cakewalk

Raisin Arizona

Aw c'mon FG. Wines don't "just happen" to be kosher. It's too complicated a process -- read your own expanation! (Just getting on your case.)

You're funny, Stone. Kashrut has nothing to do with logic. At Passover time, the lack of logic gets heavier than usual. Just enjoy it. I used to make this Sephardi haroset all the time, but I haven't done it since I got back to the States. I remember that it would go very fast, and in truth I think it puts the Ashkenazi haroset to shame. A friend gave me the recipe, I have no idea where she got it from. I used to double it, and make it 24 hours before the seder so the flavors do whatever they're supposed to do: 1/2 lb. pitted dates 1/2 lb. large raisins 3/4 glass sweet red wine (I think I used to use 3/4 cup, but the recipe says "glass") 2 oz. walnuts, chopped Finely chop dates and raisins, place in bowl with one cup of water (or to cover) and let soak overnight. Next day, bring to boil in the same water (you might have to add a bit more) and simmer on very low heat for about 15 minutes, stirring constantly to prevent burning (I definitely used to cheat on the "stirring constantly" part; just keep an eye on it.) Mash it into a thick paste. The recipe says to add the wine just before serving, but I used to add the wine after it had cooled and then stick it in the fridge overnight. Add the walnuts just before serving. There are a lot of variations of this type of recipe. It's great on matzoh.

Yes. It always tastes like cough medicine.

I saw only part of the show because I had to go out, but I also felt a bit disappointed. It was sort of a "let us now praise famous men" kind of thing, which was interesting, certainly, but incomplete. I thought maybe I had just missed the rest because I didn't watch the whole thing, but apparently not. (BTW -- pre-eGullet I would have said, who's Alice Waters? See, I'm learnin')

I never thought the day would come, but here it is. Plotnicki, I'm in full agreement.

The Hungarian Coffee Shop on 111th and Amsterdam used to make the greatest Hamentaschen, and they were a year-round treat. I wonder if they're still good, I haven't been there in ages. I used to have a great recipe for Hamentaschen, the dough was made without yeast and called for orange juice, it was wonderful and soft and chewy, but it got lost in transition. Maybe I'll try to resurrect it.

Thomas's English Muffins with cranberries. They still have all the other ones -- blueberries, maple syrup, cinnamon raisin, you-name-it -- but they discontinued the cranberries for whatever reason. They were my favorite nosh. Now I just eat the plain ones. Devastating.

One of the things I always loved about the pomelo is its "socialness." IOW -- it seems to be a fruit almost no one eats by themselves. I guess because they're so big (much bigger in Israel than the ones I've seen -- but never bought -- here) and such a pain in the neck to get ready to eat. But when you do finally hack away all the layers of rind, the fruit can be so sweetly tart (puckering emoticon needed) -- they're really good.

Same here. I splurged on Kona a few years ago (a purchase I never repeated), expecting to be wowed by the taste. I was very underwhelmed, mostly because of the lack thereof. Same w/Jamaica. The very qualities that some rave about -- its "smoothness," for example -- are precisely what underwhelm me. So I guess it's all a matter of taste. I'll take a dark French roast any day.

Well they do, of course. Because it does all boil down to the same thing. We leave the realm of "religion" and live in the realm of "interpretation of religion." And while that may be based on Religion, it is ultimately subjective, political, etc. We can perhaps recognize that an "objective reality" might exist somewhere out there. I don't think we actively live in it. It's a matter of people recognizing that their views of religion are simply that -- their views. (Substitute anything you like for the word "religion.")

Ahem.

Obedience to what and for what purpose? Obedience to God. For the purpose of being obedient to God.

Like Hassidic Jews in the diamond center who are big gonifs. Will you next insist that all blacks have rhythm?

We've all been through this before, and verily even on this very thread (not to mention others)! The laws of kashruth seem to have originally been about obedience. You can have whatever reaction to that you like, I'm well aware of the arguments against "obedience." I'm not "supporting" it or "not supporting" it. But that's what the dietary laws seem to be about. There's this whole listing of things we can and cannot eat, and then there's the age-old stricture, I am the lord your god. Boom. That's why you do it. Because I said so. There isn't any particular logic to it, it looks pretty much like the "health" aspect was invented much later, mostly because we're "reasonable" beings and have difficulty with the idea of doing something "without reason." So if we don't see a reason for following something, our options are either: 1) stop following it, or 2) make up a reason. Because most of us are uncomfortable following something that is outside the realm of logic. BTW -- most Orthodox Jews (even ultra-Orthodox) would consider even the most atheistic Jew to still be a Jew. He would probably virulently disagree with his lifestyle and his thoughts, etc. (even hate it, in fact), but would still consider him to be a Jew.

Steve, you keep insisting on this "segregation" that dietary laws "create," and I just don't buy it. You're very hung up on that word, and you insist that it is the case. I know of too many situations that say it ain't so. First of all, if an observant Jew will not eat in a non-Jew's home (or that of a Jew who does not observe the dietary restrictions), there are plenty of other things to do besides eat! (Yes, it's true.) It does not mean that there can be no relationship between them. It's a matter of making the decision of how open you want to be to influences outside of the particular decisions you have made for yourself -- and these are decisions that transcend religion by a very, very wide margin. Will you go to the movies with someone who loves Julia Roberts and sees all her films, even though she can't act her way out of a paper bag? You might decide not to -- and I can tell you that that's segregationist, and it will ruin your relationship with that person. This is the logic that you keep proposing. I used to be much more religious than I am. When I would visit the states and wanted to meet up with old friends, we went to kosher restaurants. The people weren't kosher, in fact many of the weren't Jewish. I could easily have said, no, they don't follow the laws I follow therefore I will absolutely not see them. (Or, my friends could have said, hell, I'm not going to any kosher restaurants. Bye bye friendship with cakewalk.) And would you blame that on dietary laws? Making such a choice has nothing to do with dietary laws. It has to do with the individual. There are too many religious/secular friendships that work, and work well, for me to buy this blanket statement of "segregationist" that you keep insisting upon. It has become a meaningless word at this stage, and since we all know that segregation is "bad," you just use that bad word and feel that you are making a point of some sort. But I don't think you are.

I don't think that "learning to cook" is done by first learning theory and principles and then, after one has "all that" under one's belt, tackling recipes with a greater understanding. It's more of a step-by-step process. Read a little about cooking, about where particular ingredients come from, how they've been used over the years, what they do, etc. But that's a never-ending process, so while I'm reading about food I'm also trying out various recipes. (Slowly. Few and far between. I don't want to give the wrong impression here.) And I think I prefer more information rather than less. It's simply more helpful. It doesn't mean I (or others) view the recipe as a foolproof method of learning to cook, or even of producing a particular dish. It's a guide. I do want to know if something "should be" the consistency of heavy cream. I might decide on my own that I like it better if it's not quite that thick, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know what the author had in mind. Most people read recipes through before they begin cooking. The more we know about food and cooking, the more innovative we can be with the recipe that is before us. Just because there is a lot of information in a recipe doesn't mean we are beholden to do everything that is written. I don't think most people approach recipes in this way. I guess I don't see them as a necessary evil because I need them. They are important. I guess it depends, as has been said before, on the audience. Beginners? Professionals? Realistically, experience is a great teacher. Learning to cook a dish by following a recipe is instructional. It's only afterwards that you look at it and think, next time I'll try it without so much pepper, and maybe I'll add a bit more garlic, too.

I wonder if there's an etymological connection between pe'tcha and p'shaw! I remember my father eating this (if someone else in the building made it and gave us some; my mother never, ever made it). Revolting. There's a dish called something like "souse" or "soust" that is sort of a cultural equivalent of pe'tcha, but it is made with pig's feet (and ears, and snouts, etc.). It's a "soul food" dish, a woman I worked with years ago introduced me to it (I couldn't touch it, and it had nothing to do with kashrut!). It's the stuff that the "rich people" used to throw away. Why bother with feet when you can get the expensive, tasty cuts of the animal? The poorer people learned to make good use of the stuff that the rich threw out. It's interesting that different cultures more or less created the same type of dish, for pretty much the same reasons. (But I still think it's revolting.)

Actually I learned a lot in addition to Jim Dixon. (Thanks all.) But then I'm a candidate for affirmative action around these here parts anyway.

Interesting thread. I never used to use canned beans (because I never found them anywhere when I was living in Israel). But here in the States, I found them and I use them. I avoid the ones with sugar (I seem to read labels more than I read books these days) and rinse them off, and they're usually quite fine. I love canned garbanzos as a snack, sprinkled with salt & pepper, never mind cooking them in anything! But several of you have mentioned using "fresh" dried beans. Can someone please explain a bit more? I thought the reasoning behind dried foods is for their preservation, so they won't spoil and can be stored for long periods of time. What kind of time limitations are there on dried beans? What does it do to their taste, their texture, etc?

I was doing this with risotto (although not three times a week). Still no expert, but this method is a good way to teach yourself how to make something. And it's easier to remember the differences between how it turned out this time and how it turned out last time.

i generally use a lot of black pepper when i'm cooking, and yet it never ceases to amaze me how much i have to put in the potatoes. crazy amounts. Because they're crying out for it. Tons of it. Didn't I just say that? Pay attention, tommy.

I like this idea. Thanks. And potatoes always seem to cry out for tons of black pepper, no?

Cream of wheat. Mmmm. Still my favorite. I make it with water and then when it's finished I like to add a bit of milk. And now that it can be made in the microwave, even better.