Talk:Cholent

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ashkenazi dish 

message: #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)
thread_title:  some fact fixes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Sadducees? 

message: That is some nasty cholent cooking in that pot. No whole potatos? Feh! ems 09:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have a feeling that this particular folk etymology originated as a joke. My grandfather a"h used to say (facetiously) that cholent was a contraction of "chow left over night", which makes about as much sense... Shalom S. (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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?
Unfortunately, all the alternative etymologies are false, are just cluttering the entry and confusing the reader. Weinreich s etymology is not valid, for typological and phonetic reasons : the word chalant never existed in French (had it existed, it would have meant ”warming”, not warm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.13.250.223 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the word "Cholent" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image on top

message: 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)   IZAK (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morrocans and Spanish Jews 

message: 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)
replies: text: I must disagree. This article should have been merged into the חמן article, not the other way around. Tomertalk 16:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Merger

message: Please discuss below this line (July 13, 2008). --Zlerman (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Chamin merged into Cholent. Wikifying of Cholent continues. --Zlerman (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Chamin]] into this article 

message: Just a curious nitpick about the statement in the first paragraph that the slow-cooked ingredients produce "unique tastes that make cholent a suitable dish for celebrating the Shabbat in traditional Jewish families." Wouldn't the taste be irrelevant? It's the fact that it's prepped before sundown and not cooked the day of that makes it suitable.
But this isn't my area of expertise, so didn't want to leap blindly in and edit without checking. Rkaufman13 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Suitable taste" ? 

message: I don't understand, why "Chamin" was merged into "Cholent" and not the other way round. And I don't see any discussion about it here. It looks like one user just decided to merge it that way, and that was it. As a result, the article is a mess, e.g. it lists all the Hebrew and Arabic names and then goes to "Etymology" - and back to "Cholent"! Logically speaking, the Hebrew name of the dish should take first place, and the local names in whatever languages should come second and on the same level. There is an interesting picture on commons, used in the yiddish article of all places: Cholent with huevos haminados! My guess is, that this is an Israeli fusion, but it could be French, where there are also Ashkenazim and Sephardim who might influence oneanother. But back to the article, as it is, it is imo practically impossible to improve the article without moving it to "Chamin" first. Any comments? Ajnem (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chamin vs. Cholent

message: Potatoes, beans, tomatoes.  Just curious if there is room for a discussion of earlier Jewish recipes before the 15th century (when there were no potatoes). Is there an article that discusses what the typical diet was in the time of the Mishnah/Talmud, for example?  What would cholent have been like then, or in the early middle ages?Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar thing happens with people's perceptions of Italian food (with everything drowned in tomato based sauces), and people avoid discussing the respective cuisines before the introduction of New World or Asian ingredients. :/ — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Half the Ingredients of Cholent are from after the Discovery of America

message: No offense, but can anyone produce a better photo? The current one is not going to convince anyone to become frum. ypnypn (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should a picture of food convince anyone to practice any religion. I find this comment to be highly offensive in indicating that a regional Jewish cuisine should be conflated with a particular practice of a religion. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Why is cholent rated as high-importance to Israel? It's about as low-importance as it gets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: I came to this article not knowing at all what cholent was, and it's quite informative. But I confess I hit an absolute brick wall comprehension-wise when I got to the 3rd paragraph of the Traditional Shabbat food section, which is nothing to do with cholent at all, but rather a highly rarified exegetical/hebrew linguistic discussion which doesn't appear at all germane to the definition of cholent, but rather solely to qualify the preceding paragraph from a different religious point of view. The second paragraph has already explained the reason for the cooking length and timing with what I assume to be reference to generally accepted rabbinical principles, so may I suggest the deletion of the third para.? I know so little about the subject that I hesitate do do it myself! Thanks. 193.108.78.10 (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Shabbat food 

message: It should be Hamin instead of "Cholent" which is the Ashkenazi variant of Hamin, there is also Sephardic, Yemenite, Iraqi, Israeli etc... variation for the dish
The main ingredients aren't correct as well, the only main ingredient i can think of is the chicken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.147.12 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cholent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929063752/http://www.jwmag.org/site/c.fhLOK0PGLsF/b.2440999/k.5B09/Apples_and_Honey_and_More.htm to http://www.jwmag.org/site/c.fhLOK0PGLsF/b.2440999/k.5B09/Apples_and_Honey_and_More.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Haminados's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nathan":
From Pain petri: 
From American Jewish cuisine: 
From Tzimmes: Joan Nathan, Joan Nathan's Jewish Holiday Cookbook, Schocken, 2004; page 228.
From Za'atar: 
From Rugelach: Joan Nathan, Joan Nathan's Jewish Holiday Cookbook, Schocken, 2004; page 284.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Haminados]] 

message: First I will point to the etymology section. Three instances of "citation needed" still remain. A fourth citation is to a self published blog, while the remainder are from obscure written texts, which makes it difficult to check. Sources 5, 6, and 7 are primary sources and their inclusion here is entirely original research and completely inappropriate.
"Traditional Shabbat Food" is similarly entirely unsourced. The three "citations" included are ALL primary sources and original research. 
This article pushes a clear POV and is embarrassingly poorly sourced for an encyclopedia, even a wiki. My proposal would be to delete all of the unsourced material, including the primary sources as that is original research, and move this article back to a stub to be built encyclopedically. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can only assume this article is meant as a joke.  

message: — Assignment last updated by Dwlehm1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages