AN ALMOHAD “FUNDAMENTALIST”? 77
Tumart presented himself as the Mahdi, and his leadership retained as-
pects of millenarian messianism. Maimonides’ depiction of the Messianic
era is therefore a case in point.
By way of comparison, one should recall that Maimonides was criti-
cized for his interpretation of the World to Come, and was accused of
denying the resurrection of the dead, and of trying to interpret it away.
In this context, Maimonides protested that the storm against him rose
despite his outspoken declaration of his belief in the resurrection.^104 In
what concerns the Messianic era, however, Maimonides explicitly says
that the text of the Scriptures must not be taken literally, but should
rather be read as a parable, and he even hints at what it is a parable of.
As we have seen above, in the introduction to the Guide of the Per-
plexed Maimonides emphasizes his careful, mea sured usage of this
procedure, which he presents as equivalent to divulging the secrets of
the Torah. And yet, regarding the Days of the Messiah, Maimonides
adopts this procedure, and he does so clearly and outspokenly, in the
Guide of the Perplexed, as well as in the last chapters of Mishneh To-
rah: “What is said in the book of Isaiah [Is.11:6]: “The wolf will dwell
with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat”...
and all similar sayings regarding the Messiah... —[all] these are para-
bles. And when the days of the King Messiah come, it will be made
known what are they parables of.”^105 In other words, contrary to Mai-
monides’ usual methodology of revealing only chapter headings, and
only to a choice audience, in what concerns the Days of the Messiah
Maimonides goes out of his way to make public his demythologizing
reading of the Scriptures.
One could of course argue, following Leo Strauss’s interpretive method,
that Maimonides adopts here an esoteric technique of “uncovering a
cubit, covering two.” A more plausible explanation, however, seems
to be offered by reading Maimonides in his historical context. Mai-
monides believed that the true head of state has to teach “true beliefs.”
(^104) See, for example, Treatise on Resurrection, 10– 15. On the controversy, see chap. 6,
below.
(^105) Mishneh Torah,Laws of Kings (Hilkhot melakhim), 12:1 (208); See J. Kraemer, “On
Maimonides’ Messianic Posture,” in I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Medieval Jewish History
and Literature (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1984), 2:109– 42; Aviezer Ravitzky, “ ‘As
Much as is Humanely Possible’— The Messianic Era in Maimonides’ Teaching,” in Z. Ba-
raz, ed., Messianism and Eschatology (Jerusalem, 1983), 194 and 204, and note 33. Rav-
itzky stresses Maimonides’ claim that “all these things, no one knows how they will be until
they come to be,” which Ravitzky sees as “Maimonides’s agnostic stance.” In fact, there is
very little agnosticism in Maimonides’ saying. He is very clear in saying that the things de-
scribed in the verse will not happen as they are described, and that the verse must therefore
be taken out of its literal sense.