In the quest to decipher the elusive “tapuach” of the Bible, we find ourselves in a delightful maze of fruitful intrigue. Amos Chacham boldly casts his vote for the apple, specifically the Pirus malus. But, lo and behold, the plot thickens.
Enter Harold and Alma Moldenke, our botanical detectives in this fruity whodunit. They present a tantalizing alternative. According to their account, the ole apple tree wasn’t your run-of-the-mill foliage. It cast soothing shade, bore visually captivating and delectably sweet fruit, released an enchanting fragrance, and wore a resplendent golden robe amidst its silver leaves. Quite the fruit indeed.
Yet, here’s the twist – the common apple (Malus pumila) doesn’t quite fit the Eretz Yisrael native bill. Some even propose that these apples might’ve gone through a Cinderella-like transformation over time, evolving from their humble origins into biblical superstars. Talk about a fruit with a story!
But wait, there’s more. As the Moldenkes make their case, they present a contender worthy of the biblical spotlight: the apricot (Prunus armeniaca). It’s a fruit that ticks all the biblical boxes, and, except for the fig, it reigns supreme in Eretz Yisrael, as even Canon Tristam’s botanical scrolls suggest. Tristam even throws in a twist, speculating that the apricot, originally hailing from Armenia, made its way to Eretz Canaan during Noah’s time.
So, as we unravel this fruit-filled mystery, we’re left pondering whether, in the grand biblical narrative, the name “tapuach” matters at all. Is an apple, or in this case, an apricot, still as sweet, regardless of its biblical alias?
