Talk:Gefilte fish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After I made this page, a friend of mine informed me that Gefilte is german for filled and that the recipe was traditionally made by removing the bones and flesh from the skin of a fish, pulping the flesh, and then stuffing the flesh back into the skin.
However, I will not add this to the definition until I verify this.
-FB (frank@hero.artos.com)
 |
Gefilte fish 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:
|
|
[edit] We are talking about irony here,
not paradox. It's ironic that the name "gefilte" has come to refer to something that isn't stuffed. Why did you revert it, Jfdwolff? Where's the paradox? I don't see a paradox. —RadRafe | T 23:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- IIRC, the practice of not putting the filling back into the fish is fairly longstanding. Certainly, no cookery book from the past 50 years tells you to do it, or mentions it in any way other than as the origins of the name.
- Also, in the UK, white-fleshed salt-water fish such as hake are used for gefilte fish. User:Alexisr
See irony. I think paradox is a better description of the situation. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed ironic and not a paradox. How is paradox a better description? Justify this response please. 70.250.173.164 01:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)anonymous
You can argue that the semantic change is 'ironic' and 'parodoxical', but if you ask me, it's the *mildest* form of irony/paradox, if at all. Shifts in meaning happen too frequently in the English language to make it really a paradoxical/ironic issue. If you really feel the urge to add some comment regarding the etymology, you could say that the phrase 'gefilte fish' underwent a semantic shift. A semantic shift is when a word attaches itself to an associated object. For example, a 'bureau' was once a woolen covering used to cover a desk. It eventually came to mean the desk itself and then the office that used the desks. If you saw someone working in the Federal Bureau of Investigations at a desk without a woolen covering on it, would it be an ironic situation? A parodoxical situation? I think no, but correct me if I'm wrong.--208.0.20.2 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why we eat Gefilte Fish
I have heard the explanation the the reason for the recipe is because of Borer on numerous occasions but when I mentioned it to my Grandmother she said this is not so. Most Eastern European Jews were very poor and many of the recipes were about stretching food as much as possible. Minced fish can easily be mixed with all kinds of other stuff and thus the fish can be stretched. My grandmother who came from a relatively wealthy family never ate Gefilte fish becuase it was poor man's food.
- It's possible that's why she believed it was done, and it's also possible both reasons were correct. She may never have known the reason the food originated; in fact, it's likely she did not. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Both reasons may be correct, but I think it is important for understanding not to make everything seem like a ritual food. That's like having an article on "Beef Frye" (I think it is called) which is a substitute bacon (Parstrami is sometimes used for the same purpose) and then give an explanation of the biblical proscription on eating pork, and what the scholars say about that, and saying "this is why Jews eat Beef Frye." Jews (or Muslims for that matter) eat Beef Frye because they want a spicy crispy food like cured bacon that is Kosher or Halal. Actually it would be a better example than gefilte fish, because many cultures have fish balls, which is an inexpensive way to make fish, without any religious tradition. Also take the example of Eggplant Caviar. Caviar from Kosher fish is itself Kosher and Pareve. So why make Eggplant Caviar? It's cheaper. Or do have to look to see what the sages said about skinning eggplants during the full moon? -- Cecropia 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good points Jim. The issue here, though, is that the claim that gefilte fish was created to avoid the Sabbath prohibition of borer is well attested, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] whereas the claim that is was simply a way of stretching the food budget is, as far as I know, not attested. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Both reasons may be correct, but I think it is important for understanding not to make everything seem like a ritual food. That's like having an article on "Beef Frye" (I think it is called) which is a substitute bacon (Parstrami is sometimes used for the same purpose) and then give an explanation of the biblical proscription on eating pork, and what the scholars say about that, and saying "this is why Jews eat Beef Frye." Jews (or Muslims for that matter) eat Beef Frye because they want a spicy crispy food like cured bacon that is Kosher or Halal. Actually it would be a better example than gefilte fish, because many cultures have fish balls, which is an inexpensive way to make fish, without any religious tradition. Also take the example of Eggplant Caviar. Caviar from Kosher fish is itself Kosher and Pareve. So why make Eggplant Caviar? It's cheaper. Or do have to look to see what the sages said about skinning eggplants during the full moon? -- Cecropia 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chrain vs.khrain vs. khrayn
OK...here's a boring post that may arouse some arbitrary heat. How do you best transliterate the word for horseradish? Chrain looks like it should be said like "chain". Wouldn't khrayn be better? Adam Holland 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- If we were transliterating it for the first time, I'd agree with you -- but the custom of transliterating it into Chrain is longstanding (just google it). --Ori Livneh (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- And "khrayn" looks more like an alien conquerer then a bitter condiment.
