Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Unpacking an Ark

The first of the Noah's Arks for the new exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History just arrived in Israel, and it's a beauty! It's also very, very unusual. Many model Arks tell an interesting story, if you only know how to unpack it. This one is no exception, and a careful study of its details reveals where it was made and why it is different from other model Arks.

The first thing to take note of with any model Ark is the material that it is made from. Arks are made from all kinds of materials, including different types of wood, ceramic, porcelain, resin, and metal. But this one is hand-made of red clay. This indicates that it was made in a country where traditional art is produced in such a way.

Then there's the architecture of the Ark to consider. It's perhaps difficult to tell from the picture, but it's much more rounded than models usually are. And the roof is designed to look like curved terracotta tiles, rather than a flat material. These aspects are indicative of Spanish architecture.

Then there's an extremely curious detail. Perched on the middle of the roof, between the two birds, are two gourds, with lines on them. What are they doing there?

But the real giveaway, and the most fascinating aspect of this Ark, are the animals that appear on it - and the ones that don't appear on it.

In general, there are certain animals that always appear on Arks. Giraffes are far and away the most prominent, iconic and common. There's usually also elephants, lions, and often zebras. Yet none of those animals appear on this Ark! 

Instead, we have some very unusual species here. Flanking Noah on both sides are llamas! And the bird perched on the roof, accompanying the dove, is a toucan!

All this is a clear giveaway as to this Noah's Ark's origins. It must have been made in South America, specifically Peru. There are no giraffes or lions in South America or its culture, but there are plenty of llamas and toucans. The architecture is Spanish. Peru in particular is rich in clay, which is long-favored for use in traditional art. And another traditional art form in Peru, practiced for thousands of years, is the intricate carving of large gourds.

Flood stories have long been widespread around the world. But this is the Biblical story transplanted to a South American setting! It's a really special piece of art with which to begin the museum's collection.

Meanwhile, we have several other very special Noah's Arks sitting in various peoples' homes around the world, and due to the new Covid restrictions, all of the people who were supposed to bring them to Israel are now unable to do so! So if you happen to know of anyone traveling in from New York, New Jersey, Los Angeles, Toronto, or Melbourne who is able to bring an Ark, please let me know!


Monday, November 29, 2021

The Overlooked Chanukah Miracle

I just read a footnote in a book that left me gasping with awe.

We know what Chanukah is about, right? There's the incredible, extraordinary victory of a small group of Jews over the powerful Greek-Syrian army. There's the recovery and rededication of the Beis HaMikdash over eight days, as described in the Book of Maccabees (and quoted by ArtScroll!). There's the recovery of political independence. There's the Bavli's account of the miracle of the oil.

But all this, amazing as it is, perhaps misses the greatest miracle of all. Because all of the above, while it has inspired us for two thousand years, was only really directly relevant to certain Jews back then. But there's something else which is directly relevant to all of us today.

Over forty years ago, there was a series of books on the Festivals published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, called the Anthology series. These were a fascinating, high eclectic mix of history, laws, insights, poetry, and even recipes and children's stories. (The entire set has been recently republished). In The Hanukkah Anthology, the opening chapter about the history of Chanukah is written by historian Solomon Grayzel, and that's where I found something fascinating.

In all the discussion about Chanukah, we normally only think about the Jews who were living in the Land of Israel. After all, that's where the action was! Yet there were, of course, also Jews living in other places. Still, these were truly not part of the Chanukah story. Grayzel points out that Antiochus's original decrees against Judaism were only ever directed at the province of Judea. They did not apply to Jews living in nearby Egypt, or even to Jews in the Syrian Diaspora.

So far, this makes Chanukah sound less significant. But then comes the footnote which changes everything:

"It is easy to see, however, that had Judea been hellenized, the Diaspora Jews would not have long survived as Jews."

If you didn't catch the monumental significance of that line, let me explain it. While there were Jewish communities outside of the Land of Israel, they drew much of their identity from their brethren in the Holy Land. Had Mattisyahu of Modi'in acceded to orders to bring a pagan sacrifice, rather than fleeing with his family to the hills and launching a rebellion, the non-Hellenist Jews would all have eventually either given in or been killed. With the loss of morale that would have caused, and without the Jews of the Holy Land to lead by example, there would have been little drive for the already partially-Hellenized Jews elsewhere to hang on to their Judaism. They would have lost their identity, like so many ancient peoples of that time. Judaism and the Jewish nation would have ceased to exist.

We only exist today as a nation, with an extraordinary history to look back upon, because a man from Modi'in decided not to compromise and take the easy way out, and some others decided to follow him. It was that decision which meant everything - not just for the Beis HaMikdash, not just for Jews in the Holy Land, but for Jews everywhere and for all time.

Is that not awe-inspiring?

Happy Chanukah!


Thursday, November 25, 2021

Turkey, the Traditionless Kosher Bird

The turkey’s status as a kosher bird is one of the most fascinating enigmas in the history of kashrut. It has long and widely been ruled that birds can only be eaten if they possess a mesorah. Turkeys, as birds native only to America, did not and could not have a mesorah. Yet it immediately gained near-universal acceptance as being kosher, and the discussion about its kosher status only began around three centuries later! Even then, the discussion revolved around a post-facto explanation of why it is kosher, rather than an evaluation of whether it is kosher. In order to understand all this, let us begin by reviewing the laws regarding kosher birds.

The Laws of Kosher Birds

Unlike the case with mammals and fish, where the Torah gives identifying characteristics by which kosher and non-kosher types can be discerned, the Torah gives no such signs for birds. Instead, the Torah lists various types of non-kosher birds. Since these are the ones specified as being non-kosher, all the ones not listed are ipso facto kosher. That sounds straightforward enough, but there are two complications.

First is that these listed types are not species in the scientific zoological sense of the term, but rather general types that include many species—yet the precise definition of “type,” and the number of species that it can include, is unclear.

The second complication is that we cannot "be certain as to the identities of the birds in this list. With some of them, we can be 99% certain—there is overwhelming evidence and/or powerful traditions that the nesher is the griffin vulture, the orev is the crow, the chasidah is the stork and the atalef is the bat. With some of them, we can offer a likely candidate—such as that the bat ha-yaanah is the ostrich, and the duchifat is the hoopoe. But many others are nothing more than an educated guess, based on factors such as the etymology of the word or cognate languages.

The difficulty of identifying the non-kosher birds in the Torah’s list (and the resultant difficulty of knowing which birds may be eaten) led the Sages of the Mishnah to give signs by which kosher and non-kosher birds can be distinguished:

"The signs of domestic and wild animals were stated in the Torah, and the signs for birds were not stated. However, the Sages stated: Every clawing bird is non-kosher, every bird that has an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard is kosher. Rabbi Eleazar b. Rabbi Tzadok says: Every bird that splits its feet is non-kosher." (Mishnah, Chullin 59a)

According to Rashi, in order for a bird to be kosher, it must possess all three positive signs (an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard), and it must also be known to be non-predatory. That is because, in Rashi's understanding of the Talmud, most of the non-kosher birds in the Torah's list possess the three positive signs; the reason why they are not kosher is that they are predatory. Since it is difficult to ever be certain that a bird is non-predatory, Rashi says, there must be a tradition that the bird is kosher. Rashi's view is adopted by Rosh.

But according to Rav Moshe bar Yosef, on the other hand, none of the non-kosher birds in the Torah's list possess all three signs. If a bird possesses all three positive signs, then this ipso facto means that the bird is non-predatory.

Rav Moshe bar Yosef's view, that the presence of the three signs alone suffices, finds most support amongst the Rishonim, including Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ran, Ritva, and Rif. However, the stringent view of Rashi, that the presence of the three signs does not prove anything and a tradition is always required that the bird is non-predatory and kosher, is cited by Shulchan Aruch and Rema and was widely accepted. Yet, since this was not the majority view among the Rishonim, and was only accepted as a stringency, this has significant ramifications.

The Discovery of the Turkey

The very name of the turkey, called tarnegol hodu (“Indian chicken”) in Hebrew, attests to the fact that there was initially much confusion about the origins of this bird.

In the early 16th century, a mysterious new bird reached England. it had been brought by “Turkey merchants” trading in the eastern Mediterranean, which was part of the Turkish Empire, and thus received the name “Turkey bird.” Meanwhile, many people thought that the bird came from India, due to the default assumption that new and strange things came from the East. In fact; there was even a common misconception that India and the New World were one and the same. Thus, in many languages the bird received the name “India bird.”

But this bird may not have been that which we today know as a turkey! In the 16th century, there were two new birds introduced to consumers in Europe: the American wild turkey and the African guineafowl. Both were variously called “Indian hen,” “Turkish hen” and also meleagris, Greek for guineafowl. Today, the name meleagris is also shared in the scientific names of the two species – the guineafowl is Numida meleagris, while the turkey is Meleagris gallopavo.

To complicate matters even further, turkeys were often simply referred to as large chickens. And in the 19th century, there were many new large breeds of chicken being imported from Asia, such as Cochins and Brahmas. Thus, in halachic responsa literature from that period, it is often impossible to determine whether they are discussing turkeys, guineafowl, or chickens.

The Halachic Discussion of Turkey

Concerns about the kosher status of the turkey were first raised in the 19th century, long after the turkey had already gained universal acceptance as a kosher bird. There were those halachic authorities, such as R. Yitzchak Isaac Schorr (Responsa Mei Be’er 19) and Kaf HaChaim (Yoreh De’ah 82:21), who justified eating turkey on the grounds that there must be an ancient tradition from India. However, for those who realized that the turkey was an American bird and could not possibly have a tradition, matters were more complicated.

It must be appreciated that at this point, declaring the turkey to be non-kosher would have denigrated pious Jews around the world who had eaten it for generations as being sinners. There is very strong rabbinic opposition to such a thing; first, due to the Talmud’s statement that God does not allow the righteous to unwittingly sin, and second, due to the principled position of not casting aspersions on earlier generations. Thus, there was strong motivation to find a justification for the common practice.

R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin explicitly uses such a meta-halachic justification (Meshiv Davar, Yoreh De’ah 22). He states that since turkey has gained widespread acceptance, no objections should be raised to its consumption, in the absence of overwhelming evidence that it is actually a non-kosher bird. Otherwise, one would be incriminating earlier generations who have eaten turkey.

Others presented internal halachic arguments as to why eating turkey could be justified. R. Aryeh Lebush Bolchiver, in Arugot HaBosem, argues that the Ramo’s requirement of a tradition is only for birds about which there is doubt if they are predatory. But if a bird has been observed over a long period of time and has never shown signs of being predatory, then as long as it also possesses the three characteristics of kosher bids (i.e. an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard) then it may be eaten even without a mesorah.

R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1810-1875) argued that the acceptance of turkey itself proves that the Ramo’s requirement of a mesorah is not to be followed. As long as a bird possesses the signs of a kosher bird it may be eaten (Responsa Sho’el u’Meshiv 5:1:69).

Another possibility is that the initial acceptance of the turkey occurred before the Ramo’s view was promulgated and accepted. The scenario could well have unfolded as follows: First, turkey was eaten by Jews in eastern lands, who were the first to receive it from the Turkish merchants. They may have eaten it because they followed the majority view of the Rishonim that as long as it displays the kosher signs and is not predatory, it may be eaten. Subsequently, Jews in Europe became aware that eastern Jews were eating it. They may have assumed that this meant that there was an ancient tradition of eating it. This mistaken belief would have been enhanced by the fact that the turkey was not known to be an American bird, and further that it was confused with the guineafowl.

Whatever the explanation, one thing is clear: If turkey was discovered today, there is not a kashrut organization in the world that would permit it. Turkey became accepted because there was a window of opportunity in which new species were discovered at a time when there was much less clarity about their origins and much less stringency in halachic practice. 


Meanwhile, on another note:

We are building up a collection of model Noah's Arks for a new exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History. There are rare models that we need to obtain from far-flung locations in the US. If anyone is able to pick one up from Sycamore (just west of Chicago), or South Milwaukee, please be in touch! Also, if you are traveling to Israel and are able to bring some of the models that we have already obtained and are sitting in NY and NJ, that would be very helpful!

Friday, November 19, 2021

Coming to America

B'ezrat Hashem, I will be coming to New York (for the first time in several years) this January, just for a week. This means that I am available as scholar-in-residence for Shabbos parashas Beshalach, January 15th. There's a catch - my entire family is with me! We therefore need accommodations for seven people. Preference is for Teaneck or the Five Towns. If you are interested in arranging for me to come, please write to advancement@BiblicalNaturalHistory.org.

We are also thinking of arranging one of our legendary Biblical Feasts of Birds and & Beasts, this time in the Five Towns. If you know of a home that could host 70 or so people for a sit-down dinner, please be in touch!

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Does Shechitah Prove Torah MiSinai?

There have been many attempts to prove the Divine Origins of Torah using "scientific" arguments. As a young yeshiva student I automatically believed them, until an outreach organization asked me to research and defend the validity of one of them (the "Four Animals Proof.") Much to my horror, I discovered that it wasn't actually valid. The turmoil that this put me through convinced me that is is very foolish and dangerous to try to prove the truth of Torah with arguments that do not withstand scrutiny.

Several people sent me a beautifully-produced video which presents a new such argument. It goes like this: The physiology of all kosher animals is uniquely different from that of non-kosher animals. In kosher animals, both the carotid and vertebral arteries run at the front of the neck, and are thus slit along with the trachea and esophagus during shechitah. This ensures that the animals immediately lose blood flow to the brain and die a swift and painless death. What human could have known about this, thousands of years ago? It's proof of the Divine Origins of Torah.

Unfortunately, this argument is seriously flawed, on at least three counts.

First is that the argument doesn't even make any sense. Kosher animals are all, by definition, split-hooved ruminants. These common characteristics reflect the fact that they are all on the same branch of the mammalian family tree. Accordingly, they also happen to share other characteristics. For instance, while there is a halachic debate about whether shofars can be made from non-kosher animals, in practice you don't need to be worried about your shofar coming from a non-kosher animal. The reason for this is that kosher animals are the only ones that have hollow horns! This is not something amazing - it just reflects the fact that animals on the same branch of the (evolutionary) tree share the same characteristics. The Gemara points out other characteristics that these animals all happen to share, regarding their dental and muscular structure. And so if these animals all have the carotid and vertebral arteries in the same position, this would likewise simply be another consequence of their being in the same family, which happens to have a fortuitous benefit.

The second problem with this argument is that the laws of shechitah are not about cutting the carotid and vertebral arteries; they are about cutting the trachea and esophagus. If you can cut the latter without the former, the shechitah is perfectly valid. In fact, this argument sets up a dangerous false premise, that shechitah is painless. At a time when shechitah is under threat in many countries, we must not defend it with false claims. Shechitah is not utterly painless. However, it is minimally painful (when done properly), which is justifiable to maintain an important Jewish law.

The third problem with this argument is that it's not actually true! Kosher animals do not all have their carotid and vertebral arteries running through the front of their neck. The video shows a diagram of how this looks with sheep and goats, and contrasts them with pigs. But sheep and goats are not the only kosher animals! With cattle, this is not the case. To quote from a veterinary handbook dealing with methods of euthanasia:

In sheep and goats, the throat cut may be used as the primary method of euthanasia if a captive bolt or firearm is unavailable. This is severing the carotid arteries with a throat cut completely interrupting the supply of arterial blood to the brain. Pre-injection with xylazine is recommended if available. The throat cut should not be used as a primary method of killing cattle. In cattle, bleeding is a follow-up procedure, only to be used on unconscious animals after a firearm, captive bolt or blunt trauma have been used. This is because cattle have two different sources of arterial blood supply to the brain: the carotid arteries and the vertebral arteries. The vertebral arteries are enclosed in the spinal canal at the anterior neck and are not severed when the throat is cut. 

You can also read a more technical description at this link. And as Temple Grandin points out, this difference between cattle and sheep unfortunately means that cattle, especially calves, can remain conscious for several minutes after shechitah. (I wish to stress again that this is not a reason to oppose shechitah. Such suffering in death is negligibly minimal compared to the suffering in life that modern farmed animals undergo.) According to the video's explicitly stated premise, that it would be forbidden to do shechita if there is still blood flow to the brain, this would mean that it is forbidden to shecht cattle!

Now, it's not particularly difficult to find out that cattle and sheep are different in this regard. It's all available via a Google search. It's very frustrating when people make claims that they haven't even bothered to research. It's negligent and irresponsible.

Whoever made the video probably believes that they are performing a great service for Jewish faith. Alas, they are not. As Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:16) says: "when the fallacy of proofs is demonstrated, faith in the proposition itself is weakened." Be careful what you claim!

(On a completely different note: If you are traveling from NY or NJ to Israel, or even better, if you are making a lift, and can bring some amazing model Noah's Arks for a new exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History, please be in touch!)

(If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.) 

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Flying Kangaroos or Damnation

What do you have to believe in, so as to be a good Jew? According to Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, flying kangaroos. Otherwise, you're a kofer.

In the past, I have detailed all kinds of problems with Rabbi Meiselman's abominable Torah, Chazal and Science. There is the omission of sources that inconveniently refute his approach, the obfuscation of clear topics, the wholesale dismissal of traditional and reasonable interpretations of the Sages' words, the intellectual contortions, and so on. In this post, I will be dealing with an aspect of his book that is a combination of bizarre and dangerous - his approach to the topic of the Deluge.

There are all kinds of challenges with a literal interpretation of the Flood story. Yet, amazingly, Rabbi Meiselman presents many challenges that the average person might not even think of! He points out that keeping many of these animals in an ark for a year is an impossible task. It would strain the resources of a zoo with a large staff and modern technology - it would simply be impossible for a single family, with limited resources, to provide the animals with all the care and food and sensitive environmental conditions that they require. 

Why would he raise such issues? Because Rabbi Meiselman wants to make the point that there is simply no way to make the account of Noah's Ark make sense from a naturalistic perspective - and therefore one must accept that it was entirely miraculous. Accordingly, one should not seek at all to try to make it fit with what is possible. "Within such a context, one does not bother counting the miracles; it makes no difference whether there were ten or a hundred." 

And so everything was a miracle. The animals were supernaturally transported from all over the world to the Ark - the kangaroos flew in from Australia, the sloths from South America. Noah moved like the Flash to be able to look after them all. The waters of the Flood came from nowhere, they were boiling hot, and destroyed all life on Earth. And the entire world - all the civilizations and all animal life - were subsequently repopulated from the occupants of the Ark, again supernaturally transported back to their original homes.

Now, the truth is that even if one were to posit such extraordinary supernatural miracles, this does not at all solve the scientific difficulties with the simple interpretation of the Flood story. After all, the challenges from science are not just that it couldn't happen in such a way; they are that it didn't happen in such a way. 

There are two sets of such challenges. One is from the various natural sciences, which do not show any tremendous turmoil 4000 years ago - there are trees older than that! Rabbi Meiselman attempts, utterly unconvincingly, to dismiss the reliability of such branches of science. He also suggests that maybe God miraculously made the geology of the world look exactly like no Flood had occurred - not to fool us, he adds, but for an unknown purpose(!). 

Then there are the challenges from human archeology and anthropology, which Rabbi Meiselman simply dismisses out of hand as unreliable, "soft" sciences. Clearly he has never remotely studied the histories of numerous ancient civilizations - Andean civilizations, Chinese civilization, Mesopotamian civilization, Egyptian civilization and others - all of which continued uninterrupted during the entire period. There is clear evidence of cultural and even genetic continuity. (And Rabbi Meiselman doesn't even attempt to say whether they all originated from Noah's descendants, or whether they existed before the Flood and subsequently Noah's descendants moved to those regions and redeveloped those exact same civilizations and genes in the exact same places.) He is arguing from a standpoint of utter ignorance.

But let's leave all this aside for now.

It's also true that Rabbi Meiselman is going against the approach of many of Chazal and the Rishonim. They did not seek to make the Flood impossible to reconcile; they sought to explain how it was practically possible (within the constraints of what they knew about the world). The Gemara details how Noah brought the right kind of food for each animal. Ramban explains that the Ark was extremely large, rather than simply miraculously containing everything, because God tries to work within nature as much as possible. Rambam explicitly stresses that one should try to reconcile Torah with the naturally possible as much as one can (a source that Rabbi Meiselman utterly distorts in a footnote on p. 555). The issue for them was not whether Hashem can break the laws of nature; it was whether he does.

But let's leave that aside for now, too. Instead, I would like to focus on a different point.

Many years ago, when I was preparing my book The Challenge Of Creation, I had an entire chapter dedicated to showing in great detail why the approaches of people such as Gerald Schroeder and Nathan Aviezer simply don't work. I explained how they are thoroughly distorting the meaning of Hebrew words, ignoring crucial aspects, and not remotely solving the conflict between Genesis and modern science. I wanted to thoroughly demolish these approaches, such that people would then be forced to accept the approach that Genesis is a theological text that is not to be reconciled with science.

However, before publishing the book, I showed the manuscript to the late Rabbi Dr. Yehuda (Leo) Levi. And he convinced me to massively cut down this section of the book. His reasoning was as follows: No matter how authentic and valid I think that my approach to Genesis is, there are many people who simply won't be able to accept it. And if I've destroyed their ability to accept the approaches of Schroeder and Aviezer, then I've left them with nothing.

These were wise words. I also implemented that approach with regard to the topic of Noah's Ark. It's an extremely challenging topic for many people. And so instead of telling people which approaches don't work and which do work, I chose instead to make a post listing a wide range of different approaches. And I've seen people at both ends of the spectrum act in the same way. I know of charedi anti-rationalist rabbinic leaders who decided not to object to rationalist approaches, because they realized that there are people who simply won't accept their approach, and those people need to have a home within Judaism.

Now, I can understand someone feeling that certain approaches simply cannot be reconciled with Judaism. And that's okay; nobody is expected to go against their convictions and say that something is compatible with Judaism if they feel otherwise. But is it really worthwhile, and is it even at all justifiable, to actively campaign to alienate people from Judaism? To make it as difficult as possible for people to believe something, just so that you can insist that it they find it hard to do so, then you can trash them as having "a mindset tainted by kefirah"?! Are you really disqualified as a Jew if you're uncomfortable with the idea that God made kangaroos fly and carefully arranged an overwhelming amount of evidence from geology, archeology, genetics, and other branches of science in order to make it look exactly like there was no Deluge - "for unknown reasons"?

The worst type of ignorant people are those who do not even realize that they are ignorant. Rabbi Meiselman dismisses all the many diverse branches of science which demonstrate that there was no global destruction of the world as being unconvincing - but he's never even studied them! And he also demands those who have studied them must be equally dismissive!

I don't know which is worse - the ignorance, the arrogance, or the plain lack of concern for people.

(If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.) 

Saturday, November 13, 2021

The Niche Art of Noah's Ark

Twenty-five years ago, when I started my training course at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, the then-director spoke about how Jews have a unique connection to conservation, because Noah, the very first conservationist and the symbol of conservation ever since, was Jewish. I pointed out (to his dismay) that Noah wasn't actually Jewish! Still, the basic point remains the same - the Biblical image of Noah's Ark is indeed the ultimate symbol of conservation. God could have simply created all the animals all over again, but He wanted Noah to care for the animals, so that the new world would be built on a foundation of kindness.

As you might imagine, I have a bit of a passion for Noah's Ark. The Biblical Museum of Natural History is structurally reminiscent of the Ark, and at fifty cubits wide and thirty high, it is the exact same width and height. We just had a craftsman create a spectacular Noah's Ark as a donor board. And recently it occurred to me that it would be great to have an exhibit of Noah's Ark models.

There are some absolutely stunning models of Noah's Ark available (though it seems that virtually none are manufactured anymore). The level of detail is simply exquisite. Most are decorative ornaments, but there are also children's toys, music boxes, money banks, cookie jars, jewellery boxes, bookends, lamps, pendants, menorahs, and a spectacular limited edition cuckoo clock that is, alas, no longer available anywhere. They are variously made out of ceramic, resin, wood, pewter, bronze, and there's even a magnificent silver-and-gold sculpture by famed sculptor Frank Meisler.

But here's where it get really curious. I looked at eBay, CraigsList, and Facebook marketplace, all around the globe. And the difference between various parts of the world is striking.

In the UK and Europe, the only Noah's Arks available are a few simplistic plastic toys for very little children. Fisher-Price, Playmobil, that kind of thing. Lego doesn't even make one. This is despite the fact that in the 19th century, there were endless incredibly elaborate Noah's Arks made in Germany, then the toy capital of Europe. But no such thing is sold anywhere in Europe today. All the dozens of different kinds of detailed models are only sold in North America! (Even the 19th century German antiques can only be found in America.)

What is the explanation for this extraordinary discrepancy? Is it just that Europe has become so much more secular? If that was the explanation, then surely they wouldn't even have children's toys there. Does anyone have any insights?

Meanwhile, if you have a Noah's Ark that you'd like to donate for the museum exhibit, please send me an email!

Unpacking an Ark

The first of the Noah's Arks for the new exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History just arrived in Israel, and it's a beaut...