Talk:Cholent

Untitled

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>

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)

some fact fixes

1. 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. Tomer^talk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 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.)
3. 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. Tomer^talk 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Tomer^talk 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo

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

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

I must disagree. This article should have been merged into the חמן article, not the other way around. Tomer^talk 16:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Chamin into this article

Please discuss below this line (July 13, 2008). --Zlerman (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC) it is appropriate since they are just variations; particularly since there is so much cross-cultural homogenization within Jewish cooking, there one woman's cholent is another one's hamim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.254.152 (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Chamin merged into Cholent. Wikifying of Cholent continues. --Zlerman (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Suitable taste" ?

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)

• You are right, of course. This is a "peacock" carried over from layered earlier versions. Please see if the new language is more acceptable. --Zlerman (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chamin vs. Cholent

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)

Half the Ingredients of Cholent are from after the Discovery of America

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)

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)

Picture

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)

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)

Importance

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)

Traditional Shabbat food

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)

I was the main writer of that paragraph. You "hit an absolute brick wall comprehension-wise"? Wow, that expression is quite a strong one! The 2nd paragraph merely states that it is permissible to have the food prepared hot on Sabbat, while the 3rd paragraph brings out the significance of eating it as a demonstration of certain faith and tradition, and cites the words of a 12th century renowned scholar. It points out that traditionally the eating of hot food on Shabbat was to make a statement that we abide and listen to our Rabbical scholars and not to the Karaite ones, even in the case where the Rabbincal thought is more lenient. Although nowadays there is no active daily battle between the two factions, in generations past this was a very hot issue, on the forefront of the agenda, and thus is very germane to the tradition of cholent. I don't know if you are Jewish or not, it's not relevant, but you're definitely not eating cholent by your admittance. As a practicing Orthodox Jew, I do - and I know a little about the stuff! Ohnonotyou (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A clear snowball closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Cholent → Hamin – "Hamin" is the standard Hebrew name for the dish, while "Cholent" is the Ashkenazi variant; there other varieties prepared by other Jewish populations such as Moroccan, Sephardic, Yemenite, Iraqi, etc. so a more standard name should be used. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the article, Hamin is specifically the Sephardi version. Cholent is by far the WP:COMMONNAME in the English-speaking world. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: The text "Hamin (חמין, pronounced ḥamin), the Sephardi version of cholent" in the Etymology section of the article cites no source, if that's what you are referring to. What is cited is the Mishnaic phrase "tomnin et ha’chamin," from Shabbat in the Talmud. The scope of this article seems to extend beyond the Ashkenazi variant of hamin, so it seems WP:NPOV should be applied. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the English Wikipedia. While hamin is the older term, it is still in a foreign language. Though cholent isn't technically English either (the article suggests a Latin source) I agree with Ahecht that it has entered the vernacular of common speech. For example, 'hamin recipe' returns half the google hits as 'cholent recipe.' Secondly, cholent usually appears on its own, while hamin often appears in conjunction with cholent, suggesting it requires a qualifier due to its relative obscurity (see this for example). While cholent is only one variant of hamin, it is nevertheless the 200 lb. gorilla of variants. StonyBrook (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Known mainly as cholent in the English-speaking Jewish world, and this is English wikipedia.Geewhiz (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the common name in English. 08:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Cholent is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Hamin redirects to this article and is discussed here, for those who happen to know the Hebrew term and search for it as "Hamin" --Chefallen (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all who oppose. תנא קמא (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Haminados

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: Nathan, Joan. Quiches, Kugels, and Couscous: My Search for Jewish Cooking in France: A Cookbook. Knopf.
• From American Jewish cuisine: Nathan, Joan (March 1, 2009). "Food in the United States". Jewish Women's Archive. Retrieved August 6, 2017.
• From Tzimmes: Joan Nathan, Joan Nathan's Jewish Holiday Cookbook, Schocken, 2004; page 228.
• From Za'atar: Joan Nathan (November 9, 1996). "Diversity in the dining room helps ring in Israel's new year". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on December 31, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-09.
• 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)

I can only assume this article is meant as a joke.

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)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjleaps42 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wikizaw, Nskin5.

— Assignment last updated by Dwlehm1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)