Silencing Epistle on the Resurrection of the Dead

In all corners of the earth there has been revealed, made known, and publicized by every mouth the great and exalted wisdom of the distinguished, great, wise, incomparable elder who enlightens our eyes, his holy reverence, our teacher, rabbi, and master Moses, the great and erudite judge, lamp of learning, light of reason, unique leader of our time, the supporting pillar, light of the world, exemplar of the generation, whose wonder extends from the rising of the sun to its setting, complete in his knowledge of Torah in addition to the knowledge that he demonstrated in the sciences of physics and metaphysics, to the point that there was fulfilled in him the saying: “Ordain for us whoever is of this kind or of that kind, but not any who is corrupt, worthless, or deficient” [b. Ketubbot 17a]. His like could be described by the words: “No eye shadow, no rouge, and no braiding, yet still a graceful doe.”

To this description one should add something unique to him, which attests to the superiority of his wisdom over that of all other sages and the students who follow them. This is the work encompassing all the laws of the Torah and rulings of the Talmud derived from them, as well as the scientific matters and traditional teachings contained in it. When true and experienced scholars saw it, they all acknowledged that none of his predecessors had composed a work that was so accomplished with respect to its inclusivity, its solid organization, and its precise conclusions, and that even prodigious scholars could not produce such a work without divine assistance.

However, novice students and so-called rabbis stumbled in this work over matters that cannot be understood without deep study and research. They passed judgment and found fault with them according to their view, which they propagated among the masses in order to cast slander on their author and defame his work. They issued writings revealing their ignorance by seeking to prove a matter that was irrefutable and that nobody disputed. They sought to prove a correct proposition, but they supported it not in a convincing manner, but rather with flawed logical arguments. They ignored clear texts available in books and went on at length with arguments that can be refuted with an easy search and a simple answer. They chose to write at length with such arguments because the masses whom they wish to convince know no better and will believe only in this.

As the author of this work is still living, and as he is knowledgeable and faithful to our religion, it would have been proper for these people, when they encountered something that they could not understand and could not accept, to make inquiry of him concerning the doubtful matters that they found in his words. If he would explain the doubtful matters, defending his views and demonstrating his faith, they should then recant their doubts, correct their beliefs, and know the truth of what he wrote in his work. And if he was unable to defend what he argued in his work but still did not retreat from it, then it would be proper to refute him in public and proclaim it before the community, so that they would not take what he had written in his work as true.

Furthermore, it is improper to include in the refutation a matter in which the author agrees with the position of the opponent, for this serves no purpose except to create the impression that the author who is the subject of the refutation denies this matter, in order to add to his blame. It is not the practice of our sages to create such a false impression, nor is it the practice of those who seek the truth [i.e., philosophers], but it is only the practice of sophists whose purpose is to aggrandize their name and raise doubts through specious reasoning.

So, when I saw what had happened, I clarified the matters on which doubt had fallen, in what sense they were expressed, and to what time they pertained. Afterward, I dealt with the writings that were considered to be a refutation of his words, and I explained that they are no refutation, for the views expressed in those writings are partly true, but the others are weak arguments that can easily be refuted. The logical arguments can be refuted logically, whereas the textually based arguments can be refuted by proper interpretation of the texts in question. May God grant us success in our way to the truth.