Torah...for the Nations? part 2

In 1988, a famous Hasidic Rebbe had lost his wife. Among those paying condolences, was a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva. This particular Rosh Yeshiva was world renowned for his penetrating analyses of RAMBAM, both in halachah and philosophy. As could be expected, the conversation turned to topics of Torah. The Rebbe, in the course of their discussion, quoted a halachah in the name of RAMBAM. The Rosh Yeshiva stated emphatically "There is no such statement of RAMBAM". The Rebbe corrected him, pointing out that the statement is not found in RAMBAM's legal code, but rather in his commentary on the Mishnah. He went on to point out the numerous authorities who quoted that statement in their writings. The Rosh Yeshiva was humiliated. He was THE expert; or so he thought. This was like catching an error in Einstein's arithmetic. He left, visibly shaken. The Rebbe immediately sent some of his followers to ask the Rosh Yeshiva for forgiveness. They were rebuffed. (I have heard this story from followers of both men.) The point of this story is that the writings of RAMBAM are both subtle and complex. Issues raised and explained in one of his works, are often taken up again elsewhere, and given a different explanation. This "elsewhere" may be in a different book, or several paragraphs later in the same work. (This is one of my pet peeves about many online rabbis, who build an entire philosophy on a statement of RAMBAM, which is contradicted three paragraphs later.) A great deal of Jewish religious literature consists of works reconciling these differences. The same holds true of RAMBAM's uncharacteristic quote of the homiletic interpretation of "meorasa" (betrothed) for "morasha" (inheritance), apparently forbidding any transmission of Torah knowledge to non-Jews. This reticence is reinforced in his laws of conversion, where only bits and pieces of Jewish concepts and practices are told to the conversion candidate, and that only moments before his actual conversion ceremony. But we also find in RAMBAM that he considers both Jesus and Mohammed to be false prophets, he nevertheless sees them as tools for G-d, enabling even those living on "distant islands" where Jews never go, to learn of the G-d of Israel. But from here, we could infer that our spreading the Torah should be passive. We shouldn't teach. We"ll let G-d and history take care of that for us. But in another passage, he says that we should not teach Scripture to Muslims. Since they say that we have deliberately altered and distorted the Scriptures, in order to remove prophecies concerning Mohammed, our efforts to teach them Torah would only be met with derision. But since Christians do accept our Scriptures, it is a mitzvah to teach them, so as to show them their true meaning. Therefore, his approach is NOT to keep our Torah secret. On the contrary, we WANT them to come to Torah. We do not want to give them further ammunition for derision. Historically, however, this approach was also seen as a threat to other faiths. Very real, physical dangers, up to and including torture and death, manifested themselves in the attempt to elucidate verses in Scripture. We are about to enter a discussion of the Age of Disputations. The events that I shall describe, have largely brought about Jewish self-censorship, and, in my opinion, a reticence concerning the Prophets' charge to be a Light unto the Nations