-1

According to some, Maaseh Bereishis means science and Maaseh Merkava means meta-physics.

The Gemara mentions many scientific (and health) statements, many of which the Rambam famously held were inaccurate, and were just the scientific knowledge going around.

What happened to their knowledge of Maaseh Bereishis which allowed them to go "so far off"?

Community
  • 1
ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
  • Real sources would be appreciated – ertert3terte Jun 25 '14 at 06:12
  • 1
    I don't understand the question. Is there an underlying assumption that the referenced Maasim are untainted traditions from Sinai or something? Why else would you see a contradiction between their knowing local science and the science they knew about was wrong? – Double AA Jun 25 '14 at 06:24
  • 1
    Regarding the question in your title, some did (such as the סבי דפומבדיתא) and some didn't (Chagiga 13a). – Fred Jun 25 '14 at 06:34
  • Maa3sa bareisheeth is natural science and maa3sa markovo is metaphysics – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 25 '14 at 07:50
  • It would be logical to say that if rambam held like Aristotle in regards to philosophy and held the sages did as well. It can be said that they went like Aristotle as well for Aristotle was in the time if not before the sages. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 25 '14 at 07:57
  • It can also be said that it's not the main point of the sages knowing the same as rambam did in regards to the maa3seem. But it's the concept as in the categories are the same just the times have changed – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 25 '14 at 08:00
  • Oh! I finally understood this question on my third or fourth reading of it. You mean that "Maaseh Bereishis" means "science"! I thought you'd meant that Maaseh Bereishis is a subset of science (and your question therefore made no sense to me). You might wish to [edit] to clarify, in case future readers are as dense as I. – msh210 Jun 25 '14 at 13:46
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrin Your link does not say that Maaseh Merkava is philosophy. – Double AA Jun 25 '14 at 15:15
  • @MoriDoweedhYaa3qob so Maaseh Bereishis is http://physics.stackexchange.com and Maaseh Bereishis is http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/ :) – ertert3terte Jun 25 '14 at 19:44
  • @ShmuelBrin maybe you should take it to that sub buddy :) – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 25 '14 at 20:13
  • 1
    Why all the downvotes? – Yishai Jun 26 '14 at 15:22

1 Answers1

0

Here are definitions of Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkava according to the Gemara.

According to Rashi in Chagiga 13a:

מעשה המרכבה ומעשה בראשית. ברייתות הן

Both Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkava are Braithot. It's clear from the Sugya there that they refer to things that were not supposed to be taught to students who had not reached a certain advanced level of Yirat Shamayim.

As you can see from an earlier Rashi (ibid), they are part of the hidden parts: of Torah.

סתרי תורה. כגון מעשה המרכבה וספר יצירה ומעשה בראשית והיא ברייתא

According to Tosafot אין דורשין. במעשה בראשית in Chagiga 11b:

במעשה בראשית: פי' ר''ת הוא שם מ''ב אותיות היוצא מבראשית ומפסוק של אחריו

That is, Rabbeinu Tam says that Maaseh Berieshis is some sort of spiritual cause/explanation for the physical world.

Hardly science and philosophy, I would say.

The Rambam towards the end of הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ב says:

וביאור כל העיקרים שבשני פרקים אלו--הוא הנקרא מעשה מרכבה.

That's after explaining the structure of the non-physical world. (To overly summarize 2 heavy chapters in a sentence.)

Towards the end of הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ד he says:

וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי, הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית

That's after explaining the structure of the physical world. (To overly summarize 2 heavy chapters in a sentence.)

That may explain the Maaseh Bereishis is science and Maaseh Merkava is Philosophy terminology - but it's not science nor philosophy as we know it.

Danny Schoemann
  • 43,259
  • 5
  • 76
  • 197
  • 1
    According to Rashi and Tosfos it is clearly not. The contrary view is attributed to the Rambam. – Yishai Jun 25 '14 at 11:17
  • @Yishai - a source would be helpful. From Hil. Yesodai HaTora Ch. 4:17-18 it seems like the Rambam does not argue. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1104.htm – Danny Schoemann Jun 25 '14 at 11:32
  • @Yishai - but see what I added to the answer. – Danny Schoemann Jun 25 '14 at 11:43
  • 1
    It all depends if you take Moreh Nevuchim at face value. I believe he writes in there that if scientific understanding changed, what was written in Mishne Torah would change. I have been told that Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky held that the Rambam held like the opinion in the question, and was thus dismissive of the first 4 chapters of the Rambam as "Aristotelian philosophy". Not that there isn't support for what you write in understanding the Rambam, it is just that the question asked according to the other opinion. – Yishai Jun 25 '14 at 13:18
  • 1
    Indeed much of this answer is completely irrelevant and I don't know why you included it. Structure of physical and non-physical world is basically what natural science and metaphysics, respectively, are. So I don't know where you are going with this... – Double AA Jun 25 '14 at 15:14
  • 1
    the rambam wrote the morah navucheem after the meeshnei toro and therefore it is more authoritative than the meeshnei toro when it contradicts the meeshnei toro. see for example what mori qafee7 says in regards to shaluwa7 ha qan. rambam zl in them meeshnei toro says that we dont know the reasoning for it yet in the morah navucheem he says it is for ra7monoth even though the jamoro says not to say it for ra7monoth. – MoriDowidhYa3aqov Jun 25 '14 at 20:21
  • A better source to the idea that the Rambam might be taken at face value: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/07/rambams-view-of-maaseh-braishis-and.html . It leaves both possibilities open, but firmly rejects the Rambam if that is the correct understanding of the opinion. This question is assuming that this is the correct understanding of the Rambam, and asking according to it - even if you reject the opinion, it is still an opinion that can be expected to have an internal consistency. – Yishai Jun 25 '14 at 20:26
  • @DoubleAA- I'm trying to show that Chazal's knowledge of M.B and M.M. have no bearing on their [supposed] "mistaken" knowledge of science; M.B. was not "practical" science. – Danny Schoemann Jun 26 '14 at 08:38
  • "Rabbeinu Tam says that Maaseh Berieshis is some sort of spiritual cause/explanation for the physical world. " No he doesn't. – mevaqesh May 22 '16 at 07:05
  • Besides for @DoubleAA observation that most of the answer is irrelevant, I would note that none of it answers the question; the apparent contradiction between Chazal's knowledge of Maaseh B'reishit and their ignorance of science given that according to some Rishonim the two are identical. – mevaqesh May 22 '16 at 07:09