Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

You just had to make it controversial 😆

Expand full comment
DYK Torah Journal's avatar

Here Rabbi Dr. Slifkin writes:

"All these reflect a central theme of the museum, which is that everyone’s perception of, and cultural relationship with, the animal kingdom is influenced by the region of the world in which they live."

But in a previous post,

https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/noah-and-dragon?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fregion%2520of%2520the%2520world&utm_medium=reader2

he said the following with an additional point:

"The latter ties in very closely to one of the museum's fundamental messages. Different parts of the world have different wildlife which become part of cultural heritage of the people in those regions. <b>And the wildlife of the Bible and of the Jewish People is the wildlife of Biblical Israel, not that of Europe of North America.</b>"

It is a shame that the comments from the old blog posts from the previous Blogger format did not get carried over to this Substack format. Because if they were brought over, you would see a certain "traditionalist" call out Rabbi Dr. Slifkin for that line as contradicting the claim that his museum is intended to avoid anything controversial. By saying the wildlife of the Bible is limited to the wildlife of Biblical Israel, he completely contradicts the traditional understanding of Noah's Ark which saved all the land animals on the entire planet!

I am heartened that Rabbi Slifkin amended his statement here and omitted that phrase, but now, this message of the "Biblical Museum" becomes incoherent. What does the fact that different people's perception of the animal kingdom is influenced by their region have anything to do with the central theme of this Biblical Museum?

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?