“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 175
it does not manage to disengage itself from the text it seeks to refute. Its
discourse is at times exegetical, at times apologetic, and even when it ap-
peals to philosophical arguments these are derived from Avicennian texts
that, as Maimonides reminds us, are not really philosophical as they are
not addressed to real phi losophers. The Silencing Epistle thus remains
more theological than philosophical, a text of kalam rather than of fal-
safa. Such a work could not have pleased Maimonides, and his poorly
disguised bitterness is grounded in this dis pleasure. In his letter to Jo-
seph, Maimonides does not hide his disappointment: “I am astonished
by the discourse of those who ask [that is, the Yemenite Jews] and their
respondent [that is, the Gaon] as well as by what Your Honor [that is,
Jospeh] say, that the Biblical verses concerning the resurrection should
not be read allegorically. Who, pray, reads them in this way??!”^74
Indeed, a signifi cant part of Joseph’s Silencing Epistle is dedicated pre-
cisely to this question and to this kind of interpretation. It is in this con-
text, I submit, that Maimonides’ promise to send to his student his own
treatise in the near future should be seen.^75
If so, the sequence of events sheds some light on how we should read
theTreatise on Resurrection in the context of Maimonides’ other works.
In this context, one should read Maimonides’ curious declaration, which
he repeats several times, that the Treatise on Resurrection is only a “su-
perfl uous repetition” that requires no attentive reading.^76 When writing
for phi losophers, Maimonides always insists that nothing he writes is
superfl uous, that everything must be read and reread attentively. Schol-
ars have therefore accepted Maimonides’ declaration that the Treatise on
Resurrection was written “only for the multitudes,”^77 and that it is
“only a pop ular repetition and elaboration of things, only an additional
explanation destined for women and for the ignorant.”^78 This openly
disdainful declaration, however, does not square with Maimonides’
consistent style when addressing the general public. When writing for
the multitudes, Maimonides is always encouraging, and he never tires of
repeating what he has already said.^79 In the Treatise on Resurrection, on
the other hand, Maimonides makes no attempt to hide his contempt for
(^74) Epistles, 298.
(^75) See note 66, above. See also Maimonides’ allusion to the discussions (and perhaps more
precisely, theological debates) that occurred between students (waqaa fiha al- kalam bayna
al-talaba) in Damascus; see, for instance, Epistles, 326, 329 (Finkel, Treatise, 15, 21).
(^76) Epistles, 326, 328, 331, 332, and 338 (Finkel, Treatise, 15, 19– 20, 24, 26, and 37).
(^77) Epistles, 338 (Finkel, Treatise, 37).
(^78) Epistles, 326 (Finkel, Treatise, 15): “tikrar maani wa- tatwil jumhuri la ghayr wa-
ziyadat bayan yafhamuhu al- nisa wa’l-juhala la gayr.”
(^79) In his Letter on Astrology he thus repeats what he has already said in his Epistle to Yemen,
and in the Epistle to Yemen he repeats what he had said in the Epistle on Forced Conver-
sion. See also his encouraging, solicitous style in the letter to Ibn Jabir.