“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 187
Maimonides makes room for the phi losopher’s withdrawal as central to
his theory of the ideal state. Even the ideal philosopher- king must keep
his inner alienation, otherwise he will not be a true phi losopher. Being a
king is only his chore.
The elitist approach of Maimonides is well attested. As we have seen
above, most of society is for him incurably obtuse, “like domestic animals”
and potentially dangerous “like beasts of prey,” and the perfect man
craves to remain aloof from them. The call of duty, however, does not
allow him to do so: the perfect man is destined to lead the multitudes, to
soften the edges of their brutality and, as much as possible, to inculcate
in them true opinions. The internal confl ict could be described as tragic,
and at times must have felt so. Like various Muslim phi losophers, Mai-
monides had his place at the court, as a court physician. Paradoxically,
however, the fact of being the head of a minority community brought
him closer to being “a king” than did any of the Muslim phi loso-
phers.^114 Judge and physician, arbitrator and educator, he was the effec-
tive ruler of the Jewish community. From this high vantage point, he
could also better appreciate the limitations of the leader’s power, as well
as his vulnerability.
Already in Maimonides’ lifetime, his admirers compared him to his re-
vered namesake, and shortly after his death this comparison became
canonized in the Hebrew dictum: “From Moses [the prophet] to Moses
[Maimonides], there arose none like unto Moses” (mi-Moshe le- Moshe
lo qam ke- Moshe). The popularity of the dictum may dull our senses to
its audacity. It presents Maimonides as the one person who rendered
Deut. 34:10 obsolete, saying in effect that “there arose not a prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face”— that
is, until Moses Maimonides, who did reach this rank.
Israel Yuval has suggested that Maimonides saw himself as a “Moses
redivivus,” and that his investment in building a better Jewish commu-
nity should also be seen as preparing the way for the days of the Mes-
siah.^115 Whether or not Maimonides harbored such aspirations, it is
clear that his model of perfection was indeed “Moses, our Master and
the master of all prophets.”^116 One of the most challenging traits of this
model, if not the most challenging one, was the need to balance com-
munal responsibility with “the call of the noble soul” and its yearning
(^114) See also chap. 3, above, apud note 110.
(^115) Yuval, “Moses Redivivus: Maimonides as the Messiah’s Helper.”
(^116) Epistles, 235; on Moses’ prophecy, see Levinger, Maimonides as Phi losopher and Codi-
fi er, 29– 38.