole potatos? Feh! ems 09:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
Another opinion is that the name is derived from the words "shul end", meaning that it is eaten after the prayer services in the shul (Yiddish for synagogue) are over on the Sabbath morning.
I find this scarcely believable. Does anyone have a citation for this from a reasonably scholarly source? AJD 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of the word "Cholent"
I was told a number of years ago that the word "cholent" is from the French words "chaud" and "lente" meaning warm and slow ... exactly how to prepare this wonderful dish! Has anyone else ever heard this?
[edit] Image on top
That image looks like cholent that has been sitting in the pot all day and has turned gummy. I don't think it should be there. It doesn't add anything to the article. Joecool94 - Bane of Vandals 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Morrocans and Spanish Jews
Are occidental, Morroco is far more western than poland and if dafeena is indeed iberian than its origin is not oriental,whereas chamim is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.193 (talk • contribs) [1] IZAK (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page Merger
Why does Wikipedia need a separate page for Cholent and Chamin?? The Chamin page should be merged with this one.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
