JULY 25 • 2024 | 47
J
N

To do this is to profane God’s
name, “not exactly willingly,
but almost so.”
These are Maimonides’
conclusions. But surrounding
them and constituting the
main thrust of his argument
is a sustained defense of those
who have done precisely what
Maimonides has ruled they
should not do.
The letter gives Crypto-
Jews hope. They have done
wrong. But it is a forgivable
wrong. They acted under
coercion and the fear of death.
They remain Jews. The acts
they do as Jews still win favor
in the eyes of God. Indeed,
doubly so, for when they fulfil
a commandment, it cannot be
to win favor of the eyes of oth-
ers. They know that when they
act as Jews, they risk discovery
and death. Their secret adher-
ence has a heroism of its own.

PRESCRIPTION AND
COMPASSION
What was wrong in the first
rabbi’s ruling was his insistence
that a Jew who yields to terror
has forsaken his faith and is to
be excluded from the commu-
nity. Maimonides insists that it
is not so.
“It is not right to alienate,
scorn and hate people who
desecrate the Sabbath. It is
our duty to befriend them
and encourage them to fulfil
the commandments.
” In a
daring stroke of interpretation,
he quotes the verse, “Do not
despise a thief if he steals to
satisfy his hunger when he
is starving.” (Proverbs 6:30)
The Crypto-Jews who come
to the synagogue are hungry
for Jewish prayer. They “steal”
moments of belonging. They
should not be despised but
welcomed.
This epistle is a masterly
example of that most difficult
of moral challenges: to com-
bine prescription and compas-
sion. Maimonides leaves us in

no doubt as to what he believes
Jews should do. But at the same
time, he is uncompromising in
his defense of those who fail
to do it. He does not endorse
what they have done. But he
defends who they are. He asks
us to understand their situa-
tion. He gives them grounds
for self-respect. He holds the
doors of the community open.
The argument reaches a
climax as Maimonides quotes
a remarkable sequence of mid-
rashic passages whose theme
is that prophets must not
condemn their people, but
rather defend them before God.
When Moses, charged
with leading the people out
of Egypt, replied, “But they
will not believe me” (Exodus
4:1) ostensibly, he was justi-
fied. The subsequent biblical
narrative suggests that Moses’
doubts were well founded. The
Israelites were a difficult people
to lead. But the Midrash says
that God replied to Moses,
“They are believers and the
children of believers, but you
[Moses] will ultimately not
believe.
” (Shabbat 97a)
Maimonides cites a series
of similar passages and then
says: If this is the punishment
meted out to the pillars of the
universe, the greatest of the
prophets, because they briefly
criticized the people — even
though they were guilty of
the sins of which they were
accused — can we envisage
the punishment awaiting those
who criticize the conversos,
who under threat of death and
without abandoning their faith,
confessed to another religion in
which they did not believe?

LESSONS FROM ELIJAH
In the course of his analysis,
Maimonides turns to the
Prophet Elijah and the text
that usually forms this week’s
haftarah. Under the reign of
Ahab and Jezebel, Baal worship
had become the official cult.

God’s prophets were being
killed. Those who survived
were in hiding. Elijah respond-
ed by issuing a public challenge
at Mount Carmel. Facing 400
of Baal’s representatives, he was
determined to settle the ques-
tion of religious truth once and
for all.
He told the assembled people
to choose one way or another:
for God or for Baal. They must
no longer “halt between two
opinions.
” Truth was about to be
decided by a test. If it lay with
Baal, fire would consume the
offering prepared by its priests.
If it lay with God, fire would
descend to Elijah’s offering.
Elijah won the confronta-
tion. The people cried out,
“The Lord, He is God.” The
priests of Baal were routed. But
the story does not end there.
Jezebel issues a warrant for his
death. Elijah escapes to Mount
Horeb. There he receives a
strange vision, as seen as the
beginning of this week’s essay.
He is led to understand that
God speaks only in the “still,
small voice.”
The episode is enigmatic.
It is made all the more so by
a strange feature of the text.
Immediately before the vision,
God asks, “What are you doing
here, Elijah?” and Elijah replies,
“I am moved by zeal for the
Lord, the God of Hosts….
”
(I Kings 19:9-10).
Immediately after the vision,
God asks the same question,
and Elijah gives the same
answer (I Kings 19:13-14). The
Midrash turns the text into a
dialogue:
Elijah: The Israelites have
broken God’s covenant.
God: Is it then your covenant?
Elijah: They have torn down
Your altars.
God: But were they your
altars?
Elijah: They have put Your
prophets to the sword.
God: But you are alive.
Elijah: I alone am left.

God: Instead of hurling accu-
sations against Israel, should
you not have pleaded their
cause?
The meaning of the Midrash
is clear. The zealot takes the
part of God. But God expects
His prophets to be defenders,
not accusers. The repeated
question and answer is now
to be understood in its tragic
depth. Elijah declares himself
to be zealous for God. He is
shown that God is not dis-
closed in dramatic confronta-
tion: not in the whirlwind or
the earthquake or the fire.
God now asks him again,
“What are you doing here,
Elijah?” Elijah repeats that he
is zealous for God. He has not
understood that religious lead-
ership calls for another kind of
virtue, the way of the still, small
voice. God now indicates that
someone else must lead.
In turbulent times, there is
an almost overwhelming temp-
tation for religious leaders to
be confrontational. Not only
must truth be proclaimed but
falsehood must be denounced.
Choices must be set out as
stark divisions. Not to con-
demn is to condone. The rabbi
who condemned the conver-
sos had faith in his heart, logic
on his side and Elijah as his
precedent.
But the Midrash and
Maimonides set before us
another model. A prophet
hears not one imperative but
two: guidance and compassion,
a love of truth and an abiding
solidarity with those for whom
that truth has become eclipsed.
To preserve tradition and at the
same time defend those others
condemn is the difficult, neces-
sary task of religious leadership
in an unreligious age.

The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan

Sacks served as the chief rabbi of

the United Hebrew Congregations of

the Commonwealth, 1991-2013. His

teachings can be found at rabbisacks.

org.