How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis - Part 1 of 2

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

How I Teach Maaseh Bereishis – Part 1 of 2 

Note: Throughout this post, the term “Maaseh Bereishis” (lit. “the work of In the Beginning”) is used in reference to the pesukim of Sefer Bereishis Perek 1 (the Book of Genesis Chapter 1). Although this term can refer to the first several chapters of Bereishis – including the second account of the creation of Adam and Chava in Gan Eden, their sin, their banishment, Kayin and Hevel, and the first generations – I teach Bereishis Perek 1 as its own unit, and this post is about that unit specifically. I intend to write another post about how I teach about Adam and Chava in Gan Eden, but that has nothing to do with the Maaseh Bereishis of this unit. 

Introduction 

I have taught Sefer Bereishis to 12th graders for the past seven years. One might think that Bereishis Perek 1 would be relatively easy to teach, since the “storyline” of Maaseh Bereishis is familiar to most students. I, however, have found that the task of teaching this perek is far from easy, due to the questions and problems which have arisen since the dawn of the scientific age. 

Students are aware that Maaseh Bereishis clashes with the modern scientific account of how the universe came to be. Some students are bothered by this conflict, and others are not. Of the former, some take the Torah’s account at face value and look askance at science; others embrace the scientific account and are troubled by how the Torah’s account could possibly differ. My approach to teaching Maaseh Bereishis aims to address all of these students, no matter where they are coming from, while upholding the truth of both Torah and science. Suffice it to say, this is easier said than done. 

There are additional difficulties in teaching this particular perek. Many of the meforshim (commentators) explain the pesukim using outdated Aristotelian physics, much of which has little meaning to offer my students. Even the meforshim who prioritize the pshat (straightforward meaning) of the pesukim exhibit this trend. The midrashic literature is rich in its content, but does very little to address the pshat of the pesukim. There is also the time constraint: during most years, we have a very limited number of days in September before we break for the moadim (holidays), which means that this unit has to be fairly quick. 

This post is about how I teach Maaseh Bereishis to my students. I am not claiming that this is the only way – or even the best way – to present this topic. I am aware that my approach is somewhat radical, and some may even find it objectionable, but at the present time, I think it represents my best efforts to teach this difficult material to the types of students I tend to have. I will now walk you through my actual lesson plan, explaining what I do and why I do it. 

Maaseh Bereishis was Never Meant to Be Taken Literally 

My first step is to show my students that the Torah’s account of the creation was never intended to be taken literally. I put the emphasis on “never” because I want to make it clear that this approach should not be dismissed as “apologetics” (i.e. interpretations aimed at upholding the truth of Scripture which only arose after these scientific questions came to light). Rather, the non-literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis has always been part of our mesorah (oral tradition), going back to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. 

I support my contention by drawing upon the words of “two trustworthy witnesses, pillars of the world, great Sages of understanding and refined intellects who are the recipients of the secrets of Torah,” [1] namely, the Rambam and the Ramban. 

[Reminder: when I say that “Maaseh Bereishis was never meant to be taken literally,” I am referring to how we interpret the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis. Obviously, the phenomenon of God creating the universe was meant to be taken literally.]

Rambam on the Non-Literalness of Maaseh Bereishis

The Rambam expresses this in several places throughout the Moreh ha’Nevuchim, but I’ll content myself with citing a single passage from 2:29: 

Not everything mentioned in the Torah’s Maaseh Bereishis was intended to be taken literally, as the masses imagine. For if this were the case, then those who know [the true interpretation] wouldn’t have taken so much care to conceal it, and Chazal wouldn’t have tried to keep it secret and prevented people from talking about it in the presence of the masses. The literal meaning of the words [of the pesukim in Maaseh Bereishis] might lead us to form false ideas and false opinions about Hashem, or even to totally deny and reject the foundations of Torah. Therefore, it is proper to refrain from explaining this subject based on our empty imaginations which come from ignorance of science. In contrast, there are ignorant darshanim (i.e. people who give Torah lectures to the masses) and meforshim who imagine that wisdom consists in knowing the explanation of the words [in the pesukim], and that greater excellence is attained by using more words and longer speech. Rather, the proper understanding can only be attained after acquiring complete knowledge of the substantiated sciences and the sodos (esoteric truths) of the Prophets. 

The Rambam offers two arguments as to why the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis shouldn’t be taken at face value. His first argument is that if Maaseh Bereishis were intended to be taken literally, then why did Chazal take such strict measures to conceal it and restrict its teaching? The Rambam is referring to the numerous restrictions on how and by whom Maaseh Bereishis ought to be learned and taught. The source of these restrictions is the mishnah in Chagigah 2:1 (Talmud Bavli, Chagigah 11b): 

One may not expound on arayos (sexual prohibitions) with three [people], nor Maaseh Bereishis with two, nor Maaseh Merkavah (the Work of the Chariot) with one, unless he is wise and intuitively understands with his own mind. Anyone who contemplates four things – it would be better for him if he didn’t come into the world: that which is above, that which is below, that which came before, and that which will come after. Anyone who does not have mercy on the glory of his Creator – it would be better for him not to have come into the world. 

The Rambam explains the restrictions on Maaseh Bereishis in his commentary on this mishnah: 

He said nor Maaseh Bereishis with two – and certainly not with more than two. The Sages said [on the pasuk] “When you inquire of the early days” – one may inquire, but two may not inquire. We have already explained the reason for this in our introduction to this composition, namely, that it is impossible for the masses to understand these concepts; [hence] they were only transmitted from individual to individual. The Sages were cautious with them because the masses would be able to understand very little. When the fool hears them, his beliefs will become confused and he would think that they contradicted the truth, though they are [actually] true … [For this reason the mishnah] spoke in an intimidating manner concerning one who applies his thoughts to Maaseh Bereishis without the prerequisites, saying, “anyone who contemplates four things etc.” 

Likewise, [the mishnah] intimidates the one who applies his thoughts and simple imagination to metaphysics without first having ascended the rungs of the sciences, saying, “anyone who does not have mercy on the glory of his Creator, it would be better for him not to have come into the world.” The explanation of this is that it would be better for [the totality of] existence if this individual were negated from humanity and were a different species of animal instead, for he desires to know in a manner contrary to his developmental course and contrary to his nature. The only one who imagines that he can know what is above and what is below is a person who is utterly ignorant regarding matters of truth. When a person who is devoid of all knowledge desires to comprehend in order to know what is above the heavens and what is under the earth by using his faulty imagination (for he imagines [the heavens] to be like the upper story of a house) and likewise, that which preceded the creation of the heavens and what will be after the cessation of their existence – such a person will certainly fall into madness and desolation. [2]

Going back to the Rambam’s statement in the Moreh ha’Nevuchim: if Maaseh Bereishis could be understood from a literal reading of the pesukim, then why would – or how could – Chazal place such a high barrier of entry around the subject matter? Rather, it is clear from their cautionary words and restrictions on how the subject is studied and taught that the true interpretation of Maaseh Bereishis is esoteric, and cannot be understood by the masses from the pesukim in the Torah. 

The Rambam’s second argument is that a literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis would lead to conclusions which are heretical, foolish, or both. We are in an even greater position than the Rambam to recognize the extent to which a belief in the literal understanding of the pesukim would lead to a denial of the truths arrived at through empirical science. It’s no coincidence that those Jews and Christians who insist on taking Maaseh Bereishis literally are invariably anti-science in their general outlook. 

For more on the Rambam's non-literal approach to Maaseh Bereishis, see the Moreh ha'Nevuchim 2:29-30.

Ramban on the Non-Literalness of Maaseh Bereishis

The Ramban (in his commentary on Bereishis 1:1) is just as firm in his assertion that Maaseh Bereishis should not be taken literally. The context of these comments is the Ramban’s analysis of the tanna R’ Yitzchak’s suggestion that the Torah could have started with the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh in Sefer Shemos, and that there was no need for the entirety of Sefer Bereishis: 

Since Maaseh Bereishis is a sode amok (deep esoteric truth) which cannot be understood merely by reading the pesukim, and cannot be known with clarity except through the kabbalah ish mi’pi ish (the special oral tradition going back from mouth to mouth) from Moshe Rabbeinu who heard it from Hashem, and even the people who know this tradition are obligated to conceal it, therefore, R’ Yitzchak said that there was no need for the beginning of the Torah to include “In the beginning, God created etc.”, or the account of what was created on the first day and what was made on the second day and other days, or the lengthy story of Adam and Chava and their sin and punishment, or the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam’s banishment from it – for all of this cannot be fully understood by merely reading the pesukim. All the more so is this true for the story of the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the Dispersion, which are not of such great necessity. It would have been enough for the followers of Torah without these pesukim, and they would believe in the general statement concerning the Six Days of Creation in the Decalogue: “For in six days Hashem made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day” (Shemos 20:11), and the specialized knowledge of the Six Days of Creation could have been left for the yechidim (highly qualified individuals) as a halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai (an authoritative tradition given directly to Moshe at Sinai), together with the rest of Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah). 

Like the Rambam, the Ramban explicitly states that the pesukim of Maaseh Bereishis were never intended to be taken literally. Also like the Rambam, the Ramban says that Chazal concealed the true interpretation from the masses. He even goes so far as to entertain the possibility that the first several chapters of Sefer Bereishis could have been omitted from the Written Torah altogether, and relegated to the Oral Torah, where they could be understood properly by those individuals who are qualified to grasp the subject without distortion. [3] But unlike the Rambam, who maintains that our path to understanding Maaseh Bereishis is to study the empirical sciences and the esoteric ideas alluded to by the Prophets, the Ramban believes that the correct understanding can only be attained by a direct line of tradition going back to Moshe Rabbeinu – a mesorah that is part of the subject commonly referred to as “Kabbalah.” 

The question of what the true understanding of Maaseh Bereishis is will have to be left for another time. The point I intended to extract from the Rambam and the Ramban is clear: Maaseh Bereishis, as stated in the pesukim, was never intended to be taken literally. Chazal have always regarded the true interpretation to be among the “secrets of Torah” that have been concealed, and only taught to those who are ready. The Baalei Mesorah (transmitters of the Oral Tradition) have always viewed Maaseh Bereishis this way, even before science demonstrated that a literal reading of the pesukim was untenable. 

A New Question 

Although this “solves” the problem Maaseh Bereishis vs. science, it raises a new question: if the true interpretation of Maaseh Bereishis was only intended for the elite chachamim (wise men), then what purpose does it serve for the masses? What is the average Jew supposed to get out of a literal reading of the pesukim? 

We’ll leave that question for the next installment. 

[1] The adulation quotation comes from the Sefer ha’Chinuch: Parashas Ki Teitzei, Mitzvah #545. Not only do I love this description of the Rambam and the Ramban, but I also like the Sefer ha'Chinuch's approach of turning to these two Rishonim specifically when he wants to demonstrate that a certain idea is unanimous or mainstream.

[2] Even though I am trying to avoid discussing Maaseh Merkavah here, and I considered omitting the part of the Rambam’s commentary in which he discusses that part of the mishnah, I ultimately decided to retain it, since what he says about “one who applies his thoughts and simple imagination to metaphysics without first having ascended the rungs of the sciences” is equally relevant to those who attempt to approach Maaseh Bereishis based on their simple imagination without knowledge of science, as the Rambam excplicitly stated in the excerpt from the Moreh ha’Nevuchim. 

[3] The Ramban goes on to explain why these passages were included in the Written Torah, but his answer is irrelevant to our question, since the Ramban was not addressing conflicts between science and Torah.