“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 179
sophic.^87 Perhaps the most striking parallel is found in Guide 3.51,
which Maimonides introduces as a chapter that “does not include addi-
tional matter over and above what is comprised in the other chapters.”^88
Rather than labeling this repetition “superfl uous,” however, Maimonides
describes it as “a kind of conclusion” (shibh al- khatima). Since it is fol-
lowed by three dense and highly signifi cant chapters, this description
obviously does not refer to the chapter’s place as the last chapter of the
book. In categorizing this chapter as “a kind of conclusion” Maimonides
was probably referring to its literary role, as a summary of the Guide’s
main ideas and purpose.^89 In such a summary, one does not expect to
fi nd new ideas but a succinct pre sentation of the ones already discussed,
and the repetition is not only acceptable but actually necessary. The par-
allelism of Guide 3.51 and the Treatise on Resurrection indicates their
similar role, repeating and summing up ideas of primary importance. But
while in the Guide these ideas have received their proper, refi ned elabo-
ration before being summarized, the short treatise must present them
curtly and crudely. The treatise’s brevity leaves little room for the multilevel
presentation that is essential for Maimonides’ discourses, and fl attens
them to “a superfl uous repetition.”
Langermann (for whom Maimonides’ treatise precedes his student’s
epistle) has suggested that in the Mishneh Torah, a book intended for
the general public, Maimonides presented his sincere beliefs about the
resurrection; and that after he saw the storm created by his words, he
published his “so- called esoteric work,” the Guide of the Perplexed, in
which nothing is said concerning the issue that ignited polemics.^90 In
other words, according to Langermann, Maimonides got cold feet from
the storm, and therefore decided not to repeat his sincere belief in the
resurrection (although this belief corresponded to the orthodox view).
Such behavior would be as inexplicable as it is out of character; and it is
indeed not supported by the evidence of what Maimonides does say in
theGuide on this subject.
(^87) See, for example, Maimonides’ historical perception, in which God’s divine condescen-
dence plays a major role (Guide 3.32; Epistles, 335; Finkel, Treatise, 32); or the reference
to the Sabians (Guide 3.29; Epistles, 335; Finkel, 31); and the insistence on the different
levels of understanding of the public, with the very clear insinuation that Maimonides pre-
fers to address a limited number of elite individuals rather than the thousands of the igno-
rant (Guide, Introduction, 11; Pines, 16; Epistles, 338; Finkel, Treatise 37).
(^88) Dalala, 454; Pines, 619.
(^89) While introductions and their role in various literary contexts were extensively studied
(see, for instance, J. D. Dubois and B. Roussel, eds., Entrer en matière: les prologues [Paris,
1998]), the function and conventions of conclusions or epilogues have received little schol-
arly attention.
(^90) Langermann, “Samuel ben Eli’s Epistle on Resurrection,” 43– 44.